If Musk Completes His Twitter Takeover, His Fans Might Want To Start Supporting Section 230
from the he-needs-230-on-that-wall dept
At this point, it seems exceptionally likely that Elon Musk will own Twitter within a few weeks. Because nothing is predictable in this saga, you never know, but the odds are that by Halloween Twitter will be Muskville. We’ll have plenty of time to talk about what that means, but in our post about Musk’s abrupt about-face, we joked that the takeover might come just in time for the Supreme Court to hold Twitter liable for any terrorist organizations who use the site and then go kill people in terrorist attacks.
Musk insists he wants to make Twitter more accepting of more speech (without really understanding what that means) and if that’s true, now might be a good time for him (and his fans — many of whom seem to be in the false kneejerk reactionary camp who believe that removing Section 230 will lead to more speech online) to become a very strong supporter of Section 230. Pat Hedger has a good article over at RealClearMarkets, explaining how Musk, once he owns Twitter, may be a huge beneficiary of Section 230.
Musk’s problem, and indeed a problem for anyone who likes their internet and wants to keep their internet, is that the Supreme Court could very well create a scenario where platforms such as Twitter can be held liable for terrorism-related content and other damaging speech (even if it isn’t obvious) by gutting Section 230 while at the same time forcing platforms to host any and all legal speech, no matter how awful or annoying, should the Justices agree with the Fifth Circuit. It’s effectively damned if you do and damned if you don’t on steroids for every website that hosts content it does not generate itself.
This mess has confounded many of the country’s greatest minds on free speech, internet policy, and constitutional law. Now it looks like it will all become a very personal problem for the richest man in the world and potentially the stakeholders in his various other enterprises from Tesla to SpaceX.
Without the Section 230 status quo, either Musk and his fortune could be massively exposed to civil liability for the unending stream of garbage that is constantly uploaded to the web or he’ll have purchased a $44 billion clunker of a website… or both.
What this should enforce, yet again, is how Section 230 is actually a huge gift to free speech. It’s what allows websites, including Twitter, to experiment with different approaches without getting sued for every choice (and every non-choice).
Of course, I fully expect those who want to see much stricter moderation to continue hating on Section 230, but at the very least those who think that removing Section 230 will increase speech online should look at this and recognize how fundamentally backwards they have it.
As far as I know, Musk has yet to weigh in on Section 230, but he may have just (without recognizing it) made a multi-billion dollar bet on it.
Filed Under: elon musk, intermediary liability, section 230
Companies: twitter
Comments on “If Musk Completes His Twitter Takeover, His Fans Might Want To Start Supporting Section 230”
What §230 is like…
§230 is basically like blaming the graffiti artist who writes “Call Jenny 867-5309 for a good time” on a stall in the men’s room of an Applebee’s instead of Applebee’s themselves. Why should Applebee’s be blamed if they had no idea what “Jenny” was writing?
Now, If “Jenny” were snorting cocaine in said Applebee’s bathroom, that is indeed cause for concern and I would wonder how the hell the coke got in the Applebee’s in the first place.
Re:
You’re right, but it was the lead singer of the band who wrote it, not Jenny. Jenny intended the phone number to be given to the drummer, IIRC (yes, she is a real person who actually gave her number, though I don’t know if it was actually 867-5309). If you were interested.
Re: Re:
Whoever wrote it, under current laws it’s legally soliciting human trafficking as written on the bathroom wall.
Even if Musk does an about face on S230, the fact there are carveouts in S230 now, that apply to human trafficking, it might be too late.
Re: Re: Re:
By that rationale, a plumber advertising his services is “human trafficking.”
You’re really misusing the term.
Re: Re: Re:
Not sure if troll or insane.
Re: Re: Re:
Prostutition yes. Human traff8cking, not so much.
The two definitely have overlap, but not like this.
Re: Re: Re:2
Not even prostitution, since there’s no implication of money or other consideration changing hands.
Re:
Tell me you’ve never worked in a restaurant without telling me you’ve never worked in a restaurant.
Re: Re:
I meant “cocaine”. Are you telling me that it’s easy to smuggle cocaine into a restaurant?
Re: Re: Re:
Eh, depends on the restaurant.
