06 Jan 22
@sh76 saidHas Twitter refused to ban posts which you alerted?
He admits it. Video captured him looking at it. Customers testified. What's the difference? Twitter has access to all posts on the platform. If they argue they had no time to moderate it, that's one thing. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about conscious decisions to take down posts with one viewpoint and not another.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@averagejoe1 saidYou're always so
I’ll bite. Not much happening at this road house on Route 66
How am i a worst offender?
less than average.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worst
06 Jan 22
I’m very much opposed to banning people and opinions.
The constant spreading of misinformation which can potentially have a serious impact on people’s health is a different matter altogether.
So, I would not have Average Joe, Dutchess or any of the right-wing racist nut jobs banned.
I would have Metal Brain banned from posting anything which even remotely touches on health issues.
The rest of his conspiracy claptrap is harmless, albeit it exceedingly irritating.
06 Jan 22
@mott-the-hoople saidNo it doesn’t. Freedom of speech is anout protecting the right of minorities from persecution should they oppose governments.
yes it does
@vivify saidSo is shouting “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, or “walk to the Capitol and fight like hell” when the election was not fraudulent. Incitement to stampede or riot is not covered by the right to freedom of speech.
No, it doesn't. That's why lying under oath is a crime. So is slander.
@moonbus saidIf I told you to dive in the toilet to be with your ideas and you did it, would that be incitement?
So is shouting “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, or “walk to the Capitol and fight like hell” when the election was not fraudulent. Incitement to stampede or riot is not covered by the right to freedom of speech.
You're comparing apples to bowling balls. Yelling 'Fire' in a theater when there is no fire is false speech likely to cause harm examples: a stampede, harm to the theaters business, loss of enjoyment for the patrons. It's in the realm of defamation, false speech likely to cause harm.
The great meandering of Jan 6th was not 'fight like hell' nor was there anyone commanding people to fight like hell.
Enjoy your swim in the sewer water.
06 Jan 22
@athousandyoung saidI don't think I've ever alerted any post in any forum.
Has Twitter refused to ban posts which you alerted?
My philosophy on Internet forums is that people can say pretty much any damn thing they like.
06 Jan 22
@vivify said===Either Twitter is legally required to remove defamatory content, or they aren't. If they have a choice, then it's no one else's business how they use that choice.===
This is the weakness in your argument. If he can be held liable for defamation (in this case, libel) then he is obligated to remove all possible instances of defamation; his bias is irrelevant, if that's the law.
But if he has the choice of leaving some instances of libel and removing others, then he is clearly not legally responsible for anything written on the board in ...[text shortened]... , or they aren't. If they have a choice, then it's no one else's business how they use that choice.
If you're just a platform, you have no responsibility. Verizon isn't liable for defamation spoken over its cellular networks.
If you're a publisher, you're liable for all content you publish.
I guess I haven't been clear enough with this distinction - it's second nature for me. Yes, that's the "law" but there's a good reason for it. If you think about it for a bit you'll see why it has to be that way.
@sh76 saidI guess it can get sticky here. To publish means to make public; Twitter just so happens to be a platform where people can publish content.
===Either Twitter is legally required to remove defamatory content, or they aren't. If they have a choice, then it's no one else's business how they use that choice.===
If you're just a platform, you have no responsibility. Verizon isn't liable for defamation spoken over its cellular networks.
If you're a publisher, you're liable for all content you publish.
I guess I h ...[text shortened]... there's a good reason for it. If you think about it for a bit you'll see why it has to be that way.
In this case, the people are the publishers, Twitter is just the platform.
06 Jan 22
@vivify saidExactly... as long as they stick to being a platform. Where they start micromanaging the content by viewpoint, they become more like a publisher. See the problem?
I guess it can get sticky here. To publish means to make public; Twitter just so happens to be a platform where people can publish content.
In this case, the people are the publishers, Twitter is just the platform.
06 Jan 22
@sh76 saidI don't see the problem. "Platform" is not a legal term, it's an abstract concept. Anything can be a "platform", including publishers. Everyone has the right to manage their own platforms.
Exactly... as long as they stick to being a platform. Where they start micromanaging the content by viewpoint, they become more like a publisher. See the problem?
06 Jan 22
@vivify saidYes, but publishers can be sued for defamation for content they publish. Platform managers can't be sued for defamation for content posted on their platforms.
I don't see the problem. "Platform" is not a legal term, it's an abstract concept. Anything can be a "platform", including publishers. Everyone has the right to manage their own platforms.
06 Jan 22
@sh76 saidYou just gave an example of a shop owner that can be sued for something written by a customer, even though that shop owner is not a publisher.
Yes, but publishers can be sued for defamation for content they publish. Platform managers can't be sued for defamation for content posted on their platforms.
06 Jan 22
@vivify saidI gave an example of where the owner's conduct would be reason to suspect that he is acting as a publisher rather than a platform as an analogy to a social media platform that moderates content based on viewpoint.
You just gave an example of a shop owner that can be sued for something written by a customer, even though that shop owner is not a publisher.