Skip to content
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
jkosseff's profile
Jeff Kosseff
Jeff Kosseff
Jeff Kosseff
Verified account
@jkosseff

Tweets

Jeff KosseffVerified account

@jkosseff

Associate Prof, Cybersecurity Law, U.S. Naval Academy. Author: The United States of Anonymous (forthcoming Feb. 2022); The 26 Words That Created the Internet.

Views mine, not my employer's
usna.edu/CyberCenter/Pe…
Joined January 2014

Tweets

  • © 2022 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

      It has been in the past few years that I've seriously questioned my one-unshakable faith in every word in the New York Times. That is because I have seen the paper increasingly cover the law that is the subject of my research: Section 230.

      3 replies 28 retweets 191 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

      And let's just say that the paper's repeated lack of accuracy about a law whose core functions are 26 words has been, well, terribly disappointing.

      1 reply 10 retweets 176 likes
      Show this thread
    3. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

      Last August, I was *thrilled* to be interviewed in the New York Times. I spent more than an hour on the phone with the reporter and they used a tiny quote, which is fine. But the bigger problem was this headline, sprawled across the business front page.pic.twitter.com/Y6kmN37bOe

      1 reply 11 retweets 132 likes
      Show this thread
    4. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

      This was, to put it mildly, terribly inaccurate. I'll let the correction speak for itself.pic.twitter.com/mUmkiL2qHO

      4 replies 34 retweets 380 likes
      Show this thread
    5. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

      These errors have a huge impact when published in the paper of record. Later in August, a NJ federal judge cited this article to describe a debate over "Section 230's grant of immunity for speech-based harms such as hate speech or libel." https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/2:2017cv09836/358141/37/0.pdf?ts=1566908858 …

      1 reply 9 retweets 171 likes
      Show this thread
    6. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

      The federal judge should have known better. But so should the NYT. Yet these errors -- even when corrected -- have lasting impacts.

      2 replies 11 retweets 180 likes
      Show this thread
    7. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

      Within days of the hate speech article, the NYT ran an op-ed, for which it needed to publish this correction.pic.twitter.com/yFp3Uq3KSF

      1 reply 15 retweets 156 likes
      Show this thread
    8. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

      A few months later, the NYT ran another op-ed about social media that made the exact same mistake. For efficiency, they were able to re-use the earlier correction almost verbatim.pic.twitter.com/E9FGU55ZJf

      1 reply 13 retweets 165 likes
      Show this thread
    9. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

      This brings us to last Friday, when the NYT ran this statement in a news article.pic.twitter.com/enfo1xb8pS

      4 replies 12 retweets 147 likes
      Show this thread
    10. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

      This is perhaps the most dangerous of all of the misstatements about Section 230, because it is a misconception that I have heard for well over a decade, not only from reporters but from lawyers for companies that operate websites that host user content.

      1 reply 21 retweets 238 likes
      Show this thread
      Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

      Jeff Kosseff Retweeted Jeff Kosseff

      There is a HUGE misconception that Section 230 protections disappear if a platform moderates content. As I discussed last week, Congress passed 230 to PREVENT platforms from increasing their liability due to editing user content.https://twitter.com/jkosseff/status/1267433395673595904?s=20 …

      Jeff Kosseff added,

      Jeff KosseffVerified account @jkosseff
      The conference report for the 96 telecom act said that 230 was explicitly intended to overrule the 1995 NY state court case that treated Prodigy as a publisher (strictly liable for user content) because it exercised some editorial control.
      Show this thread
      4:20 AM - 8 Jun 2020
      • 86 Retweets
      • 405 Likes
      • Alex XMEbK6U Evan Schoenbach william ricker ACAB for Cutie 📢👐 Edward Facer Jr Arnoud Zwemmer Kyle Wiens Sonal Chokshi
      4 replies 86 retweets 405 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

          Yet this misconception has persisted for years, and has shaped some websites' hands-off moderation practices. If they start to "edit" user content, they fear, they will lose Section 230 protections. Again, this is absolutely false.

          2 replies 21 retweets 181 likes
          Show this thread
        3. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

          Jeff Kosseff Retweeted Jeff Kosseff

          Last week, I wrote about one of the landmark cases that demonstrated why this is false, Batzel v. Smith.https://twitter.com/jkosseff/status/1267834981621075974?s=20 …

          Jeff Kosseff added,

          Jeff KosseffVerified account @jkosseff
          In a 2003 case, Batzel v. Smith, a listserv/website operator received an email falsely claiming that a lawyer said she was Himmler's granddaughter, and alleging that she had stolen WWII artwork. He made minor edits to the email and posted it on the listserv and website.
          Show this thread
          1 reply 9 retweets 120 likes
          Show this thread
        4. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

          Today, because this is a NYT-inspired thread, I'll describe the first time the NY Court of Appeals (highest NY state court) interpreted 230, in a 2011 case, Shiamili v. Real Estate Group.

          1 reply 4 retweets 71 likes
          Show this thread
        5. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

          A real estate industry blog published a lengthy pseudonymous user comment that made a number of allegedly defamatory statements about the CEO of an apartment rental and sales company.

          1 reply 5 retweets 58 likes
          Show this thread
        6. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

          The website editor moved the comment to a standalone post, adding "the following story came to us as a . . . comment, and we promoted it to a post," gave it a heading, and included a comment that "for the record, we are so. not. afraid."

          1 reply 3 retweets 51 likes
          Show this thread
        7. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

          The website also added picture of the subject of the comments on an image of Jesus Christ, with a snarky comment related to the user submission.

          1 reply 4 retweets 49 likes
          Show this thread
        8. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

          The NY Court of Appeals concluded that 230 immunizes the website. "Notably, the statute does not differentiate between 'neutral' and selective publishers."

          1 reply 6 retweets 71 likes
          Show this thread
        9. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

          "The defendants did not become 'content providers' by virtue of moving one of the comments to its own post. Reposting content created and initially posted by a third party is well within a publisher's traditional editorial functions"

          1 reply 5 retweets 66 likes
          Show this thread
        10. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

          "Defendants appear to have been 'content providers' with respect to the heading, subheading, and illustration that accompanied the reposting. That content, however, is not defamatory as a matter of law."

          1 reply 3 retweets 59 likes
          Show this thread
        11. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

          In short, a platform will not lose Section 230 protections because it blocks, removes, or edits user content, as long as those editorial changes themselves do not make the user content defamatory.

          1 reply 31 retweets 149 likes
          Show this thread
        12. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

          But merely editing or blocking certain harmful or defamatory content will not render a platform liable for the content that it fails to block or edit.

          1 reply 7 retweets 104 likes
          Show this thread
        13. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

          End of rant today. I remain a fervent believer in the Fourth Estate, and I love the NYT and newspapers in general for so many reasons and the important role that they play in our democracy. I just hope that they will step up the accuracy of their 230 coverage.

          4 replies 7 retweets 132 likes
          Show this thread
        14. Jeff Kosseff‏Verified account @jkosseff 8 Jun 2020

          I also should add that despite all of these errors, I do not believe that there is a conspiracy among traditional publishing companies to misrepresent Section 230. It does not seem nearly so coordinated.

          4 replies 7 retweets 95 likes
          Show this thread
        15. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2022 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info