Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter itself, today, is a shittier version of itself, a decade ago.
In a way though so is life.
If you extrapolate backwards, imagine how good life must have been in the 80's.
You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
31–40 of 309 posts
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#32> If you said "Section 230 is a massive gift to big tech!" > Once again, I must inform you that you are very, very wrong. If section 230 is no big deal, let's just repeal it. What's the hoopla about it, then? Why are companies so adamant to protect it? The section itself is very broad, but the impetus for the passing of Section 230 was to protect free speech by removing liability concerns for what others say online.…
> If you said "Section 230 is a massive gift to big tech!" > Once again, I must inform you that you are very, very wrong. >If section 230 is no big deal, let's just repeal it. What's the hoopla about it, then? Why are companies so adamant to protect it? It's not a massive gift to big tech. It's a gift to everyone. It's a big deal to remove it. Certainly, it would affect lots of big tech companies; but it would affect…
The question is if twitter is a private square or a public one.
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
What law would that be? Internet service providers must provide their service to everyone? Great, now it’s illegal to kick people off your minecraft server and the new york times MUST publish my op-ed. Twitter gave orange-julius cesar a platform, they can take it away.
There’s a general anxiety of a big company taking a way a big chunk of your life on a whim. It’s not fun to be banned by Google or Amazon. I’m not doing anything wrong to get banned, but that seems backwards somehow. (“don’t break the law and you have nothing to worry about” gives off the same creepy vibe). It’s a similar feeling when driving next to cop while doing nothing wrong or dealing with a government bureaucr…
This is probably not the response you wanted, but I think it's an argument for decentralized and federated services, along with self-hosting.
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#34> if you're in a real rush, just read Section (c)(1), which is only 26 words, and is the part that basically every single court decision (and there have been many) has relied on. > (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information…
Every alternative to Twitter is shittier. It's practically a law of nature.
This is quite wrong. The fediverse is a lot better, has less noise, and much less toxic than twitter.
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#35I was struck by a thought while reading the article- are the feeds of social media companies actually protected under section 230? My Facebook feed is more than just a simple serving of my friends content, it’s a work in and of itself (like a collection of essays). It seems like a stretch given that the law states that they can’t be considered the publisher of “information” provided by others, but possible as these s…
If a site has a black box algorithm that uses unlawful criteria (race) to limit the scope of searches, the site will not be immune under Section 230c and are liable if and only if they require the users to provide the information (race) as a condition of accessing its service in which case they act as “information content provider”
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#36This doesn’t seem that complicated to me. What’s all the I-am-smarter-than-you smugness about?
> Law text: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher.”
People who want Section 230 repealed or modified want to be able to make the legal argument that by actively banning certain speech while elevating other speech, social media companies ARE acting as publishers. The law doesn’t need to define publisher again. We already have an understanding of what publishers do: they selectively choose and publicize OTHER people’s content.
What am I missing? Whether or not it’s justified, the reason some people want it repealed seem obvious to me.
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
What law would that be? Internet service providers must provide their service to everyone? Great, now it’s illegal to kick people off your minecraft server and the new york times MUST publish my op-ed. Twitter gave orange-julius cesar a platform, they can take it away.
There’s a general anxiety of a big company taking a way a big chunk of your life on a whim. It’s not fun to be banned by Google or Amazon. I’m not doing anything wrong to get banned, but that seems backwards somehow. (“don’t break the law and you have nothing to worry about” gives off the same creepy vibe). It’s a similar feeling when driving next to cop while doing nothing wrong or dealing with a government bureaucr…
Driving in front of a cop is worrisome because of the imbalance of force. Section 230 specifically bars certain force from being applied— it doesn't add more to the equation. Repealing it would, in practice, require Google and Amazon to scrutinize the content they host for you. It would be like if Target could be sued for the conversation you're having with a friend while shopping. Like if you could be sued for someone else's conduct on the sidewalk in front of your house (for the sake of argument, "on your property, without protection").
The only outcome that can invite is more frequent "driving in front of a cop" moments, because companies would need their own cops, and need them everywhere.
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#38> If you said "Section 230 is a massive gift to big tech!" > Once again, I must inform you that you are very, very wrong. If section 230 is no big deal, let's just repeal it. What's the hoopla about it, then? Why are companies so adamant to protect it? The section itself is very broad, but the impetus for the passing of Section 230 was to protect free speech by removing liability concerns for what others say online.…
[deleted]
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#39> if you're in a real rush, just read Section (c)(1), which is only 26 words, and is the part that basically every single court decision (and there have been many) has relied on. > (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information…
They are purging all none CCP voices as we write. Fear of more censorship is no longer relevant.
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#40I was struck by a thought while reading the article- are the feeds of social media companies actually protected under section 230? My Facebook feed is more than just a simple serving of my friends content, it’s a work in and of itself (like a collection of essays). It seems like a stretch given that the law states that they can’t be considered the publisher of “information” provided by others, but possible as these s…
I've also wondered about this, I suspect because Facebook hired 75% of their lawyers in the last 3 months we will find out soon. I could see one argument about how an algorithm doesn't really editorialize. A metaphor that is often used is that social media companies is that they are more like a newsstand than an editorial board on a newspaper. A newsstand isn't under any obligation to sell all the papers available in…
Yes, in one sense an algorithm doesn't editorialize, not being intelligent, but humans can write an algorithm to editorialize for them. The editorial decisions are made while designing the algorithm.
And if Facebook, knowing that outrage drives engagement, chooses to run an algorithm that displays the most engaging content, aren't they also choosing to display the most outrageous content?