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.
Precisely. A gov controlled Twitter is also not something I’m interested in. Just like the current flavor is not.
And we are back to expecting the consumer to be better educated and shopping elsewhere. Don’t buy crappy products or services over and over again expecting them to suddenly stop being crappy. Don’t expect Uncle Sam to save you from your mistakes.
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.
Precisely. A gov controlled Twitter is also not something I’m interested in. Just like the current flavor is not.
And we are back to expecting the consumer to be better educated and shopping elsewhere. Don’t buy crappy products or services over and over again expecting them to suddenly stop being crappy. Don’t expect Uncle Sam to save you from your mistakes.