Twitter

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
x said:
there is another issue. several social platforms have gained financially by a u.s. law that has given then considerable leeway in the growth of their businesses. however the grant of that leeway is provisional on them acting as if they are a utility. by banning or restricting certain topics or users, they are no longer behaving like a utility, but are editorialising like a publisher, and thereby ruling themselves ineligible for the leg-up they have been given. so far nobody has pulled them up on this legality. people don't get banned or censored for what they wrote in a letter or said in a telephone call. if a platform is a utility, there should be no restrictions from its operator.
Click to expand...

Tesla has received billions of dollars in subsidies from city, state and federal treasuries. Is Tesla a utility or private company?
 
Kalman said:
Tesla has received billions of dollars in subsidies from city, state and federal treasuries. Is Tesla a utility or private company?
Click to expand...

tesla isn't a social media platform and i assume it has followed all legal requirements relating to its subsidies. twitter hasn't, so i'm missing your point.
 
x said:
tesla isn't a social media platform and i assume it has followed all legal requirements relating to its subsidies. twitter hasn't, so i'm missing your point.
Click to expand...

Twitter and social media in general aren’t public utilities. There’s an ongoing debate as to whether they should be, but legally, they aren’t. Your original post was incorrect in that regard. Receiving subsidies doesn’t make Twitter a utility in the same way it doesn’t make Tesla one.
 
Kalman said:
Twitter and social media in general aren’t public utilities. There’s an ongoing debate as to whether they should be, but legally, they aren’t. Your original post was incorrect in that regard. Receiving subsidies doesn’t make Twitter a utility in the same way it doesn’t make Tesla one.
Click to expand...

i didn't actually mention susbsidies. i didn't say that subsidies were what the social media companies were receiving. there is a u.s. law - i forget its name and details - which prevents the social media companies from doing some of the things they do. i didn't say the social media companies actuallt are utilities, but the particular law requires them to behave more like utilities than they do. if i find the details of the particular law, i'll add a link here. my post wasn't incorrect; it just appears that you, like most, are unaware of the law.
 
x said:
i didn't actually mention susbsidies. i didn't say that subsidies were what the social media companies were receiving. there is a u.s. law - i forget its name and details - which prevents the social media companies from doing some of the things they do. i didn't say the social media companies actuallt are utilities, but the particular law requires them to behave more like utilities than they do. if i find the details of the particular law, i'll add a link here. my post wasn't incorrect; it just appears that you, like most, are unaware of the law.
Click to expand...

You must log in or register to see images
 
x said:
i didn't actually mention susbsidies. i didn't say that subsidies were what the social media companies were receiving. there is a u.s. law - i forget its name and details - which prevents the social media companies from doing some of the things they do. i didn't say the social media companies actuallt are utilities, but the particular law requires them to behave more like utilities than they do. if i find the details of the particular law, i'll add a link here. my post wasn't incorrect; it just appears that you, like most, are unaware of the law.
Click to expand...

i've found the details of the particular law. it is section 230 of the communications decency act of 1996, created in part to facilitate the growth of the internet without holding isps and websites responsible for what might be posted by individuals.

as you say, there is ongoing debate. this is a link to the law, i haven't looked for its wording anywhere more official and assume it is accurately worded on the website of a prestigious law school.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
 
x said:
i've found the details of the particular law. it is section 230 of the communications decency act of 1996, created in part to facilitate the growth of the internet without holding isps and websites responsible for what might be posted by individuals.

as you say, there is ongoing debate. this is a link to the law, i haven't looked for its wording anywhere more official and assume it is accurately worded on the website of a prestigious law school.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Click to expand...

Okay, but it doesn’t say what you’re arguing.


“(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or”

It explicitly says that ‘providers’ (in this case, social media platforms) reserve the right to restrict content on their platforms, even if the content is constitutionally protected speech.
 
Kalman said:
Okay, but it doesn’t say what you’re arguing.


“(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or”

It explicitly says that ‘providers’ (in this case, social media platforms) reserve the right to restrict content on their platforms, even if the content is constitutionally protected speech.
Click to expand...

that's true and i did read through it. however, it also says "in good faith" and double standards abound in social media sites and i don't believe that for a second. most of them have a very left-centric bias, although those on the left claim this isn't so, but the rats deserting twitter show it is.
 
You must log in or register to see images


‘Then he said “I’m buying Coca-Cola to put the cocaine back in”. He’s so cool and edgy!’
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back