Twitter Plans ‘Hate Speech’ Crackdown After Backlash From Upset Employees

[Pauls' Revere]

One of the interesting things about all of this hullabaloo is how the left has now gone totally pro-corporate. Corporations used to have an image of stodgy, conservative capitalists in suits. Now they bow to the progressive party line and are often run by progressives, social media conglomerates especially. Now big tech is leftoid approved! What a relief. I know I feel safer.

Summed up as "The Corporate Hippie"

 

[Anti Federalist]

Does prove one thing to me, once again:

Freedom is not popular.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If a newspaper allowed its readers to pay to print death threats or solicit murders in the classified section, do you think that they should be liable for that content?

That’s a tangent. What do you think? Explain how that differs from other examples discussed so far.

 

[TheCount]

That’s a tangent. What do you think? Explain how that differs from other examples discussed so far.

It's not a tangent, and it doesn't differ from the examples discussed thus far. It provides an old media example to show that this is not a new phenomenon, it merely appears to be new. Newspapers also print letters to the editor; those letters were not written by them, but they are hosting and distributing that content, as well as profiting from it. The newspaper profits by hosting content, but that content was written by others, and not by them. And if the newspaper was to print an letter to the editor which incited the populace to violence, saying 'oh but we didn't write that, we only published it and profited from its publication' would not be an adequate defense.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It's not a tangent, and it doesn't differ from the examples discussed thus far. It provides an old media example to show that this is not a new phenomenon, it merely appears to be new. Newspapers also print letters to the editor; those letters were not written by them, but they are hosting and distributing that content, as well as profiting from it. The newspaper profits by hosting content, but that content was written by others, and not by them. And if the newspaper was to print an letter to the editor which incited the populace to violence, saying 'oh but we didn't write that, we only published it and profited from its publication' would not be an adequate defense.

So why did you quote me and exclude the portion that exactly addressed that?

So for a comments section, forum or social networking app, the only way for it to be completely controlled for "legal" jeopardy is to manually OK every single post. Is that realistic? How long would it take? How much money would it cost? Who would make the decisions? Would such a platform even be able to compete against some "rouge" platform that allowed real time and open usage?

If someone were to post a blatantly illegal comment on the New York Times website, would they be liable for that?

Obviously, classifieds and letters to the editor are old tech examples of content that would be individually manually edited. It does not address the modern internet.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It's not a tangent, and it doesn't differ from the examples discussed thus far. It provides an old media example to show that this is not a new phenomenon, it merely appears to be new. Newspapers also print letters to the editor; those letters were not written by them, but they are hosting and distributing that content, as well as profiting from it. The newspaper profits by hosting content, but that content was written by others, and not by them. And if the newspaper was to print an letter to the editor which incited the populace to violence, saying 'oh but we didn't write that, we only published it and profited from its publication' would not be an adequate defense.

The newspaper had to read, select, and set the type for each letter, that doesn't happen online.

 

[timosman]

Does prove one thing to me, once again:

Freedom is not popular.

Being your own boss is an option for like 3% of the population. The rest needs to be a part of the machine.

 

[TheCount]

So why did you quote me and exclude the portion that exactly addressed that?

You asked what should be, and then you asked what is technically feasible. Since the second question is unanswerable, I decided to focus on the first.

The newspaper had to read, select, and set the type for each letter, that doesn't happen online.

So what?

 

[Swordsmyth]

So what?

So a website is not like a newspaper, the owner can't be expected to be strictly responsible for everything random users write in a comments section or on a communication platform like twitter.

 

[parocks]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

Kind of like how the telephone companies, Ma Bell, were allowed to cut you off from service if, when they were spying on your conversations, they heard something they didn't like?

 

[parocks]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

Kind of like how the telephone companies, Ma Bell, were allowed to cut you off from service if, when they were spying on your conversations, they heard something they didn't like? I don't remember that being ok.

 

[TheCount]

So a website is not like a newspaper, the owner can't be expected to be strictly responsible for everything random users write in a comments section or on a communication platform like twitter.

Why not?

 

[TheCount]

Kind of like how the telephone companies, Ma Bell, were allowed to cut you off from service if, when they were spying on your conversations, they heard something they didn't like? I don't remember that being ok.

Telephone companies were regulated as utilities delivering a public service and were not allowed to cut service.

Your ISP absolutely can cut off your service based upon what you do on it.

 

[specsaregood]

Why not?

For many years these big websites have argued for and lobbied to be considered safe harbor, just like the ISPs.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Safe_harbor_(law)
https://infogalactic.com/info/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

 

[TheCount]

For many years these big websites have argued for and lobbied to be considered safe harbor, just like the ISPs.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Safe_harbor_(law)
https://infogalactic.com/info/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#MegaUpload_arrest_and_extradition_proceedings

 

[Swordsmyth]

Why not?

Don't play stupid, the comments appear on their platforms without their control or specific consent.

 

[Swordsmyth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#MegaUpload_arrest_and_extradition_proceedings

One injustice doesn't justify others.

 

[Swordsmyth]

For many years these big websites have argued for and lobbied to be considered safe harbor, just like the ISPs.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Safe_harbor_(law)
https://infogalactic.com/info/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

They also advertised freedom of speech and are therefore required to provide it until they give public notice of a change in policy and stop advertising that way.

 

[specsaregood]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#MegaUpload_arrest_and_extradition_proceedings

Doesn't apply because megaupload actively encouraged using their systems for illegal behavior.

 

[TheCount]

Doesn't apply because megaupload actively encouraged using their systems for illegal behavior.

Doesn't matter because the result is the same.