Let me say that again: Section 230 only gets cases dismissed early which would be ruled in favor of the defendant under the First Amemdment anyway.
There's no first amendment right to engage in discrimination. But this does kind of get to the heart of the debate. Section 230 saves money by short-circuiting due process. The savings to court costs was seen as beneficial back 25 years ago when the few people getting getting moderated were along the lines of commercial spammers and porn pushers. Nowadays, moderation is sometimes being used as a political weapon, and more folks are viewing the tradeoff as problematic.
You offered no explanation to my response to your concern about spam. In a likely situation where a moderator closes the account of a commercial spammer, which probably takes all of 60 seconds according to the timestamps, there isn't any feasible way to link the spammer's account with the handle "deezpillz411" to the litigant's actual name in order to investigate his viewpoints. It's pretty much a slam dunk case dismissal.
Your best explanation of how it wouldn't be the case is just to serve up some profanity.
I occasionally post the censorship highlights of the week. Usually folks don't want to talk about it. Which is fine. But I don't demand responses, and then develop a case of tourette's when someone does.
The user can simply claim that it’s because of their viewpoints — even those expressed elsewhere — and force the company to fight it out in court. This is every spammer’s dream.
This sounds like an easy one to defeat, at least for platforms that aren't busybodies. The platform typically has no knowledge of the author's viewpoints off platform, unless the platform admits to it. In the case of Trump, his behavior with regards to the Jan.6 kerfuffle are sited as the reason for censoring, and not any viewpoints expressed on the platform. This is very similar to the speech policing of students off campus social media posts by schools.
A simple declaration by the platform that they never heard of the guy aught to blow up the claim. Outsourced and compartmentalized moderation teams can further limit discovery, as can algorithms that are unable to even consider political viewpoint.
Permitting all legal political speech sure seems like good policy today! Remember, there's no first amendment defense against discrimination.
Instead, late Wednesday, the court just reinstated the law with no explanation at all.
To get a preliminary injunction, a litigant usually needs to demonstrate that some kind of adversity will occur unless the law is put on hold. In this situation, it's the social media platforms causing the damage unless the law can proceed.
threatens and encourages violence in his name... is a political position?
Yes. No violence was ever threatened, certainly not on the platform. Detractors have never been able to point to such, and I'm confident that the corporate media would have shouted it from the heavens had it actually occurred. There has been a congressional investigation for over the past 12 months, desperately searching for something to charge him with, and have been completely unsuccessful with public comments such that they are now attempting a deep dumpster dive through
private records to find some straws to clutch.
You are stuck in "everyone I disagree with is violent and racist" mode. It's totally political.
The fact that he says the banning of Trump “alienated a large part of the country” leaves out the fact that Trump himself alienated a large part of the country, and returning him to Twitter would do the same. But, oddly, Musk doesn’t seem to care about alienating those people.
Perhaps the clearest admission so far that leftists are the ones most intolerant of speech with which they disagree.
This is a pretty common tactic of corporate news outlets. They tell the reader what to think for the first 90% of the story. And then, buried within the final 10% is the actual event that happened, but it probably isn't all that interesting. This is why there's a desire for a return to classic neutral viewpoint reporting.
Recently, we've seen how tax filing software was supposed to allow certain qualified taxpayers to file for free, but then the software pulls a bait and switch, and charges for filing. This scheme creates an opportunity for corporations to take another bite out of the apple. Sign up now for internet service and get $30 off, IF you qualify. Ooops, you don't qualify and have to pay full price.
Putting cops in schools is a terrible idea. It tends to encourage school administrators to abdicate their disciplinary duties and allow cops to decide which school policy violations should be treated as criminal acts.
In many schools, administrators and teachers have virtually no power or disciplinary authority. Some students realize that they can get away with anything, and exhibit zero respect towards school employees. The kids don't face any immediate consequences for misbehavior. Until someone regains the ability to mete out punishment, the last hope for control are the police.
It's difficult to see how there could be ongoing publishing rights without ongoing royalties payments. If the original corporation isn't paying the royalty, and neither is the new company to which the publishing right was transferred, then it would seem that no continued publishing right exists. Unless some kind of unconscionable contract was used.
That may make Twitter something like ten times larger than Parler, but it’s only one-seventh the size of Facebook—and only the world’s fifteenth-largest social network. To some in the “very online” set, Twitter may seem like everything, but 240 million Americans age 13+ don’t use Twitter every day.
Twitter is at the forefront of the news cycle. For numerous stories, the Twitter reactions have outpaced tv news and investigations, often by hours. Twitter has effectively become the breaking news cycle, and preventing suppression of ideas is now critical for a free society.
Yahoo? Microsoft? Nowhere to be mentioned at all. The fact that the study said those systems caught more Democrat emails? Not a concern.
Yahoo and Microsoft demonstrated a bias, but at least they were in the same ballpark. 20% and 15% bias. Whereas google demonstrated a 60% bias. Some of the tables in the study look particularly damning for google. It's difficult to envision this difference as being organic, and is why corporations strongly dislike the idea of anyone being able to examine their algorithm.
The only way it could do that is if it changed the terms entirely and required all its users to actually assign their copyrights to Twitter and, well, good luck with that as well.
I seem to remember a bunch of folks chomping at the bit back when youtube first started its monetization program. I have no idea whether such a program could be successful, but a TOS change seems to be a small price to pay, in exchange for getting paid if your tweet gets embedded. The president four years ago would have made a fortune.
In such a world, we would be compelled to review every post made on this site before it is made available to the wider internet.
Fortunately, the MTG proposed legislation still keeps the old 3rd party exemption. The liability comes from moderation. This is the big difference between Republican 230 reform versus Democrat 230 reform: repeal and amend it to allow more speech, or repeal and amend it to mandate more moderation in the way the government sees fit.