- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Twitter loses immunity over user-generated content in India
Posted on 7/6/21 at 4:06 pm to Salmon
Posted on 7/6/21 at 4:06 pm to Salmon
quote:
why are you conflating utility with online publisher?
Because the internet has evolved into a public utility now, it’s something every citizen must have access to in order to function in society.
2
Posted on 7/6/21 at 4:07 pm to Scruffy
quote:
The difference is that the websites aren’t currently liable for what you say, but they still edit it. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point.
That is my point. Perhaps you got confused about what I was replying to?
Posted on 7/6/21 at 4:08 pm to Salmon
quote:
Give me an absolute definition of publisher so that we can codify it into law
Instead of defining what they are, let’s define what they are clearly not, and that is a platform. In which case their immunity needs to be revoked. Now we can let the chips fall where they may and the legal system can work as intended.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 4:11 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:I will argue that that does not mean that websites themselves are public utilities though.
Because the internet has evolved into a public utility now, it’s something every citizen must have access to in order to function in society.
Now, if you want to really get into the weeds, try to conflate how politicians cannot block anyone, from a legal standpoint, with how Twitter can ban politicians themselves.
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 4:56 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
Because the internet has evolved into a public utility now, it’s something every citizen must have access to in order to function in society.
Twitter is not an ISP
Posted on 7/6/21 at 4:57 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Instead of defining what they are, let’s define what they are clearly not, and that is a platform. In which case their immunity needs to be revoked
Give me the measures in which one no longer becomes a platform
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:05 pm to Salmon
quote:
Give me the measures in which one no longer becomes a platform
Regulation.
When you regulate the content you are a publisher.
You’re being willfully obtuse in order to make a point. It’s pretty obvious and it’s not debating in good faith.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:07 pm to Salmon
quote:
Twitter is not an ISP
Didn’t say it was.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:07 pm to Salmon
quote:They regulate what is stated, IMO.
Give me the measures in which one no longer becomes a platform
At least that is where I would draw the line.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:10 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
Didn’t say it was.
Then please state your point because at the moment I don’t think you understand the conversation
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:14 pm to Salmon
It’s not hard to understand at all. Justice Thomas explains it well.
Big Tech companies Facebook and Google, Thomas pointed out, have vast and largely unchecked control over online marketplaces.
"It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail," Thomas wrote. "But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today's digital platforms, nothing is."
In Thomas' view, social media companies are "sufficiently akin" to a common carrier, like a public utility, such as a telephone company, and should be "regulated in this manner," he wrote, suggesting that social networks should be federally regulated in the same way that, say, a phone company cannot prevent a person from making a call.
Big Tech companies Facebook and Google, Thomas pointed out, have vast and largely unchecked control over online marketplaces.
"It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail," Thomas wrote. "But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today's digital platforms, nothing is."
In Thomas' view, social media companies are "sufficiently akin" to a common carrier, like a public utility, such as a telephone company, and should be "regulated in this manner," he wrote, suggesting that social networks should be federally regulated in the same way that, say, a phone company cannot prevent a person from making a call.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:15 pm to Scruffy
quote:
They regulate what is stated, IMO
Right. You either actively moderate or you don’t. At all.
Most ad revenue sites, like TD, would be forced to approve every post before posting because they would still moderate.
Scruffy is at least honest in that he recognizes the unintended consequences, he just thinks they would be for the greater good.
All of the other posters are just blindly supporting something because they just think someone needs to do something without ever considering the consequences.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:18 pm to meansonny
quote:
Twitter/social media is either a public square or publisher.
A distinction that I don't think actually exists in legal terms.
quote:
When twitter edits/deletes content arbitrarily, they are no longer a public square. They are a publisher... like the new york times or cnn. This should open twitter (like the NYT or CNN) to liability lawsuits for defamation, libel, etc..
But editorializing is directly protected by the First Amendment. Publishers can dictate what content they produce and do so.
quote:
The problem is that social media is enjoying government protection from liability claims without earning it (free speech)
You understand that this won't help free speech. If Twitter was liable for what their users post, they would be far more censorious.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:19 pm to Salmon
quote:Yep.
Right. You either actively moderate or you don’t. At all
quote:And that would be their decision to make.
Most ad revenue sites, like TD, would be forced to approve every post before posting because they would still moderate.
quote:Yep.
Scruffy is at least honest in that he recognizes the unintended consequences, he just thinks they would be for the greater good.
I will gladly accept the unintended consequences because, IMO, it will be better in the long run.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:20 pm to Salmon
Making it legal to discriminate against others & censor their speech is the unintended consequence of section 230.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:23 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:The argument is that that is exactly what Twitter and Facebook are doing.
Publishers can dictate what content they produce and do so.
They do dictate what content is produced.
quote:Yes, of everyone, which would ultimately bring the entire situation to a head, resulting in a cataclysmic result.
You understand that this won't help free speech. If Twitter was liable for what their users post, they would be far more censorious.
I want that.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:23 pm to LSUAngelHere1
Discrimination should be legal IMO
But remove those 230 protections, and it will just be worse.
But remove those 230 protections, and it will just be worse.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:24 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
You understand that this won't help free speech. If Twitter was liable for what their users post, they would be far more censorious.
Twitter wouldn’t be liable for what I say on my twitter just as ATT isn’t liable for what I say when I use their service.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:29 pm to Salmon
quote:
Right. You either actively moderate or you don’t. At all.
Most reasonable people recognize the difference between maintaining “standards” and participating in censorship. Most reasonable people would agree that you can be a platform without allowing unfettered pornography and violence.
quote:
Most ad revenue sites, like TD, would be forced to approve every post before posting because they would still moderate.
Are you under the impression that FB doesn’t moderate?
quote:
ll of the other posters are just blindly supporting something because they just think someone needs to do something without ever considering the consequences.
I’m more concerned with the unintended consequences of allowing Big Tech to operate outside the scope of the legal system.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:30 pm to Scruffy
quote:
The argument is that that is exactly what Twitter and Facebook are doing.
Because there is no difference in the case law, that I'm aware, of what designates a publisher and a platform in distinct terms. They have the right to do that because they are, ultimately, both the platform that hosts the speech, as well as the publisher.
I'm not a lawyer, though, and I've only read that one book on section 230 that was published in like 2018.
Page 5 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News