By controlling content, they are admitting that they are responsible for all comments.
They can’t have it both ways.
1 Like
No, they’re not. That’s absurd. You think it’s a choice between Nazi moderation or a complete free for all? There is a place in between.
I agree, but twitter is nowhere near it.
Should Twitter have suspended the Babylon Bee’s account for posting a fact?
Memphis is bad!!
Agree with your second comment…SO mixed on the first one. I think Americans have become ruder and nastier because of social media. Ripping into people for whatever thing offends them, and it puts up “influencers” like the Kardishian girls
1 Like
They don’t get to selectively censor content & then claim they are not publishers. That’s overtly dishonest.
They might believe they are out to censor nazis, but soon they start lumping in non-nazi stuff that simply goes against their politics, such as stating that a cross-dressing man is a man (which is demonstrably, objectively factual).
As Naval said a few years ago, the big tech firms were very unwise to start censoring based on people’s complaints & trying to be arbiters of truth & tolerance. There’s too much gray area there and it quickly turns into a house of cards.
If they had been smart, they would have taken a hands off approach to controversial things & only intervened if something was clearly illegal. But since they got too big for their britches, now they’re in the crosshairs of politicos on both sides.
That was such a terrible decision showing the arrogance that these Silicon Valley leftists operate under. There’s a way to have social media without tech firms misrepresenting themselves & their politics.
According to the law, they do.
That’s what needs to be changed. It’s complete bullshit that they’re allowed to play both sides and you know it.
Twitter must be very prejudiced, against both the black Chuck Berry and white Johnny Rivers.
Which is why the law should be repealed.
They are no longer repositories, they in charge of the content, therefore publishers.
We’ve been through this, years ago. Nothing about enforcing a TOS, even enforcing it inconsistently or stupidly, turns a platform into a publisher. Saying “you can’t say ‘fuck’ on our platform” doesn’t make you a publisher of fuck or non-fuck. It just means you are saying you’re not going to allow fuck.
When the majority of the American public uses your platform to share political ideas, that is a different story.
But if you choose to only censor opinions that you don’t agree with, you control the content.
Watch the original discussions about the law. The intent clearly was to allow free speech in return for less liability.
That was the goal and purpose.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.