←back to thread

707 points patd | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
djohnston ◴[] No.23322847[source]
The head of integrity has unabashedly showcased his strong political bias on Twitter, and I suspect things will begin going poorly for either him or Twitter shortly.
replies(6): >>23322949 #>>23322950 #>>23322971 #>>23323003 #>>23323336 #>>23323566 #
nojito ◴[] No.23322950[source]
twitter is a private organization. Regulating the speech of private organizations is a dangerous slope to be on.
replies(4): >>23322989 #>>23323043 #>>23323182 #>>23323344 #
alharith ◴[] No.23323043[source]
Private organization that enjoys the legal protections of a platform. Reclassify them as a publisher. Can't have it both ways.
replies(3): >>23323101 #>>23323141 #>>23323238 #
bardworx ◴[] No.23323101[source]
Maybe an ignorant question but how would classifying Twitter as a publisher solve the issue?

I’m guessing you mean that they should be held accountable for what people post there? Or is there a different angle I’m not seeing?

replies(1): >>23323362 #
alharith ◴[] No.23323362{3}[source]
This article does a good job of explaining the issue (if you can stomach viewing an article on a conservative site, I know many here can't, but the information is good) https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-medi...

Here's also some history on the law https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history

Also preempting the brigade downvoting anything that has the word 'conservative' in it by pointing out that Joe Biden is actually for this idea as well (middle of article when he starts talking about the Facebook hearings and CDA 230):

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...

replies(2): >>23324392 #>>23324842 #
1. bardworx ◴[] No.23324392{4}[source]
Thanks for the links and diversity of sources.