Re: Re: Re:2
LOL. That’s indeed fair.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m telling you someone on the line probably has a baggie in their pocket if they didn’t go through it all the night before.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, unless carrying enough to supply a town for several weeks.
Re:
Wait…you live in a world where you can understand how a Sharpie marker could be smuggled into an Applebee’s bathroom but not some cocaine?
Hopefully the Supreme Court does not overturn Section 230.
Re:
To paraphrase Master Shake: Hoping is forbidden!
Re: Re: Best quote Dante instead:
I prefer Dante Alighieri’s quote from the Divine Comedy:
It’s a classic which held up for half a millennium and half a century.
Re: Re: Re:
And once you abandon hope, there’s very few paths that do not lead to bloodshed or outright violent revolution.
And people don’t want to actually take matters into their own hands.
Re: Re: Re: the other Dante
Give me Dante Hicks’ quote from Clerks:
Still going strong after two and a half decades.
Re: Re: Re:
What has ye got to do with it? Weren’t his accounts on Twitter and Instagram just blocked for echoing Nazi propaganda?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
They will limit it. The issue before the court is BigTech curating which has led to terrorist content getting to future terrorists because the algorithm selects that content for those people.
Section 230 predates curating of content by BigTech. So logically curated content shouldn’t be covered under section 230. However, through nepotistic bribery BigTech has completely corrupted the 9th Circuit to a degree the nation hasn’t seen since the early 19th century when judges were corrupted by the shipping companies that ran the Atlantic slave trade and as such turned a blind eye to said trade.
Re: Re:
Curation is expression, which can be (and should be) protected by the First Amendment even if it’s not covered by 230.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
By curation I’m talking about algorithmic selection of content for uses. This didn’t exist when section 230 was made.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m old enough to remember using CompuServ and GEnie for online services, both of which had search functions that returned results, that guess what…. were based on algorithms.
Learn your history before you open your mouth and sound like the stupid fuck we all know you to be!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Once again this is tech dirt. Technology -> Techne logos! I know you morons suck when it comes to having an actual techne logos but equating a simple search with personalized curating algorithms that feed potential terrorists more terrorist material is in a word stupid.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Stop trying to twist words into fitting your fucking genocidal agenda.
You are probably no more an electrical engineer than I am from Singapore. You don’t even understnad basic concepts like the First Amendment and you expect us to believe your FUCKING RETARDED REPUBLICAN BULLSHIT?
Go fucking kill yourself.
Re: Re: Re:4
Dude, quit while you’re still behind.
You want to know what CompuServ and GEnie also had…
Recommendations of where to go within their services, and how did these recommendations happen….
wait for it….
algorithms.
“Personalized curating algorithms” were still in use back in the days prior to §230.
You’re still a fucking idiot that thinks a public house is public housing.
Fucking idiot.
Re: Re: Re:4
You want to know what CompuServ and GEnie also had…
Recommendations of where to go within their services,
and how did these recommendations happen….
wait for it….
algorithms.
“Personalized curating algorithms” were still in use back in the days prior to §230.
You’re still a fucking idiot that thinks a public house is public housing.
Fucking idiot.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Can’t dish it out certainly can’t take it.
Crybaby chodaboi out here throwing another hissy fit. You gonna start threatening us again next you little bitch?
Re: Re: Re:4 Your fallacy is…
Let me introduce you to the etymological fallacy.
Re: Re: Re:5 Uh oh, did he fall into it:(
Elon musk has owned etymology.com for two decades. What a stupid bunny
P.S. His mother graduated University of the Orange Free State
Re: Re: Re:5
Good old Chingas never met a fallacy he didn’t immediately try to use to attempt to make himself look less like the dumbshit he is.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
So when Mike and Karl scream “Its not a Monopoly, MONO means one.”
You morons didn’t notice I started reminding you what technology means after Mike was screaming BigTech isn’t a monopoly?
Re: Re: Re:6
The only one screaming here is you while failing to understand what monopoly actually means and how it still retains it’s original meaning from it’s Greek origin.
Mono refers to single type of goods, service or supply while poly refers to sale – ie single control of the sale of particular goods, services or supply.
Referring to “bigtech” as a monopoly is just plain stupid because they are actively competing against each other and people have a choice in what service to uese. It’s like saying mobile phone companies are a monopoly because you can only buy mobile phones from them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
“Mono refers to single type of goods, service or supply while poly refers to sale – ie single control of the sale of particular goods, services or supply.”
