Boom, roasted
Ok, Charles, you want a legal debate. Cool. If you (3rd Party) write an op-ed in NYT & it’s defamatory, NYT can be sued. If you post identical defamatory op-ed on Twitter or FB, they can’t be sued—that’s sec 230. Congress did that bc they were “neutral.” Now, they censor.https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/1266339928855756801 …
-
-
-
Boom, don’t trust a Canadian like Cruz on US law
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This will not end well for Ted lol
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Your boss has threatened to completely shut down twitter. He’s trying to limit the first amendment, something that you apparently defended before?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But isn’t it safer to have a wild west free marketplace of ideas and first amendment speech so that the chill wind of censorship doesn’t muzzle expression?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@charlescwcooke Ted Cruz is NOT who you want to debate...like everThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
An op-ed writer is not a 3rd party. They may not be paid, but the content is reviewed and NYT decides whether to publish prior to it being posted to the site. Obviously that’s completely different than a user posting on a message board or twitter.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not sure why it's so hard for so many to understand that once a neutral platform applies inevitably subjective standards to what should and shouldn't be censored, it is no longer a neutral platform and has become a publisher, just like NYT chooses what letters to print or not.
-
Nowhere in section 230 is anything dependent on being neutral.
End of conversation
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.