Twitter's online speech norms were created and shaped by lawyers who were deeply knowledgeable of existing First Amendment case law in the U.S. It feels like journalists now want platforms to intentionally deviate from that: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/1598-1670_Online.pdf … https://twitter.com/TonyRomm/status/1029827909987520512 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Can people please read the 73-page paper above that describes the history, structure of Twitter, Facebook & YouTube’s moderation practices and legal evolution before engaging in a “You’re supporting censorship!” “Twitter isn’t the government and can do whatever it wants” debate!
10 replies 5 retweets 61 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Does the engagement layer of social media - RTs, shares, etc - turn a neutral hosting platform that can rely on a mere conduit defense into an active promoter and marketer of the content on that platform? The platform is a highly active participant in distribution.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bobbie
The first part of that paper discusses First Amendment law and how American lawyers deliberately imported those speech norms into American companies. The second part is about how they are like intermediary governors and basically moderate for public image, business imperatives.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @bobbie @kimmaicutler
(Intrigued because I suppose I see 1a as a somewhat alien argument compared to other safe harbors, since it’s particularly American and formed around an agreement between government-rather than a private entity-and the people)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes I’d love to learn more about British or EU law and how it pertains to speech and new tech!
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.