“Let me introduce you to the etymological fallacy.”
lol dumbshit
Re: Re: Re:8
Describing yourself again?
Remember when you said that the Texas AG could force DirecTV to carry OAN…
Something only a dumbshit would say.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Must carry has been declared perfectly legal by multiple courts time and time again.
Only a dumbshit would say differently. Dishnetwork doesn’t even own spectrum it uses it only has a public lease. So we aren’t even delving into new law here like with social media.
Re: Re: Re:10
Well, it didn’t happen and there were obviously no laws that could have been used by the Texas AG, so you’re a dumbshit for thinking otherwise!
Re: Re: Re:10
Yes or no: Has the government forced DirecTV to carry OAN under those rules?
Re: Re: Re:10
Only for specific exceptions: common carriers (as has been noted multiple times), and wireless/cable TV/radio (due to limitations on the technology that limit competition by necessity). That’s it.
Re: Re: Re:8
No, you’re the disingenious asshole here.
Stop twisting words to fit your genocidal agenda, NeoNazi.
Re: Re: Re:8
I see you don’t understand the etymological fallacy at all, the whole of the fallacy is to refer to earlier meanings of a word – monopoly hasn’t changed its meaning since the time of the ancient Greeks when it was first used.
Re: Re: Re:8
You’ve fallen into the fallacy fallacy: that the conclusion of a fallacious argument is necessarily false or that an argument that contains an informal fallacy is necessarily fallacious.
The etymological fallacy exists because words can change meaning over time and misnomers exist. As such, the etymology of a word can lead to an incorrect conclusion in such cases. As an example, anti-bigamy statutes penalize marrying more than one other person, even if the total partners would exceed two, as would be implied by the “bi-“ in “bigamy”. Arguing in court that you’re not guilty of bigamy because “bi-“ means two and you actually married four people would be an instance of the etymological fallacy.
In this case, the word “monopoly” has never had a substantive change in its meaning that would render its etymology even remotely misleading, so the etymological fallacy doesn’t render the argument fallacious in this case. The “mono-“ in the term still refers to the fact that control of some market belongs to a single entity. You cannot have multiple monopolies in the same market simultaneously by definition.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: lol They Have To
lol
They have too. Its been established that Mike is a moron. He just got his foot in the door of big tech back in the 90s and refuses to leave. He will say and do anything those who are paying him demand.
But this is not hard to understand if you aren’t a complete and total legal moron. The rightwing of the court is split between the Thomas wing and the Federalist Wing. The Thomas Wing wants 230 gone and Social Media regulated as a common carrier. The federalist wing lead by Roberts thinks corporations and the military can do no wrong.
To get the federalist wing you have to split the corporate interest and the military interests of the federalist wing.
That’s why Bobby Barnes zeroed in on 18 USCC 2339A as the wedge that would bring down section 230. The federalist wing of the court that would normally defer to corporate power cannot allow BigTech to Section 230 their way out of an antiterrorism statute. To the federalist wing military > corporate.
It was brilliant move.
Re: Re:
You know this isn’t true or else you’d have the proof to back it up.
Re: Re: I’ve never been proven wrong bro
“It was brilliant move.”
You describing deciding to confuse a bar with public housing.
Re: Re:
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
False. Thomas essentially wants the 1A as currently understood gone entirely, such as the “actual malice” standard for defamation of a public figure. He also thinks that the military, law enforcement, and school officials can do no wrong. Additionally, Justice Alito (who is the closest to him in terms of opinions) has also argued that corporations can do no wrong.
Also, only Thomas has indicated his views on §230 as such, suggesting that, as far as we can know, the Thomas wing consists of exactly one Justice, particularly the single most conservative Justice that has sat on the bench in the past decade, which is saying a lot.
Re:
I don’t know. Forcing Elon to use his own website to host walls of “Elon Musk sucks donkey cock” kinda sounds like a win.
Re: Re:
Poor donkeys, being associated with Elon Musk like that…
A dimension of the Spam/bot problem on Twitter
From a somewhat political twitter user (for a good cause, a rescue service), with a few hundred followers, I heard that about half of his new new followers were obviously “fake” accounts.
