BREAKING: Twitter Censors Trump By Completely Removing His Tweets For First Time - The Donald - America First

submitted by christnmusicreleases from thedonald.win

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]justcool393 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

side note related to the users in the thread:

why do people actually want Section 230 removed? like... that'd make every site owner liable for anyone some idiot says on there. if some guy threatens to shoot up a place or something on <your favorite website here that has a commenting feature>, the site owner shouldn't be liable for that stuff.

removing section 230 protections would basically require either

a) multitudes of whole websites to shut down completely, especially those in which controversial viewpoints are discussed, which is way more egregious censorship than Twitter trendbanning some people.

b) every piece of content to be humanly moderated and the operator would have to be absolutely perfect at it. as an example, I don't want saidit taken offline because someone posted or commented something libelous or someone issued a threat of violence or something.

I think Twitter can be eyerollworthy at the times I choose to visit but I don't want this to happen. because the day that Twitter is declared a "publisher" is the day that Trump and pretty much everyone that has any bit of controversy at all are kicked off.

[–]christnmusicreleases[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Hence why we need to nationalize Big Tech.

[–]justcool393 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I have a few points to respond to with this

  1. what qualifies as "Big Tech?" I assume most people would agree Facebook and Twitter are included, but reddit? Discord? saidit? some random person's forum? what about a wordpress blog? sites and services rise and die all the time, etc, so what about these?

  2. why should someone be compelled to host your speech? we are provided with a platform to speak our mind, but just like in real life, if someone's causing trouble and I have the right to tell people to leave, it's my right to tell them to do so. I'd be more convinced if a site like saidit, which has over 250,000 posts and 1,000,000 comments so far couldn't be hosted for $50/month. there are also plenty of free web hosts if you're into that, or you can host off your computer directly.

  3. content moderation can be pretty difficult to do at scale and it isn't a solved problem. you have people posting outright spam which, which is a cat and mouse game of itself (for example reddit has better spam filters than Facebook or Twitter, and reddit's spam filters are notoriously fickle and annoying to deal with at times. but you also have outside agents from whereever. even just enforcing the bare minimum of rules is downright impossible in many instances. how could something like this be enforced fairly, especially when it comes to political speech?

[–]christnmusicreleases[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Question 1:

  1. Google 2. Apple 3. Microsoft 4. Facebook 5. Twitter 6. Paypal 7. Instagram 8. YouTube 9. Vimeo 10. Linkedin

And maybe some of the major image hosting companies like Flickr and Imgur. Also you have to consider CDNs and large hosting platforms. I think this could be quantified very easily by an industry study.

Question 2:

Nobody is compelled to host anything, but if they operate as a platform, they must not censor your speech. If they want to be a publisher, they must be liable for the content. If it's a platform then the person posting it is legally liable for it. There is no middle ground here.

Question 3:

So that is why you make them public utilities. Spam is easily downvoted and detectable by algorithms. Political speech is very different.