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 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @cmuratori
Yes, sure Marsh v. Alabama applies to twitter. Well done. I think these giant platforms *should* be regulated as public utilities, but they are not. Maybe wave your arms faster.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vyodaiken @cmuratori
I am so torn on this. The concept of a platform is important to encourage innovation and development of new web software as a service and content oriented systems. However there needs to be a clear distinction between a platform, publisher, or whatever they now are.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @midgetviking @vyodaiken
I would be fine with just saying that services can choose whether they are a publisher or not - publisher means they can moderate, but they are also liable for copyright infringement etc., non-publisher means they cannot moderate but they are not liable.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Social media companies have a 1A right to ban what they want. Section 230 prevents lawsuits that they would win anyway on Constitutional grounds. See Latiejira v Facebook. Nobody has to choose anything.pic.twitter.com/HlQXSnG0lo
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Exactly what needs to get fixed. They are acting like a crowd sourced news media publishing company. However, they are being protected legally as if they were only a technology platform. There is a clear distinction and different laws for these two legal entities.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No, the law makes no distinction between any of them, Section 230 protects them all the same way, providing immunity for 3rd part content and for moderating that content. Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of 230.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I read it again word by word, and it still says what it said before. It does distinguish between service providers (ie. Platforms) & publishers. Both words are clearly in there, offering service providers protections not provided to publishers. Even though they are editorializing
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @midgetviking and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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 :(
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @midgetviking and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Exactly and we'll said. All i am advocating for, is that section 230 be evaluated and rewritten to address the near total immunity it seems to have provided these platforms and how they handle users and content.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 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.