Yeah, but TD would be liable for any harmful content, and hence the mods assiduously keep it clean. Not so easy for Twitter when they are all busy censoring only conservative ideas.
"Clean" as in actionable content where someone would sue you for damages - like doxxing, CP etc. The whole Section 230 was supposed to do exactly this amd hence the language "Delete content for the protection of the community ..." (or something like that) which the Big Tech reinterpreted as delete anything they deem as harmful to the community, and hence we are in this mess.
It's not about censorship. It's the platform vs. publisher question. If a site is a platform, it cannot curate the content. And it cannot be held liable for that content. If a site is a publisher, it can censor whatever content it chooses. But then it can be held liable for the content.
the site is a platform. All content is allowed. Site says "sorry, you gotta take that up with u/Barrbq. We ain't in this shit."
The site is a publisher. Content that goes against the site's TOS (AND falls outside of protected speech) is removed. The cease and desist shows up, the site says "we ain't tryna get up in the middle of this shit. Post deleted!"
This was a hastily written explanation, so I'm sure you can find a loose end, but this conveys the general idea. Hope it helps!
I think it is unclear where our data is hosted on purpose. If you cannot pinpoint the server then you cannot easily take it down. Thus it is in our good interest to work toward an anonymous presence.
Why not sign some sort of EULA? saying you are responsible for your own content.
It doesn't apply to forums like thus because TD is not a open platform. Its specifically meant for high energy Trump supporters.
Yeah, but TD would be liable for any harmful content, and hence the mods assiduously keep it clean. Not so easy for Twitter when they are all busy censoring only conservative ideas.
"Clean" as in actionable content where someone would sue you for damages - like doxxing, CP etc. The whole Section 230 was supposed to do exactly this amd hence the language "Delete content for the protection of the community ..." (or something like that) which the Big Tech reinterpreted as delete anything they deem as harmful to the community, and hence we are in this mess.
It's not about censorship. It's the platform vs. publisher question. If a site is a platform, it cannot curate the content. And it cannot be held liable for that content. If a site is a publisher, it can censor whatever content it chooses. But then it can be held liable for the content.
You are correct, although the way the current laws work, there must be a request for retraction before any legal action can be taken.
Example: u/Barrbq posts that u/GottaMakeAnotherOne (intentional difference) is a baby eating, Satan worshipper. u/GottaMakeAnotherOne's lawyaer sends a cease and desist.
Two scenarios:
the site is a platform. All content is allowed. Site says "sorry, you gotta take that up with u/Barrbq. We ain't in this shit."
The site is a publisher. Content that goes against the site's TOS (AND falls outside of protected speech) is removed. The cease and desist shows up, the site says "we ain't tryna get up in the middle of this shit. Post deleted!"
This was a hastily written explanation, so I'm sure you can find a loose end, but this conveys the general idea. Hope it helps!
I think it is unclear where our data is hosted on purpose. If you cannot pinpoint the server then you cannot easily take it down. Thus it is in our good interest to work toward an anonymous presence.