So Elon might be right about twitter having a bot problem. The trouble is, if twitter does anything about it it becomes an arms race…ending in bot accounts that copy tweets from real accounts with whatever spam interspersed from time to time.
Beyond that, of course, is whether twitter has reached its natural size, and further monetization simply drives users away.
Re:
Saying Twitter has a bot problem because Musk’s Twitter account has a bot problem is like saying the world has too much money because Musk has too much money.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Nope
Do you honestly think the New York Times actually has 54.5M followers?
Their Alex Jones story has been up for a half hour and has 135 retweets.
54.5M followers lol
Re: Re: Re:
They still have more followers than you.
Re: Re: Re:
It wouldn’t surprise me. I’m sure a number of them are bots (particularly ones that automatically retweet major stories or something), but I have no real reason to believe that it makes up that much of their total followers. It’s a pretty commonly-read outlet even outside of the US, so the idea that they have tens of millions of followers isn’t exactly farfetched.
Uh, yeah. That is also unsurprising. If there are even 1 million human followers who receive notifications for new tweets (or even less), 135 of them deciding to retweet a post of theirs within half an hour is entirely unremarkable due to the sheer scale involved. This is also a pretty popular topic, so many are probably actively searching for stories like that.
Now, are some of them bots? Probably. Again, it would not surprise me if there are bots that automatically retweet stories on certain topics. However, 135 retweets in half an hour out of tens of millions of followers is not exactly suspiciously high.
To reiterate, I’m not saying it’s unlikely that a substantial number of NYT’s Twitter followers are bots, or that that might also lead to more (or fewer) retweets in a relatively short amount of time than it would otherwise get. I’m just saying that the two figures you cited aren’t terribly suspicious in a way that would lead me to suspect bot involvement is necessarily the most likely explanation for those numbers.
Re:
Every website, web service and social media site has a bot problem.
10 deranged, overly nationalistic fascists have managed to conduct a harassment that lasts to this very day using shitty code and automation, an army of Twitter and Youtube accounts against a corp that eventually pulled out of their shithole of a market.
Techdirt gets spammed with all sorts of hilarious commercial spam messages.
It’s not the bots that’s an issue, it’s the fact that there’s a market for gullible fools who think hiring a shady spambot service works for getting customers. Or relying on such services to get customers.
Be careful what you wish for...
If the sale does go through and no-one manages to prevent his utterly insane idea of moderation from being rolled out I look forward to the screams of outrage by about how the site is now unusable due to being 4chan on steroids, as the company itself waits to be sued for all the horrible content they now host, a worry that will be compounded should the SC uphold the ongoing no moderation/anti-230 efforts.
Re:
Do you think the SC will overturn 230?
Re: Re:
Who knows. We have two Justices who want to do away with 230 and a potential third so we’re already down 3.
Re: Re:
And 1A? Definitely.
Or at least, they’ll try.
Re: Re:
At this point I’d say it’s a toss-up as the court has shown they can and will toss legal precedent when it serves them, so while I can hope they won’t I also wouldn’t put it past them.
Re: Re: Re:
Section 230 exists in its current form because they severed it from the CDA.. so arguably they found it constitutional at that point.
However given their giving zero crap about precedent they exhibited last term if it accomplishes political goals? hard to say!
Re:
This is the way.
Just give them what they want and wait for it to blow up in their faces. Their shortsightedness and lack of vision beyond 6 inches in front of them is their biggest weakness.
For years they voted to repeal Obamacare – when it didn’t count. When they finally had the power to do it, they failed.
We got to hear for a year and a half about a dumb fucking wall that Mexico would pay for. When it came time for Mexico to pay up, they told Trump to go fuck himself. So he asked Congress for the money. And what did the Republican controlled Congress do? Apparently not enough, since they’re still bitching about it.
Then Covid – perfect time to scrap a pandemic plan in favor of winging it, amirite?
Now repealing Roe – gotta love those arguments why 10yo children should be forced to carry other children to term. Don’t get me started on rape victims. I’m still unclear on how child support and visitation is supposed to work.
They haven’t thought jack fucking shit on how this will affect them, only the people they hate. Use the Trump defense – delay, obstruct, obfuscate – to force the pretzel that is the court system to unfuck itself.
