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.
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.
I'm neither a libertarian nor a social media user.