Posted by: 3845915?
Posting time: 7 months ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 8/28/2020 10:00:00 AM
Views: 82
SCP: -25
2 upvotes, 27 downvotes (7% upvoted it)
~91 user(s) here now
Subverse anonymized: usernames are hidden and votes don't count.
NSFW: Yes
Authorized: No
Anon: Yes
Private: No
Type: Default
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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.
[–] 24041226? [S] 1 point -1 points 0 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
[–] 24041260? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Exactly, good Samaritan protection for actions taken in good faith. Random banning people who violated no openly stated rule is clearly the act of a publisher curating content it disagrees with.
Twitter must stop acting in bad faith or it loses protections granted to platforms.