←back to thread

707 points patd | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
askl56 ◴[] No.23322796[source]
The problem inevitably has flared up: Twitter's head of integrity leading this push has previously tweeted that Trump is a Nazi and accused the flyover states of being racist.

https://twitter.com/Liz_Wheeler/status/1265463081997484032

This isn't going to end well, and unless Twitter is going to exercise this impartially (which is impossible given a human is involved), they are going to lose their platform status, and justifiably so.

replies(5): >>23322841 #>>23322842 #>>23322886 #>>23322911 #>>23322942 #
ChrisLTD ◴[] No.23322841[source]
What’s “platform status”?
replies(3): >>23322862 #>>23322890 #>>23322894 #
1. colejohnson66 ◴[] No.23322890[source]
I’m assuming Section 230?
replies(1): >>23323403 #
2. rtkwe ◴[] No.23323403[source]
People have read a lot into section 230 that they want to see there to imply there's some distinction between unmoderated (AKA 'platform status') and moderated platforms. In fact the only thing it really does is provide that 1) providers or users can't be held liable things users say and 2) if you voluntarily moderate your service you aren't incurring a civil liability.

Check the text yourself [0] there's nothing in there about having to either be a complete free zone or even to moderate neutrally to get protection from civil liabilities. Personally I wish they'd take a tougher stance but legally they don't have to and I /really/ don't think it's a good idea to legally require them to because the definition of what is and isn't moderation worthy will change on a dime. [1]

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

[1] Especially under the 'unitary executive' theory which is used a lot to try to undermine any congressional restrictions or accountability on the executive branch. That means the interpretation and enforcement can and will switch overnight every 4-8 years.