What big tech is doing is absolutely disgusting, but it is also "allowed" according to the terms of service that every user on the site agreed to.
Every Twitter user agreed to be potentially censored. Let this sink in.
This is why Twitter keeps getting away from it. Even the GEOTUS agreed to it when he created his Twitter account. It is all spelled out very clearly in the EULA.
Again, it is unfair, ugly, and devious. But the data on the service belongs to Twitter as soon as the user submits it, and the user has no say as to what happens to that data after that.
You can make contracts however you want. If they violate existing laws, you can still pursue legal action.
I could say in a rental contract I'm allowed to burn anything you put in the apartment whenever I want, and it does not let me destroy important property.
They cannot modify the information on there without assuming responsibility for everything everyone posts there and liability for it.
You can make contracts however you want. If they violate existing laws, you can still pursue legal action.
Ok, sue Twitter, I am fine with that. But why is this not already happening? Could it have anything to do with the fact that every Twitter user already agreed to allow Twitter to have complete executive control over all user submitted data?
I could say in a rental contract I'm allowed to burn anything you put in the apartment whenever I want, and it does not let me destroy important property.
I appreciate the analogy but don't find it particularly useful here. A more useful analogy would be to lease a music studio where the landlord claimed to own all the rights to any music you created while on their property. When you later try to launch your first album, the landlord points out that you can't because the music technically belongs to them now.
In fact this is how it works in universities. Invent the cure for cancer at med school? The university owns it because you created the work under their tutelage and with their equipment. Paint the next Mona Lisa in the studio at art school? Technically belongs to the school now.
It is all super "unfair" but the real problem is that everyone agrees to it, because they didn't do due diligence. If everyone balked, instead of going along blindly, we'd have an actual chance at making changes. Expecting gov to swoop in after the fact to magically fix the arrangement is not a real solution.
They cannot modify the information on there without assuming responsibility for everything everyone posts there and liability for it.
You didn't read the EULA. It explicitly states that Twitter can and will do exactly that, for any reason, at any time, in perpetuity, without compensation or notice, bla bla bla. And if you are a Twitter user, you agreed to those terms.
Edit: I may have misunderstood what you were saying in that last part. I do agree that they should be held liable. We can have both that, and walk away from abuse services.
NAL, but in my reading, s230 is about liability for content and I 100% agree with what I understand to be its intent and purpose.
And while I loathe Twatter/etal's bias as much as the next guy, it seems to me that is possible for Twatter's EULA and its 230 protections to exist at the same time.
Because in a practical sense, I can step outside of the box and empathize with Twatter's reasoning here. Given the gargantuan quantity of content that runs through its service every single hour, from a practical sense, I understand their need to heavily rely on automation and/or "crowd-sourced" flagging to arrive at -- what may be considered to be -- a "reasonable and timely" first pass.
And, at least in my mind, it seems there's very little the government can or, if I put my conservative libertarian hat on for a moment, even SHOULD be doing here. Because unless the gov't is willing to devise a better algorithm, etc, what's the solution? To say, "Well, Twatter, anything originating from the gov't or from parties named on this source list should get a 'free pass' at a censorship check."
Well that's not cool either!
Case and point is, as much as I disagree with its apparent bias AGAINST conservative content, there's no quick and easy answer here.
Even "Break them up!" Okay, how? Into what? How would that improve consumer safety/privacy? Again, it's not a simple on/off switch.
EDIT: And the entrepreneur side of me absolutely despises the notion that the gov't can legislate away private property. "You worked your ass off for decades to become number 1/2/3 in your industry, assuming 100% of the risk, etc. Well, we the gov't, from our cushy tax payer funded tower, are going to swoop in and take a sizable portion of that away from you and there's not one damn thing you can do about it."
I know the world is not as clean as that example portends it to be, but still, on principle I take big issue with this sort of "big gov't" approach.
Did Twatter benefit from provisions like S230? Sure! Might it be abusing them? It's possible!
But in some ways, good for Twatter! Kind of like Trump's take on foreign relations ("I'm not mad at China for screwing the US over, that's what they should be trying to do in its negotiations. I'm mad at our stupid gov't for signing off on the stuff because they had no idea what they were doing!") In the same way, Twatter/etal negotiated a sweet deal, our moronic gov't gave it to them, and now the feds realize they have absolutely no way to enforce anything here. Who's the "real" enemy then? The guy who asked (Twatter) or the guy who agreed (gov't).
Again, my point is that this is not a simple black and white situation.
Perhaps if that service didnt have so many people ...
