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 …
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 :(
-
In general I think it's bad law, and should be fixed, but _how_ to fix it is obviously tricky and delicate, because changes can always do more harm then good if you're not careful.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
While i see that side of the argument and think within reason platforms should have the right to set restrictions for the content on their systems. However with ample examples they have added comments on users content, and utilized biased opinion pieces to fact check and such.
- 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.