“Order by date” is algorithmic selection of content for users. Simplistic, yes, but it still is, and it predates s230..
All an algorithm is for selecting content is the codifying of the developer or business’s rules for promotion. Whether it’s done by hand or by a computer makes no difference, it still is free expression and covered by the 1st.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
“Whether it’s done by hand or by a computer makes no difference, it still is free expression and covered by the 1st.”
Facilitating the dissemination of terrorist material is not covered under the 1st Amendment. Its aiding and abetting a criminal act.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
And Twitter et al at least TRY to report those to the relevant authorities… as long as they aren’t told by “interested parties” to look the other way.
We all know terrorist content gets flagged and deleted as soon as humanly possible unless it’s Facebook and ANTISEMITISM, PROMOTION OF (WHITE)TERRORISM and VACCINE DISINFORMATION. because Facebook received a “generous donation” to look the other way.
Go fucking kill yourself Chozen.
Re: Re:
Unless Twitter knowingly helps disseminate terrorist propaganda, it can’t be charged with a crime. Granted, it ain’t a good look for Twitter if it refuses to boot accounts linked to terrorist groups. But by the same token, Twitter’s human moderators can’t get around to moderating every account, and aiming mod-bots at generic language that could be used in both terrorist propaganda and innocuous posts will only silence non-terrorists. And as noted elsewhere, Twitter does its best to report such accounts and posts to the proper authorities.
Re: Re: Re:
And to add, sometimes, even Twitter needs a helping hand to know what to look out for.
It’s not collusion if the authorities tip Twitter off on what to look out for, okay? As hypocritical as the American alphabet agencies look when they DO tip Big Tech off on the messes they make at times.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Civil Suit Moron
“Unless Twitter knowingly”
The civil statute in question here does not require guilty mind just recklessness.
Re: Re: Re:2
1) Is it reckless to not have a human vet every post before it goes up?
2) Is it reckless not to have a perfect algorithm for detecting terrorist posts?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Thats why we have trials.
Thats why we have trials and discovery. BigTech rather than arguing the merits of the case just claimed section 230 immunity. Thats the issue before the court. Whether the section 230 can be extended so far that Twitter et. al. are objectively feeding terroristic material to terrorists resulting in the death of people ant Twitter et. al. just get to claim immunity rather than proving their they were not acting recklessly in court.
Re: Re: Re:4
So why does Twitter have to help the CIA then?
Re: Re: Re:4
Someone who understands law, unlike Chozen, would know that Section 230 only comes into play when the plaintiff has no merit to argue.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Shut the fuck up! BigTech and and the 9th Circuit use section 230 as a blanket rubber stamp. Most of the entire 9th circuit and the entire federal district of northern California has been paid off with big lucrative jobs to the wives, kids, mistresses, mistersseers, etc. of the federal judges who sit in that district. The easiest way to get a 6-7 figure job at FANG is for your mommy or daddy to sit on the district bench. It was without a doubt the most corrupted of the districts with maybe the exception of DC.
Re: Re: Re:6
If your argument relies on other people being unable to question it, you need a better argument.
If your argument relies on claims of fact that you can’t prove, you need a better argument.
Re: Re: Re:6
You done throwing your hissy fit yet Coca-Cola?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
No, you get the fuck out and fucking kill yourself.
At least when I get flagged, I know why and try to conform to community standards, and you clearly deserve to be treated worse than even a single-celled organism, or non-living things!
And you’ve gone so far past that the only way left should have been to call the fucking cops to eject you, if not to physically kick your carcass out!
No one wants you here!
We all would celebrate if you fucking died!
FUCK OFF. AND DON’T COME BACK.
Re: Re: Re:6
Or what? Bring it on, bozo!
Re: Re:
It is not that simple, as distinguishing terrorist material from discussion of say The Game Of Thrones, The Rings Of Power or The Day Of The Jackal is not a trivial programing problem.
Re: Re: Re:
Forget handing that to a computer, it’s also not a trivial HUMAN MODERATION issue.
Techdirt ran at least 1 article highlighting this exact same issue…
And recently ran another where people quoting The Princess Bride got them flagged for murder threats… from an automated modbot.
Re: Re: Re:2
just like when I was put into “Facebook Jail” for two days (i.e. could not post on Facebook for two days) for quoting The Secret of Monkey Island (I said “How Appropriate: You fight like a cow.”).
