Is there a constitutional and legally permissable way to work towards the shutdown of Twitter?

submitted by Alienhunter from self.politics

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alienhunter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That may work but I fear it might only lead to more heavy handed censorship. Although perhaps the litigation and destruction of the normal internet platforms business models would lead to positive outcomes for society at large.

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't understand. How would it lead to more heavy handed censorship? And how would cause the destruction of the normal internet platforms business models? All repealing Section 230 would do would be to eliminate censorship on large platforms.

[–]Alienhunter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

From my understanding what section 230 does is twofold.

One, it protects websites from being liable for what 3rd parties post on them. Provided they take some effort to remove illegal material when it is posted.

Two, it gives immunities to websites from civil penalties for material removed in good faith regardless of whether or not the material actually is illegal or not.

While removing the second part might help somewhat to deal with the YouTube type demonization instances, since websites are basically able to remove or promote whatever they want anyway it's not particularly relevant to the average user in my opinion.

If the first part is removed that would open up websites to be prosecuted for what people post there. Meaning that if someone posts a large amount of copywrited material, illegal pornography, threats or other such material the website could be sued or prosecuted for publishing the material. Naturally no one will want to open themselves up to such liability so it will mean websites with user submitted content will essentially be forced to pre-approve any and all submissions before they are published which would fundamentally break the way most social media companies operate. Perhaps in the long run, that would be a good thing. But it would hurt their profitability immensely and would greatly increase censorial tendencies imho. The consequences of repeal are not so simple.

[–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You don't understand Section 230. I tried to find an article on the internet that explains it, but couldn't find anything good, just garbage. So I guess I will explain it.

Before Section 230, companies had to choose between being publishers or platforms. An example of a publisher is a magazine. They control their content but they are liable for their content. An example of a platform is a phone company. They enable communication but don't control their content, so they aren't liable for what is said on their phone system. Before Section 230, social media companies had to choose between being a publisher or being a platform. So in order to avoid liability for content, they were not allowed to censor that content. This made them a platform like a phone company.

Section 230 is pure evil (which is why all modern scum defend it). Without Section 230, Twitter would be forced to choose between the above options. If they wanted to practice censorship, they would have to become small and check all content before it is published. This would make them just another small Leftist site. To be big and uncurated, they would have to give up censorship.

[–]Alienhunter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That's a fair explanation. But that's not my understanding from reading it. I'd definitely appreciate an article source or even a legal dissertation on it.

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I haven't seen you before on SaidIt, so you may not know my views. I consider modern culture to be pure evil and I favor the complete extermination of all modern scum (members of modern culture). So of course I don't expect to find any sensible commentary on any subject that is only of interest to modern scum, like Section 230. All modern scum like Section 230 because all modern scum love everything that is bad or evil. I looked briefly for a legal explanation and found this and this, both pro- Section 230, of course, but at least gives some legal explanation.

Anyway, this topic is pointless. Just reject evil modern culture and become a decent person.

[–]Alienhunter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So of course I don't expect to find any sensible commentary on any subject that is only of interest to modern scum, like Section 230.

So you would say your commentary on Section 230 is not sensible then because it is not of interest to you?

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, it was of interest to me when it was passed in the 1990s, so my understanding comes from that time. That was before modern culture had become pure scum, so political issues still interested me.

[–]Alienhunter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I see interesting. So you do not consider engagement in online discussion forums to be participating in modern society then?

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, it is participating in modern society as a non-member. I do it to try to find other people who share my views. There are a few people here who reject modern culture. Since I am banned everywhere except SaidIt, SaidIt seems like a reasonable place to look. But SaidIt isn't ideal since it doesn't have true free speech, so I am developing my own absolute free speech platform FreedIt.