Yes. I am opining on how 230 should work, not how it does. It's unfortunate.

Twitter is not bound by the 1st amendment to allow free speech. At the same time, they are allowed to editorialize content as much as they want because they aren't content creators and claim they have no control over what their users say. This allows them to escape a host of other rules that traditional media must obey.

If it's something that's important to me, I like to take this crazy approach of collating information from multiple sources and weighing it based on various factors. The source of the information is one, but by no means dispositive factor.

Twitter doesn't have to allow speech they don't like.

Neither does google

Neither does your ISP.

No one has a right to the internet. If you want to post online, post stuff that corporations agree with-- because they control the internet.

Go build your own internet if you want freedom.

Sincerely,
People Ostensibly Fighting The System.

Most corporations are essentially small mom and pop shops. I know they are not as sexy as a faceless villain for conspiracyderps, but reality can be kind of boring at times.

All the best.

The US was founded on slavery, and it has a history of using both concentration camps (both in its former colonies and against indigenous people), internment camps (based on ethnicity and nationality) and other means of suppression (segregation / Jim Crow laws, voter suppression). When it comes to censorship, the US has a long tradition of doing just that based on moral and political grounds. In recent years laws such as the patriot act, CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques", the PRISM surveillance program and operating jails on foreign soil to avoid due process have all seen the light of day.

None of these things are an argument to not cherish freedom of speech, but the answer to that is certainly not found in ignoring your own history and believing that American exceptionalism will save the day; American exceptionalism has been used to justify all of the above things.

And yet, youtube is full of conspiracy nuts. Hmm... misdirection, perhaps?

Yes, removing content is clearly editing. In this case, it's editing per the sites rules, which is fine, but it's definitely editing.

This is where things get tough. Sites need to edit, so that hate speech & other no-no's don't circulate unchecked. However, there needs to be a line somewhere, otherwise, the site is a content creator. They become much like a DJ that samples tons of existing music to create their own sound. The selections that they make become their voice, even if they weren't the original source.

Right now, Twitter and FB are definitely promoting a certain sound, and that sound may or may not be consensus of the community. That's not today's discussion. What their new CEO is saying is that their voice/sound isn't strong enough and they could/should be doing more.

I think if they start doing more, at some point they will cross that line and should be held accountable as a publisher. Actually, in several instances, I think they have crossed that line, but again, that's not today's concern.

Some type of psyop is likely at play.

And yet you trust gov't to take that role and to start mandating what has to be published.

I much prefer private companies having their own say so at least we get some diversity across SM, Talk Radio, MSM, Blogs and Journals, etc.

Strange that?

You are so easily duped into defaulting to a 'Gov't good. More and bigger gov't desired' position by such obvious manipulation that you want gov't to set one uniform standard for all. To get them all in the same line.

And you are oblivious to why that would be problematic.

As a moderator here, I would tend to agree with the point on editing. When I remove a post, I am changing the discourse as visible to future readers. That's both censorship and editing.

Though there is a scale here. This isn't really the same as purposefully deleting posts to convey a specific message, rather the new narrative is a bi-product. I might be editing a discussion, but I'm not editorializing it. I don't know if it would be practically possible to design a litmus test that could differentiate the two.

No it is NOT. Lets just stop here and try and help you get this right.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Even the MSM media companies have had robust comment and chat sections subject to 230 where they would remove posts that broke the TOS but it was never considered Editing.

You are conflating what 230 targets, which is a position put forth by a Journalist that is FIRST vetted by an Editor and PRESENTED to an audience as verified with what happens here on 2+2 and FB which is 'CHAT'.

CHAT between users here on 2+2 and chat between users on FB or Twitter does not have any of the veneer of Editing or the implied representations of the act and thus are rightly treated differently.

It is impossible for 2+2 or FB or Twitter to assume the legal Editing role which requires review and editing before publishing. A MSM media journalism site can and does do that. The publications are submitted and edited and verified and published. that is completely different and rightfully so.

For 2+2 or FB or Twitter to do that they would need an estimated 3 editors or Moderators for every 3 posters to avoid crippling backlogs. If the Mod's had to review, edit and approve each post first it would not work. Not here, not on FB and not on the MSM comments sections or chat.

So instead 2+2 and FB are afforded the same status the MSM chat and comments sections are RIGHTLY under 230.

Your view is that if 2+2 or FB gets an influx of StormFront posters posting the most offensive racism trying to overwhelm the site, and they ban and remove them due to violation of TOS they then become editors and that is just a silly garbage argument being pushed by extremes on the right.

This is reasonable. The problem is republicans are calling for changes to what is allowed on Twitter etc and they are not a disinterested party. Twitter happens to be the best method for them to spread election lies and other disinformation. So we can’t pretend this is like trust busting or fairly regulating a new powerful utility. For Trump etc it’s about a very narrow form of short term self interest.

It's certainly a platform they want to do it on, but this weird study caught me eye the other day: https://phys.org/news/2021-11-twitte...onspiracy.html

Cliff notes is that Twitter emerges from this study as the social media site most resistant to spreading conspiracy theories. I haven't really looked much at the methodology, so take it with a grain of salt. Still, I do think Facebook truly is the king of the conspiracy theory with its older user-base, extremely lax content control and pretty much non-existent moderation for non-English content.

