You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 24040850? [S] ago 

Internet as we know would not exist if we would view anyone who restrict certain information as publishers. This is retarded

0
0

[–] 24040934? ago 

Sounds like you should brush up on the legal definitions, since you're using them all wrong.

If you enable communication, you're a platform. As a platform you have great legal protections from the government.

If you curate content, you're a publisher, and are far less protected.

Twitter wants the government to protect it against legal threats without having to follow any of its responsibilities. That's illegal.

It has to decide now whether it wants to curate and lose the protections it has enjoyed or follow the legal requirements that it has been ignoring until now.

1
-1

[–] 24041226? [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

No. Platform are protected by the government while censoring content they don't like: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]