This thread is permanently archived
As Trump Targets Twitter's Legal Sheild, Experts Have A Warning
| TL;DR
Section 230 protects websites from legal prosecution for the content the host. Experts say repealing it would lead to far stricter moderation from these websites and would fundamentally change how the internet operated.
| Well, twitter was censoring stuff on their site, also censored him, and even mark zuck was dissing twitter for their conduct so I guess this could be a positive change if things go as planned
| >>664284
Twitter never censored Trump, they marked the tweet that prompted his response as glorifying violence, but never removed it. Even if they did, it couldn't be classified as censorship, since that is an action exclusive to the government.
Twitter officials removing or marking tweets that violate TOS is their right as owners of the company. It can be compared restaurant throwing out a belligerent client.
| Also, I'm not sure that Trump has a plan personally.
| >>664284
Private companies don't "censor". Politicians trying to harm companies they don't like so they cater to them, that's censoring.
What's with wingnuts and their "censorship" complaining while all their ideology is just "I don't like x, pls stop doing x, even though I can't define x".
| >>664303
>Private companies don't "censor".
Of course they do. E.g. because they are forced by law or because they fear consequences from the government.
| >>664524 they don't censor, they "hide" the information beheind 20 clicks and call whatever bullshit they put on quick access for everyone as "factual opinions"
| >>664524
If you're going to make that argument, it's censorship to throw a client that's threatening people out of a restaurant.
| >>664540 I only you knew the amount of stuff that they hide that isnt fake, just not on their agenda, a lot of companies do that, they want to create bubbles of info for for people, so they can click more and stay on their plataform, they make so you just see what you want to see, and hide the stuff you don't want, if you like trump, they will bomb you with pro trump stuff, if you hate trump, they will make so you only see bad stuff around him
| These bubbles generare good profit but, at the cost of more segregation and more fake news being spread, they hide the fake news from those who dont want to see and then they show fake news to those who will belive it, they are not keep that stuff away from their plataform, they are just manipulating it so they can feed it to idiots and hide it from wanna be smarts so they don't complain
| If these companies were actually removing fake news, there wouldn't be a mass of misinformed people ruining stuff for everyone
| >>664539
Even if mental property lobby was very successful in making appear virtual reality like actual reality it isn't. A restaurant is a real place, where people can really be a threat to people. The Internet and every platform on it is nothing but a virtual room. It only got an impact on real live because enough people believe the most absurd bullshit posted by those who know to attract peoples lowest instincts, like trump, marketing idiots and political extremists in general.
| nowadays our societies are increasingly divided. everyone argues against each other constantly and the result is a human gridlock and an opinionated dead-end as we can see with the eternal political right-left march for example. the way forwards is through unity. this must be the prime concern of the state so as to enforce the adequate plans and projects necessary to the betterment of the nation. the liberalized anarchy of the thought-exchange only brings about chaos and dissent.
| And thats why social midia should not make ideological bubbles on their sites, its doctrinates people to the point of treating their ideology as if it were a relegion and when you see, everyone is part of a radicalized militia and is rioting for the sake of social "justice"
| >>2c8609
It seems your problem isn't with censorship, it's with the profit motive behind how Twitter(and every other company under capitalism operates). Fair enough. I just hope you know you're making a socialist argument.
And as for all the fake news in circulation, Twitter and other social media sites mainly reserve regulation for high profile situations and there's plenty of other places to get unreliable news(Infowars, Breitbart, etc.)
| I'm sure there's at least a few examples, but I've seen no evidence of Twitter "censoring" accurate news, regardless of the agenda behind it.
| Not to a significant degree I mean
| >>664662 do you really think a person lazy and dumb enough to belive fake news goes out of their way to find news on unreliable sources, nah they see that stuff on normal social midia, the like and share, bam, the algorithm just starts dumping that stuff on them
| >>99c7d0
I'm not sure what your point is. It seems like you agree with me but your tone seems antagonistic. You acknowledge that inflammatory statements online can affect real life. The pizza gate incident is a notorious example. I just think statements that could lead to dangerous situations in real life should be reasonably moderated.
| >>664663 they dont censor, they hide the info when they see that people either dont want to see or when it doesnt meet their agenda, by hiding I mean, thei block recomendations and make sure that you will have to research it yourself if you want to see it om their plataform, since most people are lazy they wont search and will only take what the site recomends and share
| >>664665
Dude, I'm not sure you realize how popular those sites are. I could find the numbers for you, but they have audiences of millions easily.
| >>664667
Yeah, I'm aware. That's how Twitter operates because it's most profitable for them. If you have a problem with the profit motive, then this is a conversation about how capitalistism mediates public discourse. Which is a conversation we can have if you want.
| >>664668 they have that auddience cuz social midia recomends them to the people they know that will belive, and recomend the true news to to the people that wont belive, thats how those plataforms profit
| >>664670
Again, I'm familiar with the concept of manufactured consent in the internet age. I just think fake news should be moderated more. It seems like we're trying to have 2 different conversations here.
| >>a9b8c7
I'm not anti unity or anything, but some people have irreconcilable beliefs. Like, some people believe that Jews are parasites killing society. I can't ally myself with someone like that(like most people) and I'm okay with arguments when they're against people like that.
| Why there is no "legal sheild" for wikileaks?
If US-American politicians talk about freedom, they only mean freedom which is exclusive to their own political/economical elites.
This thread is permanently archived
| As Trump Targets Twitter's Legal Shield, Experts Have A Warning https://www.npr.org/2020/05/30/865813960/as-trump-targets-twitters-legal-shield-experts-have-a-warning?sc=18&f=865813960