Chicken and egg. How did the service get so many users in the first place?
and didnt destroy alternatives.
Alternatives exist, but are consumers smart enough to go to them?
Look at voat and bitchute. Liberals made it so that banks refuse to service them. You have to make your own bank.
Those are hurdles indeed, and may be discriminatory and or illegal.
Again since many are missing it, I am not against gov regulations and laws. Bust up the current crop of big tech overlords, that's fine with me. But what happens when the lemmings follow the crowd off the same cliff in 18 months?
We start to realize where the real problem is: the users. They need to become a lot more savvy and stop giving all these shady tech companies their blind allegiance.
Ok, but fuck this guy because he’s using this to score cheap political points and will do jack shit even if the Republicans regain the House.
This is political posturing at its finest, doesn’t matter whether it’s Democrat or Republican, I absolutely guarantee he won’t do shit other than talk shit
I'm not sure they have monopoly power, at least not in the old fashioned sense.
Seems to me the issue here is that globalist billionaires have been funding these platforms, despite the fact that all of them except FB lose money, to promote their globalist propaganda. What is that? It's a new, weird thing. They're more like a new kind of political action committee.
This is an example of are problem. We keep electing people to serve in government who don't know what type of government they will be serving in. The first question any aspiring politician should be asked is if we have a democracy or republic. If they answer wrong, beat them with a rubber hose.
Peaceful Protests are needed at their HQ
This actually. We need to start making lists, and checking them twice.
I sincerely hope that a large number of santa pedes have checked their lists and set priories in minecraft.
Christmas is coming.
"Mostly" peaceful protests :0
Ours won't be mostly. They'll either be peaceful, or "peaceful." We don't half ass our protests.
a few MOABs over half a dozen data centers would do it.
Won't do much, but could produce some interesting unintended consequences.
Legit peaceful protests and not media "peaceful" protests.
Twitter is monopoly, Facebook is a publisher refusing to allow conservatives, Christians and others.
Just stop using the abusive services, problem solved.
Some of you sound like a battered wife who refuses to leave. Thinking someday, somehow, it will all be better. We just need some magical solution.
The solution is to leave and never go back. Make sure your next relationship is with someone who deserves your time.
Facebook and Twitter do not deserve your patronage. They collapse when everyone leaves, so just leave already.
Honestly, a company publicly banning the government like this needs labelled a publisher or an immediate visit from the military.
What big tech is doing is absolutely disgusting, but it is also "allowed" according to the terms of service that every user on the site agreed to.
Every Twitter user agreed to be potentially censored. Let this sink in.
This is why Twitter keeps getting away from it. Even the GEOTUS agreed to it when he created his Twitter account. It is all spelled out very clearly in the EULA.
Again, it is unfair, ugly, and devious. But the data on the service belongs to Twitter as soon as the user submits it, and the user has no say as to what happens to that data after that.
You can make contracts however you want. If they violate existing laws, you can still pursue legal action.
I could say in a rental contract I'm allowed to burn anything you put in the apartment whenever I want, and it does not let me destroy important property.
They cannot modify the information on there without assuming responsibility for everything everyone posts there and liability for it.
Ok, sue Twitter, I am fine with that. But why is this not already happening? Could it have anything to do with the fact that every Twitter user already agreed to allow Twitter to have complete executive control over all user submitted data?
I appreciate the analogy but don't find it particularly useful here. A more useful analogy would be to lease a music studio where the landlord claimed to own all the rights to any music you created while on their property. When you later try to launch your first album, the landlord points out that you can't because the music technically belongs to them now.
In fact this is how it works in universities. Invent the cure for cancer at med school? The university owns it because you created the work under their tutelage and with their equipment. Paint the next Mona Lisa in the studio at art school? Technically belongs to the school now.
It is all super "unfair" but the real problem is that everyone agrees to it, because they didn't do due diligence. If everyone balked, instead of going along blindly, we'd have an actual chance at making changes. Expecting gov to swoop in after the fact to magically fix the arrangement is not a real solution.
You didn't read the EULA. It explicitly states that Twitter can and will do exactly that, for any reason, at any time, in perpetuity, without compensation or notice, bla bla bla. And if you are a Twitter user, you agreed to those terms.
Edit: I may have misunderstood what you were saying in that last part. I do agree that they should be held liable. We can have both that, and walk away from abuse services.
The law says this designates them publishers, regardless if they say otherwise in a contract they wrote.
I do not know about laws assigning ownership of creative work produced under another institution's funding.