Re: Re:
“terrorist material” is anything that makes you or the fascists you worship look bad eh Condom?
Re: Re:
I love it when Chozen pretends he understands legal concepts he is quite ignorant of.
Aiding and abetting requires scienter, dude. It’s with knowledge or intent to aid those organizations. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339A
There have been multiple lawsuits over this, and in 2010 the Supreme Court made it clear that the “knowingly” part is key to getting around the 1st Amendment issues. So, merely having a service where terrorist material is shared is not a violation of the law, unless it is done by the company with knowledge that they are supporting a designated terrorist organization.
But, go on, tell me how you’re an expert in the law again.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Civil Not Criminal
Damn its hard to get any posts through your filters. I’m honored that you keep filtering little jabs I make at you.
This is a civil suit there doesn’t need to be mens rea. Hate to burst your bubble.
Re: Re: Re:2
What a fucking idiot! I can see your posts?
Don’t try to flatter yourself into thinking that you are being singled out by the spam filters.
Maybe if your comments didn’t look like spam, they would make it through the spam filter.
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s already pretty clear you don’t WANT a discussion.
You want to harass, threaten and spread DISinformation.
You ignore actual debate, throw tantrums, and when pushed into a corner, start threatening to rape people.
All while actually choosing to not understand what the law or current case law says, all to defend a genocidal race-based ideology.
What you NEED is a nice, long stay in one of the Texas prisons you so fucking want Mike to stay in.
And I can get through the “filters” just fine. Maybe you should take the hint and DON’T COME BACK. Though knowing you, you won’t.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
“It’s already pretty clear you don’t WANT a discussion.
You want to harass, threaten and spread DISinformation.”
You are confusing causality. I was very polite when I first got here. Like anyone to the right of Lenin my posts were flagged regardless of what I said.
You morons are like the guy behind Mike Tyson on the airplane who are surprised when you get punched in the face. You deserve it your morons.
Re: Re: Re:4
Right back at you, you fucking liar.
You’ve already denied threatening to rape both a regular user AND the owner of the site. You continue to harass everyone on the site that doesn’t share your bigoted views.
And you keep admitting that the only reason you keep doing this is out of pure, petty spite and wanting to prop up a genocidal, race-based ideology.
Once we’re gone, you’re next, because the NeoNazi leaders you shill for won’t take too kindly to your skin color. And this is not a threat, it’s a statement of fact.
Re: Re: Re:4
You know that’s not true.
Re: Re: Re:4
Lying is never polite, sealion.
Re: Re: Re:4 Come at me bro
“You morons are like the guy behind Mike Tyson on the airplane who are surprised when you get punched in the face.”
It’s pretty telling that all you can do is impotently yell and project your pathetic power fantasies the second anyone call you out on your obvious bullshit.
Poor Clamchowda no one loves you.
Re: Re: Re:5
It’s pretty telling that he has to rely on a convicted sex offender as his persona, to boot.
When it all comes down to it Chozen really is about power trips and rape fantasies that Allah Trump allegedly promised him.
Re: Re: Re:6
Even Mike Tyson chilled out, found himself and now at least tries to be a decent human being.
Chozen here will never be like Mike Tyson. Ever.
Re: Re: Re:4
Deserve what? Having an imbecile like you bore us with empty threats? How very intimidating.
Re: Re: Re:2
Damn its hard to get any posts through your filters. I’m honored that you keep filtering little jabs I make at you.
Wouldn’t that be a function of non-algorithmic moderation at work (i.e. the thing you’re advocating every social media site do)?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Attempt 4
Damn you are filtering hard even saying the S word in response to one of your posts gets a filter. You are soooo thin skinned.
You should watch more Bobby Barnes. This is his legal theory, almost a decade old now, put into action. There are two separate issues here.
Section 230 & 18 U.S. Code § 2339A
Rather than making a case like you are now about 18 U.S.C 2339A BigTech just claimed section 230. There were those on hte legal left that warned BigTech not to so this because tat was the trap Bobby Barnes had set in his legal theory. BigTech should have just argued 18 U.S.C 2339A on its merits.
Instead we get to sue on the section 230 immunity claim which is outside of 18 U.S.C 2339A.
