3 ms·

I don't know about that. Newspapers enforce editorial policy over their opinion columns and things like which letters to publish. This law sounds like, if it a

I don't know about that. Newspapers enforce editorial policy over their opinion columns and things like which letters to publish. This law sounds like, if it actually applied to them, which is doesn't, they would need to submit a report about why they didn't allow "Letter from Aunt Ethel" to be published. What criteria did they use in not allowing it to be published, etc. Why did they publish "Letter from Uncle Frank" instead. Simply, they need to enumerate their internal editorial policies. And I can see it argued that editorial policies are political speech. We all know magazines or publications and websites that represent a political philosophy, what articles they publish, how the articles are worded, etc. That's everywhere. "Why didn't you allow XXX to be published? Because we don't like the point of view of XXX!" And part of having a political philosophy and the speech rights around it is that you should be allowed, should be "free" that is, to not say anything at all! When you start getting "have you stopped beating your wife" questions, you should be allowed to say "no comment". Compelled speech is not freedom of speech. Publishing in detail your moderation policies and activities is arguably compelled release of a political philosophy. Now, does a Corporation have such a right? Today, it's hard to say. If a Corporation apparently has the right to impact elections (economically) that implies it has a political position and perhaps that the detailing of that position (or not) should be a protected. IANAL. The big problem here is this shouldn't be an issue. How many websites have a privacy policy of "We're going to gather everything we can from you, and sell it to the highest bidder. If we could get your DNA, we'd sell that too." That should be a perfectly viable "privacy policy". If X has to publish "yes, the exact details" of how they moderate extreme speech, maybe they'll just publish "we don't" and leave it at that. Which, of course, brings even more, indirect, scrutiny. In the end, there's no good answer to this question. Every answer any service would publish, is the "wrong answer".

freejazz 3y ago
But Twitter isn't a newspaper engaging in editorial decisions. It is a massive online communications platform that is moderating posts, most often, on an automated basis. I don't think there's any actual support for your comparisons at all. >Simply, they need to enumerate their internal editorial policies. I think you are confused, Twitter already publishes it's moderation policies, this is a report on to what extent they stay true to that. Your argument would maybe make more sense in a context where a newspaper had to provide a report on its editorial decisions (which obviously go well beyond the letters to the editor section). But that really only actually serves to the emphasize the huge difference between editing and moderating. >In the end, there's no good answer to this question. Every answer any service would publish, is the "wrong answer". I don't think you are engaging in this topic with any honest, especially if this is the conclusion you are coming to. As far as I can tell the only wrong answer to the report would be if it was not accurate about the information it stated or was incomplete. There seems to be nothing as regards to judging whether or not a moderation system is good or bad, or "does the right thing". Let alone something so politically pointed as what you suggested.

freejazz 3y ago

But Twitter isn't a newspaper engaging in editorial decisions. It is a massive online communications platform that is moderating posts, most often, on an automated basis. I don't think there's any actual support for your comparisons at all. >Simply, they need to enumerate their internal editorial policies. I think you are confused, Twitter already publishes it's moderation policies, this is a report on to what extent they stay true to that. Your argument would maybe make more sense in a context where a newspaper had to provide a report on its editorial decisions (which obviously go well beyond the letters to the editor section). But that really only actually serves to the emphasize the huge difference between editing and moderating. >In the end, there's no good answer to this question. Every answer any service would publish, is the "wrong answer". I don't think you are engaging in this topic with any honest, especially if this is the conclusion you are coming to. As far as I can tell the only wrong answer to the report would be if it was not accurate about the information it stated or was incomplete. There seems to be nothing as regards to judging whether or not a moderation system is good or bad, or "does the right thing". Let alone something so politically pointed as what you suggested.