Message from @Atkins
Discord ID: 492326480156688394
There is another series of laws, original to protect like people selling newspapers for being responsible for what the newspapers say, but hold the newspaper publisher responsible for allowing it.
Best take on this
Even better then tims
I didn't know that @Grenade123 . It makes sense when you think about it. OK, thats fine, are you saying Twitter should be classed as a news paper vender?
<:GWfroggyFeelsUpMan:400751139563241473>
Who?
@Poppy Rider if they moderate, yes. If they want to stop moderating they can be classified as a platform (I believe that is the term used now to be equivalent to a library or somewhere hosting these works)
Publisher can get sued for the content in their publication, a platform cannot
At least that is my understanding of previous existing law before 230, where a website was sued for slander and it was argued that since they moderate "foul language" they should be a publisher.
Being prevented from moderating is going to have lots of unintended consequences.
Is spam protected by the first amendment?
What about dick pics?
If I crapflood a tweet with replies of meatspin.gif am I protected from intervention by Twitter?
Porn I think has a slightly different set of rules around it, so porn might still be able to be removed. And bans might still be allowed (it's like a library deciding not to have a book)
Wait now. Removing porn is moderating.
Spam would be be allowed, but it doesn't mean the user cannot have mute and block features
Except the president.
Removing illegal posts is not moderation by the platform, and it they don't claim the to be a porn site
What I'm trying to get at here is that there are lots and lots of ways that this can go wrong and we need to consider them.
Yes ^
If you want to see what 'no moderation except illegal stuff' looks like, go to /b/.
Right, and adding more laws won't be a problem
Would a site code of conduct be allowed?
Memba wen /b/ was good?
I don't think social media is helpful much at all.
So i don't really care if it dies.
But i think removing laws is better before adding new ones.
Let's not advocate for our own article 13
90% this
But yes, you might need to modify the old laws slightly to outline what level of stuff is considered editing/moderating and what isn't
But 230 should be removed
Because right now the government is the one protecting conservatives from really suing Twitter and Facebook and the like.
>Tim's annoyed that customers are giving companies customer feedback that their listening of a minority group outside their customer base is causing them to stop buying their products
Thankfully he is doing something about it. Exposing these people and their agenda, bringing attention to it.
About fucking time someone did something.
Dow Jones and S&P all time high
Investigating journalist.