This is textbook anti-competitive behaviour. I hope the EU regulators jump on this and give a hefty fine to Twitter.
You really should learn laws better before claiming textbook anti competitive.
Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social
231–240 of 259 posts
Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK.
Why wouldn't a theoretical public sector social network have the right to block any links that the government wanted to block?
I know I mistakingly had the second amendment written as the reasoning in my previous post when you had replied, but I meant the first amendment.
Like I said, I don't know how far the first amendment would or wouldn't apply in this situation. In any case, it would likely have to be tested in court.
Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aside from all of the additional accounting/reporting/etc. burdens placed on publicly-traded companies, there are no differences in legal requirements between publicly-traded and privately-held companies. > Nor have they explained why a government owned company wouldn't have the right to block any links that the government wanted to block. It's the First Amendment. The USPS can't refuse to deliver a postcard because…
> Aside from all of the additional accounting/reporting/etc. burdens placed on publicly-traded companies, there are no differences in legal requirements between publicly-traded and privately-held companies. Not sure why you mention this when everyone in the comments here insists that publicly-traded and privately-held companies are both included under "private company" in this discussion. > The USPS can't refuse to d…
Obviously the receiver rejecting something is entirely different from the USPS rejecting something. How do you not see that, and why are you doing this?
Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
The private nature of the company is the specific thing that matters here. It is right to emphasize that through use of the adjective. You’d better ask “why use the word ‘company’ at all” and the answer is that it’s a useful noun upon which to supply the critical adjective.
> The private nature of the company is the specific thing that matters here. Is it? Actually, no argument has been given why a government owned company couldn't block links to whatever the government wanted.
well, in the US, the First Amendment would start come into play in interesting ways, depending on whether the content itself is considered an expression of the government itself or just general.
Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social
#235I bet it's likely a bug. There were times i wasnt able to post LinkedIn urls in the past. I bet it's their crawler/integrity service having hard time. Never assume malice when it can be sufficiently explained by a bug or incompetence.
Hanlon's razor does a good job of masking malice. I have to assume that's accidental, though.
Bravo. This made me chuckle
Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm willing to bet Twitter has a whitelist for sites with user generated content to prevent whole domains from being hell banned if one person says something naughty. Perhaps Mastodon has yet to be added to this list?
All several thousand of Mastodon instances? With constant updates with new ones?
This is one of the biggest instances, mastodon.social.
Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Aside from all of the additional accounting/reporting/etc. burdens placed on publicly-traded companies, there are no differences in legal requirements between publicly-traded and privately-held companies. Not sure why you mention this when everyone in the comments here insists that publicly-traded and privately-held companies are both included under "private company" in this discussion. > The USPS can't refuse to d…
Obviously the receiver rejecting something is entirely different from the USPS rejecting something. How do you not see that, and why are you doing this?
> Obviously the receiver rejecting something is entirely different from the USPS rejecting something.
How is the difference relevant? Also, the USPS can refuse to deliver child porn. Indeed, Twitter itself must remove child porn.
> why are you doing this?
I think that "theoretical government run social network" is a total red herring. Everyone in the comments is trying to tell me that "private company" is somehow a useful phrase to distinguish from "government run company", and I think the phrase and the distinction is doing zero work. I'm just following along with the game and trying to explain that the government/non-government distinction doesn't even help the argument.
The fact that Twitter is not run by the government is irrelevant, and saying that it's a "private company" doesn't magically exempt it from government regulation that may affect what it can and can't do.
It's kind of funny, when a big corporation does something terrible, half of the time the defense is "a private company can do whatever it wants", and the other half of the time the defense is "the lawyers made them do it", which is the exact opposite and contradictory idea.
Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon used to take down its EC2 servers where Netflix streamed their content during the early days of the streaming wars. What of it? Are you actually so naive to think things aren't working against us?
Source?
Uh, me. I worked at Amazon when this happened.
Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words, you want every website to be held liable for all user generated content on their platform, which would benefit every large social media (because smaller ones wouldn't be able to afford to moderate every single post), leading to them becoming even more of a monopoly? Or do you have something concrete in mind on what to replace it with? Because just repealing it would lead to a much different Internet t…
>In other words, you want every website to be held liable for all user generated content on their platform, which would benefit every large social media (because smaller ones wouldn't be able to afford to moderate every single post), leading to them becoming even more of a monopoly? In the EU it works well: the only social networks that exist are American :P
> Or do you have something concrete in mind on what to replace it with?
In the EU that would be Digital Services Act, chapter two of which offers websites similar protection to the Section 230. It's gonna be voted on soon™.
At the moment the EU has precedence in the opposite direction, with an Estonian news site Delfi having been held liable for anonymous user comments made on their platform: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delfi_AS_v._Estonia
Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social
#240I bet it's likely a bug. There were times i wasnt able to post LinkedIn urls in the past. I bet it's their crawler/integrity service having hard time. Never assume malice when it can be sufficiently explained by a bug or incompetence.
If there's a backlash, then it's a bug. If no one cares, then it's a feature.
it wouldn't be a very _good_ feature because if it was, because there are SO MANY INSTANCES. Blocking one large one is not going to stop anything, and there's no pattern to domains, and .... just no. I mean yes, you could go "oh this looks like a sub-url of a mastodon server let's block that but there's side-effects to that and also it's pretty easy for mastodon devs to circumvent