I think Twitter has passed from being a private business, to becoming almost a generic MSM source.

Are MSM sources not private businesses? I'm pretty sure Fox is a private business after all.

That's the heart of the debate: if they selectively enforce censorship of political opinions, can the social media companies still be considered (neutral) platforms, or have they effectively become publishers? If the answer is yes, they have ceased being a platform and become publishers, then they should be stripped of the legal privileges and protections that come with the platform-status. This is exactly what the Trump administration is arguing for and working on at the moment.

I made a thread detailing why the distinction is irrelevant. Even if they are publishers they cannot be held responsible for something other people write and they cannot be held responsible for their moderating practices.

Think of this. A news website is 100% a publisher. That does not mean they lose protections as a host for their comment section.

If the moderating standards are politically slanted, they imho can.




That's quite literally the argument that governments around the Western world are currently using to shut down right-leaning comment sections or enforce crippling censorship on them: "you are still responsible for ensuring that the content of your comment sections doesn't cross the line, and we alone are the ones to draw this line". But ok, this issue is maybe not as big in the U.S. as in Europe...



Still, there's quite the disconnect in your line of reasoning here. You basically argue that Google should not be held responsible for its moderating or censorship practices which are going beyond what's legally required. You also argue that news websites should not be held responsible for their comment sections. But at the same time, you support google threatening to defund thefederalist.com over its comment section.

At the end of the day, your position seems to be that Google itself cannot or should not be held responsible for anything, but that Google in turn should have the power to hold others responsible. You dont want the government to do anything to rein Google in, but support Google bullying smaller websites into adhering to Google's morals and code of conduct by exploiting its monopoly in the online advertisement market.

Jackie lambie, aussie independent who has been actually making some sense.



I have never had a twitter account, did i miss anything?

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Jun 24 2020 12:59am

Im saying specifically from the perspective of section 230, the law as currently written. There is no distinction between publisher and platform, and no power to hold them accountable for moderation.

There is no disconnect. Google is a private entity severing ties with another private entity. If you want to get the courts involved that's the government holding them accountable for the comment section, which is not allowed. A private entity is not held to the same standards as a government. They can sever or create ties based on whatever reason they want, even if I disagree with them.


And again, you can keep saying it's a monopoly but that won't make it true. For any platform I can think of at least a few competitors, and google a dozen more. These companies spend billions of dollars to stay on top, and they are not going to stay there forever.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 24 2020 10:07am