Anyone defamed can sue Twitter for their edits. I'm not sure who would go after them.
Yes, their own EULA defines them as such. They do pretend otherwise for PR reasons though, hence the confusion.
u/Jaqen good insights here.
NAL, but in my reading, s230 is about liability for content and I 100% agree with what I understand to be its intent and purpose.
And while I loathe Twatter/etal's bias as much as the next guy, it seems to me that is possible for Twatter's EULA and its 230 protections to exist at the same time.
Because in a practical sense, I can step outside of the box and empathize with Twatter's reasoning here. Given the gargantuan quantity of content that runs through its service every single hour, from a practical sense, I understand their need to heavily rely on automation and/or "crowd-sourced" flagging to arrive at -- what may be considered to be -- a "reasonable and timely" first pass.
And, at least in my mind, it seems there's very little the government can or, if I put my conservative libertarian hat on for a moment, even SHOULD be doing here. Because unless the gov't is willing to devise a better algorithm, etc, what's the solution? To say, "Well, Twatter, anything originating from the gov't or from parties named on this source list should get a 'free pass' at a censorship check."
Well that's not cool either!
Case and point is, as much as I disagree with its apparent bias AGAINST conservative content, there's no quick and easy answer here.
Even "Break them up!" Okay, how? Into what? How would that improve consumer safety/privacy? Again, it's not a simple on/off switch.
EDIT: And the entrepreneur side of me absolutely despises the notion that the gov't can legislate away private property. "You worked your ass off for decades to become number 1/2/3 in your industry, assuming 100% of the risk, etc. Well, we the gov't, from our cushy tax payer funded tower, are going to swoop in and take a sizable portion of that away from you and there's not one damn thing you can do about it."
I know the world is not as clean as that example portends it to be, but still, on principle I take big issue with this sort of "big gov't" approach.
Did Twatter benefit from provisions like S230? Sure! Might it be abusing them? It's possible!
But in some ways, good for Twatter! Kind of like Trump's take on foreign relations ("I'm not mad at China for screwing the US over, that's what they should be trying to do in its negotiations. I'm mad at our stupid gov't for signing off on the stuff because they had no idea what they were doing!") In the same way, Twatter/etal negotiated a sweet deal, our moronic gov't gave it to them, and now the feds realize they have absolutely no way to enforce anything here. Who's the "real" enemy then? The guy who asked (Twatter) or the guy who agreed (gov't).
Again, my point is that this is not a simple black and white situation.
I'm neither a libertarian nor a social media user.
You clearly get it.
What the naysayers will not admit is that they are addicted to social media. It is like a drug for them.
They demand the government step in, and "fix" the drug, so it no longer hurts them.
It is the logic of an addict, plain and simple. Normal people just walk away from the drug and do not let it have power over them.
Chicken and egg. How did the service get so many users in the first place?
Alternatives exist, but are consumers smart enough to go to them?
Those are hurdles indeed, and may be discriminatory and or illegal.
Again since many are missing it, I am not against gov regulations and laws. Bust up the current crop of big tech overlords, that's fine with me. But what happens when the lemmings follow the crowd off the same cliff in 18 months?
We start to realize where the real problem is: the users. They need to become a lot more savvy and stop giving all these shady tech companies their blind allegiance.
I stopped using Twitter and Facebook a long time ago.
If you have facebook, Google, Twitter stocks you better be dumping them yesterday
Destroy Big Tech? Sounds good. Somebody gather up the pitchforks and torches.
Ok, but fuck this guy because he’s using this to score cheap political points and will do jack shit even if the Republicans regain the House.
This is political posturing at its finest, doesn’t matter whether it’s Democrat or Republican, I absolutely guarantee he won’t do shit other than talk shit
wise words from a great MISSOURI senator! Show me! MAGA
Ooh, shit, someone just realized where power is supposed to reside in this country. A few more, and we can fix this.
I'm not sure they have monopoly power, at least not in the old fashioned sense.
Seems to me the issue here is that globalist billionaires have been funding these platforms, despite the fact that all of them except FB lose money, to promote their globalist propaganda. What is that? It's a new, weird thing. They're more like a new kind of political action committee.
This I approve...they can that way but not with government protection...
Sounds over the top, but it's time to drag them out to the gallows.
This is an example of are problem. We keep electing people to serve in government who don't know what type of government they will be serving in. The first question any aspiring politician should be asked is if we have a democracy or republic. If they answer wrong, beat them with a rubber hose.
Huh Sen. Hawley, we're a constitutional republic, not a democracy.