that didnt take longhttps://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1273006683514712067 …
-
-
-
Replying to @asglidden
i assume its a dumb argument but i have no idea past that but i think it looks really bad politically and that is a real danger for google
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot
So Google's policy is that they don't want ads appearing next to offensive speech; hosting the speech doesn't make it the host's. Google shoudlnt need to say it should be legally required to have perfect moderation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @asglidden @eigenrobot
Also, ad placement is absolutely a business decision. In Current Year, companies get boycotted just for having their ads appear on Bad Sites. Even if the ads are generated and served based on user activity rather than any site affiliation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @asglidden
Yeah I have a bunch of feelings about this, I think the corporate decision is tricky in practice But I'm mostly interested in political risks to FAANGs for no particular reason
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
Oh, the political risk is absolutely real just because everyone (even most lawyers, I'd venture) think that 230 is about third party speech being "adopted" by a hosting platform. My prediction is that internet neutrality will be a casualty of the culture war. So, uh, get on gab?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
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.
