Cernovich on Twitter: "Twitters admin panel has a button to “blacklist trends.” So yeah twitter lied, they manually edit trends. The ones advocating violence are kept up. By their choice. They aren’t a platform. They are a publisher. Abolish Section 230."

submitted by christnmusicreleases from (twitter.com)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Abolishing section 230 is such a terrible idea I suspect that the people that want to don't actually understand it.

What section 230 does is indemnifies websites from liability for content posted by their users. This is exactly how things should be, because

1) It's unrealistic to expect a website owner to individually examine every piece of content posted. Basically every site you use would have to shut down user contributed content if they would now be subject to legal issues in the event someone posted something defamatory, or violating someone's copyright, or illegal material, etc.

2) Being liable for content like that would empower the 1% to bury unflattering information about them through legal bullying. Average people who can't afford legal representation like that would not have that same luxury.

You could try to make an argument for reform of 230, but even that is tenuous. You can't force Twitter to host content or users it disagrees with, for instance. That's an obvious 1st Amendment Violation. I have yet to see a proposal for section 230 reforms that would both stand up to the inevitable legal challenges, and solve the issue that you think exists.

I know it sucks getting banned from a popular service that turns out to be run by a bunch of cucks, but the solution there is to join a new service that is less susceptible to cancellation, rather than trying to get the government to force companies to host you. For instance, I have an account on the fediverse, a distributed network of clients with a feel similar to Twitter. There are a bunch of communities all with their own rules, but by default these communities can all still talk to each other. If you want a service where anything goes, there is http://freespeechextremist.com. If you're a lefty who only wants to socialize with other lefties, there's http://mastodon.social. You like cut emojis? There's http://blob.cat. Are you a feminist? There's http://spinster.xyz. Mathemetician? There are instances for that. Artist? There are communities for that. FOSS enthusiast? Same story.

And of course we're all using a reddit alternative. Look, alternatives to the big tech companies already exist. Just use those, or even build your own community if you want.

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

You can certainly require these publishers to keep their published content legal. If they can’t manage that then they are free to allow all content.

Abolishing section 230 is a glowjogger’s take.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that you think the government can make platforms like twitter keep their content up?

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

The Law can define a platform as allowing all views.

Then, a company is free to be a platform protected under 230 or it can choose to forfeit its protection by censoring and discriminating against people.

I for one look forward to seeing Jack Dorsey in a jail cell next to El Chapo’s next time the feds find him publishing drug trading deals, murders, scams or other crimes on his web site.

Of course that would require dealing with the dozens of prevaricating judges that are conspiring with these companies to break the Law as it is today first.