1. Section 230 was a good & necessary law when enacted. 2. Sec. 230 may be obsolete in dealing with vast, national social media platforms that exist entirely as a soapbox, yet attempt to police content. 3. I've yet to hear a cure for Sec. 230 that's not worse than the disease.
-
-
5. Just because the law does not treat publishers & platforms differently, does not mean it could *never* be written to do so. It's not an answer to just say "that's what the law says now." But drawing that distinction legislatively would raise a number of thorny issues.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But businesses would have to account for that, disincentivizing future investment.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Standard oil, Ma Bell were monopolies. Couldn't twitter be seen as such and broken down to include it under a type of publishing company?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yep. Step 1: Joe Biden - Trump is a fascist who will stop at nothing to limit free speech, I'm rescinding his EO Step 2: Joe Biden - The internet needs better watch dogs, my EO will stop all the right wing hate currently online.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree the last thing I want is giving precedents for progressives to stretch and shape to their desired outcome
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.