I love when someone who doesn't know anything about constitutional law runs their mouth at me on Twitter. "Step into my parlor," said the spider to the fly :) https://twitter.com/vyodaiken/status/1428079938415079424 …
That is true, but you have to go look at the definition of "service provider". Service providers in this context are _allowed_ to moderate. So that is where the confusion I think is coming in.
-
-
So for example, if Twitter were to post its own news that they wrote, that would probably fall under "publisher". But if Twitter is merely taking down other people's news, even if it is completely not content neutral, that does not make them a publisher for purposes of this law.
-
But I agree, it's a bit of a tangled mess in general. This plus the DMCA, etc., create a very strange legal black hole where Twitter et al are allowed to do whatever they want, unlike, say, The New York Times, who has to abide by all the copyright and liability rules :(
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.