But ultimately, anything that is based on volume and likes isn't going to be a stalwart of facts. You will always be more rewarded for telling people what they want to hear, rather than what they should hear.

This is disingenuous. People are explaining what the law is. What the law should be is a broader discussion and a different question.

I think we have to be very careful not to conflate things here.

Multiple things can be true at once and that is what the right is using to confuse this issue.

It can be true that chat sites and comment sections can have TOS that allow a Mod to remove content after the fact.

it can be true that Editors of MSM take in articles from Journalists and before publishing remove content before being published.


Those two things are in no way comparable and yet those on the right are trying to conflate the similarities to suggest some sort of equivalency.


Chat Sites arguably rose out of the Chat and Comment sections of MSM sites. The first places in the early internet where you could see citizen engagement on hot topic subjects.

Despite the fact that the Published Journalist articles were always subject to the law as Publishers, the chat sites never were. The reason being is the Publisher is making a defacto representation with the former and not the latter. It is that defacto representation (this material has been checked, verified and published with our credibility and name behind it) that allows them to then be sued if inaccurate, spurious or out right fabricated.

The Washington Post editorial saying XYZ is very different than you and I in the comments section of the Washington post saying XYZ.


This attempt to conflate those by pointing at certain similarities is not something we should accept.

IF I want to start a Chat Site called 'Progressive for Progressives' and in my TOS I make it clear that right wing content will be removed that should be fine. My removing i should not automatically make me a publisher and subject to the rules of review, edit and verify every chat comment before people can engage.

Society absolutely needs both. Content provided by Editors that is held to a higher standard and can be sued over. Content provided by users (chat) that is not.

it would be the greatest disservice to actual Free Speech if every chat site, every comments section became truly 'edited' and thus caused the loss of the direct person to person voice.

Lucky and those people duped by the far right do not see that they are duped. That what the far right is calling for is an entirely edited and gov't dictated system that takes away direct user to user interface and requires all chat first go thru a moderator or editor.

The Public Square™ brought to you by Twitter. Seems like a good idea

FWIW, exposing social media platforms to liability as publishers strikes me as very much the wrong knob to turn if you are concerned about social media platforms censoring .content. If you think Twitter, Facebook, etc., are too aggressive in censoring content now, make them liable as publishers and see what happens.

I don't think there is an easy solution to this problem. At a 10,000 foot level, I am not eager to allow our tech overlords to write the history of the human race in real time. On the other hand, I have grave concerns about the impact on society of deliberate misinformation campaigns and luckboxing. (It's worth remembering that our own Luckbox is far more benign than most luckboxers.)

I think it has to do with the fact that Twitter and Facebook are slightly different in terms of anonymity etc. if you’re a celebrity and want to spread stuff globally Twitter is the best. Facebook is the best for regular people who want to spread it among a certain group.

But even moreso it is functionally impossible. And that is the point.

It is a threat being wielded by the Right that if you moderate anything we will push this such that you have to moderate everything and do so BEFORE it is published to avoid legal liability.

Again even FB with its vast resources could not do that in any practical way unless they develop AI to moderate such content that is near fail proof. The legal exposure would see them shut down.

The Right knows that and hopes the threat gets FB and Twitter to pull back on any and all moderation. To instead declare themselves a moderation free zone.

it is what Conspiracy theorists want. It is what White supremist want. And it is what Trumpests want.

They want unfettered and free access to any and all popular chat forums and to have no TOSA that prevent them from spreading their worst views and this is the way they are going about trying to strong arm it.

They are using as dupes, people like Lucky who think they are arguing to improve Free Speech when, as you rightly point out, it would only make things much more controlled.

Arguably the gov't would have to give a proscribed list of what was and was not allowable and the sights would live within that. And they have been duped into arguing that is the path to freer speech.

again ok but as you say "Multiple things can be true at once and that is what the right is using to confuse this issue"

Just because chat is different does not meant it shouldn't be subject to, possibly different, rules. There is a move to treat facebook/etc more like publishers and it's not coming from the right, its coming from the left/center.

You're example chat site is fine unless it becomes systemically important. Then while it may be able to have rules on content it needs to be subject to regulation and laws.

Turns out the Internet was the Great Filter all along.

What good is the full breadth of knowledge from throughout history available at the touch of a button, when there are billions of people to mock and belittle without even having to put pants on? I just type insults into the box and there's a chance someone will screenshot it and put it on Reddit!

Do you think every now deceased alien civilization had the equivalent of a r/antiwork writing horrible fanfiction about evil bosses snatching people from the Thanksgiving table, throwing them in the trunk, and driving them to the Plumbus Store to cover a shift because Kayliegh called in sick last minute?

Why does this only seem to go one way? HMMMMM

In 2020, only one side had both the will and the incentive to lie about the election results. That's why all the lying about the election results was on Trump's side.

Good post. I think you are mostly correct on the strategy point.

Let's Make America A Great Company Again.