Most likely outcome the SCOTUS denies section 230 immunity because of the degree to which BigTech curates content today. This will gut section 230 and take it back decades undoing much 9th circuit precedence.
The court then sends the 18 U.S.C 2339A civil suit back to the lower court where BigTech has to defend the case on the merits and prove that they didn’t act knowingly or recklessly.
Re: Re: Re:2
A court can’t deny section 230 immunity wholesale. They can only take it away for a specific content decision. So no, this would not gut section 230 any more than it has been gutted in the past from having been denied in other section 230 suits.
It’s the other way around, numbnuts. The plaintiff(s) would have to prove that they did act knowingly or recklessly.
Re: Re: Re:3
With Facebook, we can point to them accepting money to promote VACCINE DISINFORMATION, ANTISEMITISM AND (WHITE) TERRORISM PROMOTION.
Twitter, harder for them to prove they acted knowingly.
Re: Re: Re:4
Okay. Point to that evidence, please.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
“A court can’t deny section 230 immunity wholesale.”
The court can do what ever the hell it wants. If they wanted to they could declare section 230 unconstitutional on the basis that its own drafters have said was intended to incentivize private censorship. But I dont think they will go that far.
Even if these ideas bounced around by Mike’s Misfits we can see what will happen. Multiple misfits have suggested that social media is like a club or social media should become clubs. Now Mike’s Misfits morons that they are don’t realize that “clubs” was the first thing racist segregationists tried after the 1964 civil rights act. Funny how all the misfits ideas mirror those of the segregationists ‘But muh private platform!’ That should be the first hint that you are fundamentally evil people. But I digress.
In Daniels 1967 the court addressed the “club” issue and said BULLSHIT! The court created the threshold test for clubs. You are not a club if you do not pass the threshold test. Social media can never become a club because social media cannot pass the threshold test. This is what the court does. The court creates tests.
Despite being almost 4 decades old now the court has never addressed section 230 and created a test. Without a test we are left with it up to the whim of judges, most of them corrupt bastards in the 9th circuit NDC whos sons, daughters, mothers, cousins, wives, husbands, mistresses, misterssess, all work for FANG.
This case will result in a section 230 test that will greatly limit the scope of 230 and put handcuffs on all the bribed judges in the NDC.
Re: Re: Re:4
Can a political party refuse to carry the speech of political opponents? How about a Cristian church refusing to allow a satanist to address their congregation? If so, aren’t those the same viewpoint based discrimination you keep complaining about?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
“Can a political party refuse to carry the speech of political opponents? How about a Cristian church refusing to allow a satanist to address their congregation? If so, aren’t those the same viewpoint based discrimination you keep complaining about?”
Wataboutisms and endless hypotheticals are legally bullshit according to the SCOTUS itself. Such issues with statute are addressed as they come up. Viewpoint non-discrimination is standard with existing common carriers but no one is rhetorically “standing in the middle of the store shouting racial obscenities” with existing common carriers. Viewpoint discrimination is also illega in numerous localities, California and DC being the must well known. But again no on is standing on a table shouting racial obscenities. Funny how your hypotheticals and whataboutisms never materialize in real life.
Re: Re: Re:6
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:6
What is hypothetical about political party conferences, and Church services and meetings?
Re: Re: Re:6
Hey Chozen,
Tell us again how the Texas AG was able to use “must carry” laws to force DirecTV to carry OAN?
I don’t remember the details, could you explain why DirecTV must carry OAN because of “viewpoint discrimination”?
And how did that all work out for the Texas AG and OAN?
Re: Re: Re:6
Funny how your hypotheticals and whataboutisms never materialize in real life.
Like DirecTV and Dish being forced to carry OAN?
Or all of those elective abortions at the moment of birth that no one can seem to find?
Or the busloads of people voting illegally that no one apparently witnessed nor testified to?
Or the guy complaining about his posts being moderated by the site owner advocating for the same sort of personalized moderation on a wider scale?
Funny how the guy pointing out how everybody else is consistently wrong is himself consistently wrong.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Wataboutism
Whataboutism is a version of paralysis by analysis. That’s why the SCUTUS has legally declared it BULLSHIT!
Re: Re: Re:6
SCUTUS? As in Latin for Shield?
Re: Re: Re:4
No, they can’t. They’re still bound by the law.
