3 ms·

No it is not. X is dumb pipe. You have humans on both ends. Arrest them, summary execute them whatever. You go after X because it is a choke point and easy.

mnewme 9mo ago
First you argue about the model, now the platform. Two different things. If a platform encourages and doesn’t moderate at all, yes we should go after the platform. Imagine a newspaper publishing content like that, and saying they are not responsible for their journalists
kllrnohj 9mo ago
> X is dumb pipe. X also actively distributes and profits off of CSAM. Why shouldn't the law apply to distribution centers?
- hnfong 9mo ago
  There's a slippery slope version of your argument where your ISP is responsible for censoring content that your government does not like. I mean, I thought that was basically already the law in the UK. I can see practical differences between X/twitter doing moderation and the full ISP censorship, but I cannot see any differences in principle...
  - kllrnohj 9mo ago
    We don't consider warehouses & stores to be a "slippery slope" away from toll roads, so no I really don't see any good faith slippery slope argument that connects enforcing the law against X to be the same as government censorship of ISPs. I mean even just calling it censorship is already trying to shove a particular bias into the picture. Is it government censorship that you aren't allowed to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater? Yes. Is that also a useful feature of a functional society? Also yes. Was that a "slippery slope"? Nope. Turns out people can handle that nuance just fine.
dragonwriter 9mo ago
X is most definitely not a dumb pipe, you also have humans beside the sender and receiver choosing what content (whether directly or indirectly) is promoted for wide dissemination, relatively suppressed, or outright blocked.
thatfrenchguy 9mo ago
If you have a recommandation algorithm you are not a dumb pipe

mnewme 9mo ago

First you argue about the model, now the platform. Two different things. If a platform encourages and doesn’t moderate at all, yes we should go after the platform. Imagine a newspaper publishing content like that, and saying they are not responsible for their journalists

kllrnohj 9mo ago

> X is dumb pipe. X also actively distributes and profits off of CSAM. Why shouldn't the law apply to distribution centers?

hnfong 9mo ago
There's a slippery slope version of your argument where your ISP is responsible for censoring content that your government does not like. I mean, I thought that was basically already the law in the UK. I can see practical differences between X/twitter doing moderation and the full ISP censorship, but I cannot see any differences in principle...
- kllrnohj 9mo ago
  We don't consider warehouses & stores to be a "slippery slope" away from toll roads, so no I really don't see any good faith slippery slope argument that connects enforcing the law against X to be the same as government censorship of ISPs. I mean even just calling it censorship is already trying to shove a particular bias into the picture. Is it government censorship that you aren't allowed to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater? Yes. Is that also a useful feature of a functional society? Also yes. Was that a "slippery slope"? Nope. Turns out people can handle that nuance just fine.

dragonwriter 9mo ago

X is most definitely not a dumb pipe, you also have humans beside the sender and receiver choosing what content (whether directly or indirectly) is promoted for wide dissemination, relatively suppressed, or outright blocked.

thatfrenchguy 9mo ago

If you have a recommandation algorithm you are not a dumb pipe