I just .. ugh - saying that twitter is a private company so they can actively interfere with an election is dangerous as hell. It's obvious that Twitter and companies of the like CAN sway information.
I'm tired of my liberal friends treating Twitter like a small mom and pop shop refusing service to a customer cuz its not like that at all. You've got one company ACTIVELY CONTROLLING INFORMATION WE CONSUME doing whatever they want versus a conservative bakery who won't make a "gay" cake because of religious beliefs.
Both are private businesses, and people who compare twitter to something like a small business have no empathy. I'm so frustrated, but they are my friends sadly, and I won't drop them because they don't get it.
How can I counter their "but muh private business" narrative, and what news/video links can I share with them proving them why Twitter can't be treated just like any other private business?
it all comes down to "Section 230" - if they want to be a publisher, they can censor all they want. But they have to be legally responsible for ALL content on their platform. If they want to be a public forum, they can't enforce their rules selectively.
This is the correct answer
Is there a CNN source that mentions this at all? I think if I were to show up w/ gateway pundit or fox, I would get dismissed immediately. This is a great point.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
Third paragraph : No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Notice it doesn’t say that the provider decides WHAT information. Just “information”
Read up on the Backpage rulings and Section 230 before you blindly follow this advice.
Right. They are free to do what they want as long as they don't violate the law. If they decide they are a publisher and let users publish libel and slander then they can be sued just like the rest of us. Just because they are big and powerful they don't get special rights that we don't.
Except that none of that is accurate and any marginally read liberal will be able to dismiss it. If you look at the Backpage rulings you will find that Section 230 is so vague that any judge can interpret either way depending on who is paying them the most money under the table. It was written by fools with zero understanding of any online context of publication. You guys are looking for an easy solution when it is not and telling him Section 230 you are setting him up.
i think most people realize it's a very complex issue - point in case - all of "them" can effectively ignore the law as is, and do whatever they want, which in all cases of "big tech" is to suppress conservative side's point of view. It's more of an ethical stance: should a "public forum" be objective in applying their "rules of conduct"... i believe so - how is this to be enforced is the real issue...is it possible to enforce this without destroying the idea of "public forum"...
btw - i'm not for "abolishing 230" - you can be sure that what would follow is tons of malicious lawsuits to destroy sites like this one. But - we can do better that what we have now, that's for sure
Can telephone companies prevent you from calling people based on the content of your calls?
At least he admits he supports companies with unamerican ideas.
This is the actual best avenue.
Bakery gay cake
This is what i was gonna say.
Political group is not a protected class like those with mental or physical sexual related birth defects.
Simple. Twitter is a platform. Not a publisher. That distinction is very important and most people don’t realize it. A publisher can decide what they want or don’t want on their website. A platform cannot because of its very nature of allowing people to write and say what they wish.
Platform or Publisher. Can’t be both.
Incorrect. See Backpage rulings
Twitter is a PUBLICLY traded company. It is not private. It has shareholders who own the company.
It is trading at about $52.03 as of 10/29/20 10:32AM central time.
Tell your friends they're fucking morons.
ask her is she minds her cell phone being cut-off if the company decides they don't like what she says?
But they are a private company....
The town hall is supposed to be a free speaking area. In the 2000's town halls were replaced with the internet. It needs to be a place for free speech since we cannot go to town halls.
Tell them to apply that standard to the manufacturing industry or power generation industry re: emissions and watch their head explode.
Honestly the best point against the private company argument
A private company cannot discriminate based on age, sex, or political affiliation.
Incorrect
Make sure they understand that the issue is not whether they are a private company or not. The issue is that they enjoy protections against legal ramifications that other companies who edit content such as newspapers do not have. If they actively edit the content they are a publisher and can be held responsible for what is published. Currently they claim to not be publishers and claim to not be actively editing content hiding behind their terms of service when they do (which is not enforced equally, this is the real core issue, rules selectively enforced) and thusly receive protections against litigation under section 230 which protects free speech online. Editing removes free speech. Hope this helps and does not just confuse you more.
Tell them stores can refuse service to Gays and Blacks too under those rules.
Oh, so you’re a libertarian now?
Then Twitter needs to be liable for damages like any other private company.
The baker who doesn't want to write pro-gay messages on a cake is also a private business.
Remind them that the same argument wasn’t allowed when everyone was bitching about net neutrality. Nor was the same argument allowed before the civil rights movement. The same people were also outraged and have sued multiple bakeries who refused to bake cake for gay marriage.
Also when a social media companies have become the primary way of talking and sharing, they have become essential at allowing variety of political opinions for healthy democracy to flourish.
Also when social media companies start censoring certain speech and trend other speech (anti-trump), they are no longer a platform and more of a publisher like a newspaper and therefore shouldn’t have immunity.
Read up history of section 230- it was specifically given to allow variety of political opinions to flourish.
Also let him know this. The original postal service back in Ben Franklin's day was throwing away mail from candidates and people they didn't like. This is no different except its digital instead of paper. Ben Franklin was the one who helped make it to where they couldn't do shit like that.
Tell him his phone company is a private company but they are not monitoring yours calls and cutting you off if you say something they dont agree with.
They are explicitly prevented to cut off service to people based on the contents by law. They are considered "common carriers."
If you are looking at SMS, they are not classified as a common carrier, they are classified as an "information service".
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-178A1.doc
If you think SMS should be a common carrier, then pressure should be placed on FCC chairman Ajit Pai. Or if you think "Information services" should be regulated differently, do the same.
Phone calls are considered "Common carrier"
You mean like a private company has the right to not bake a cake? A private company can do things like that? /s
And they will bitch and moan about corporations all day unless they’re censoring the right.
Then private bakeries can refuse to bake cakes for people.
Then it is covered from liability for what people post under section 230. They should not be prohibiting speech or curating posts, that would make them a publisher.
There are two counter arguments.
The first is that people and corporations are liable for things that they publish or say under libel or slander laws. They are also liable for publishing illegal material not protected under the first amendment such as child pornography. Of course, Twitter, Facebook, Google, and whatnot could not function if their services were liable if some random person makes a post/tweet/etc stating that "XYZ is a wife beater", if XYZ is in fact not a wife beater, as they could get sued for libel. In enters "Section 230" which permits Twitter/Facebook/Google/etc to act as a service provider rather than a publisher, which provides immunity from such lawsuits, as long as they only remove illegal content, content that violates their TOS, or other limited reasons. However, going beyond these reasons may mean that a company is no longer a service provider, but a publisher, and thus liable for all the content hosted on their website. Trump is arguing that by going above and beyond these limitations, they are no longer a service provider, but a publisher. The service providers (and leftists who currently benefit from this) argue that they should be able to censor lawful speech, or that censoring political speech which they find in violation of their TOS is valid, and thus still remain as a service provider.
The second (Which I personally prefer) is that if a company has a sufficiently large presence, they act as the de facto the modern public square. And thus because of such, the public should have the same protections against the companies actions as they enjoy against actions by the government. A similar stance was taken by the courts in Marsh v. Alabama against company towns. Where even though a company town is privately held, since they act in the same capacity as a government entity by managing the town, the residents of that town have the same protections.
First, as many have said, section 230 and the distinction between a publisher and a platform is the best argument you have.
Next, encourage your friend — Who clearly is historically illiterate — To do some research into a number of things, including, but not limited to: the railroads, US Steel, Standard Oil, telecom companies, and various lawsuits and laws from early 1900s regarding utilities. And then ask him if being a private company means they can do whatever they want
Nope. They have government protection in the form of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They are protected from libel suits. Take that away, and then your friend MIGHT have an argument.