Please provide that quote, and also, no, they couldn’t, because “private censorship” is a 1st Amendment right. Maybe one of these days, you’ll actually read the constitution. I doubt it, though.
Re: Re: Re:5
230 ‘incentivizes private censorship’ in the same way that private property existing does so, and that’s by allowing the owner of said property to decide when they’d rather not have a particular person/speech on their property and not have to be overly worried about being sued into the ground for the ‘crime’ of showing that person the door.
Strange that they’d have such a loathing for the concept of private property but there’s all sorts of people I guess.
Re: Re: Re:4
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: This Was a Trap
Back to this. This was a trap. Bobby Barnes set this trap a decade ago when he published his theory.
Its just hilarious. We can tell you our exact plan. We can set the trap right in front of you. And you will still walk right into the trap. Its mind blowing how obtuse you morons in BigTech actually are.
Because “terrorism” this was a case the SCOTUS was going to have to take. SCOTUS cant turned a blind eye to such national security issues. Bobby Barnes identified this specific act as the one that was going to get BigTech to push 230 too far. The one that was going to force the SOCTUS to take up section 230.
And with all the public you morons still walked right into the trap. Is there a single person in BigTech who isn’t a complete and total narcissist?
Re: Re: Re:2
The entirety of China’s tech industry.
They’re totalitarians.
Yes, we know you are a NeoNazi, so stop talking.
Re: Re: Re:2
Big Tech learned from the best.
The Kochs, Rupert Murdoch, agribusiness, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and Big Insurance, just to name a few.
Oh, and the Republicans. Especially Donald Trump.
Re: Re: Re:2
“We”
You didn’t do shit but look stupid, act a fool, and make impotent threats, Cumdumpster.
Re: Re: Re:2
Hardly. The theory is completely bogus.
If Musk ends up buying Twitter, I may just welcome the death of section 230…
Re: 'What do you mean I'M liable for that?! I didn't write it!'
Funnily enough if he does end up buying it I suspect he and a good number of his followers will quickly do an about face and become ardent supporters of 230 because that will be the only thing keeping the site and him from being sued into the ground, not to mention the only thing that will allow the moderation necessary to keep the site from turning into a 4chan clone and thereby drive off a hefty chunk of it’s users.
Re: Re: Disagree on about face...
I think Musk will find a different scapegoat than lack of Sect 230 protection for when Twitter gets sued into the ground. Musk has a cult, not a rational hivemind, and I don’t think he is going to react entirely rationally to the financial bath he will take buying Twitter. News on the 28th.
If he actually ends up owning twitter, rather than making a rather large lump sum payment (say, $10 billion), Musks hands on the moderation are going to be an absolute bull in a china shop and drive away lots of users when he lets the griefers back onto the platform, cratering ad revenue. Likewise, if he tries to squeeze more revenue out of it, he will again drive users away.
I
Re: Re: Re:
A very good point, factor his ego into the mix and the odds that he’d admit that he was wrong and/or he screwed up are probably pretty low.
Re:
I’m not afraid of the world’s richest racist scumbag buying over Twitter. He has to, regardless of what he originally wanted.
I’m more concerned about him trying to destroy Twitter. because those text messages do not fill me with confidence as to what Musk wants to do.
The best we can hope for is for him to leave Twitter alone after he buys it, but he’s so convinced that he needs to “fix” Twitter, I don’t see him actually doing that.
And with that, if Section 230 falls 1A goes next.
Re: Re:
As I understand it he’s already said that if he owned the company he’d let Trump back on, and if people thought Trump was bad before just wait until he’s presented with a very strong case that there is nothing that will get him kicked off again.
That alone is likely to make a huge mess of Twitter, Musk’s idea of ‘proper’ moderation on top of that are just going to be adding fuel to the (dumpster) fire unless someone can convince him that the people involved in moderation are not in fact raging idiots that need Musk to ride in and ‘show them the light.’
Re: Re: Re:
Musk, abetting insurrection?
The racist fuck from apartheid South Africa, wanting a white supremacist and someone who SHOULD BE on an FBI watchlist for abetting insurrection, to come back to a platform that decided that getting the FBI on their fucking case was something they could not afford?
Boy, am I SHOCKED! /s
clears his throat
HA HA /Nelson