Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Krystal and Saagar: Twitter REVERSES Policy, But FCC Prepares Hammer Against Big Tech" video.

d bc The New York Post is responsible in that event. This was about material that was subject to subpoena. It was not amplification of a rumor. It was newsworthy.
4
d bc So, let's agree the Post story didn't meet "journalistic standards," just for the sake of argument. Suppose someone tweeted, "Look at this bogus story. Who believes October Surprise email capers, or Rudy Giuliani??" And tried to link the article. Twitter would have blocked it. You might suspect that the person tweeting this was simply trying to spread a false story, under the veneer of criticizing it. And you might be right. WHO SHOULD DECIDE? Maybe . . . each of us can think it through, for ourselves? Or no? Tell us what you think.
3
@TK_100 No. The issue is Section 230 immunity. Publishers, including newspapers, are not sheltered. The social media giants, which operate much more like monopolies, are sheltered from having to take responsibility for anything.
3
@adanactnomew7085 NO ONE said they cannot moderate. We ARE saying that their moderation is inconsistent with their phenomenal privilege of enjoying immunity for all EDITORIAL decisions, that no other EDITORS in this world enjoy. They do not even have to take down proven defamation if they don't wanna, even if a trial court orders them to, and they answer to no one for that decision. Look it up, if you know how. I gave you the information.
2
@TK_100 Cute how you twist this. Are YOU immune from a defamation lawsuit? No. Are newspapers? No. Do the social media giants have to remove proven defamation from their platforms? No. Not even that!
1
@adanactnomew7085 Shows what you know. :/
1
@TK_100 Brilliant obfuscation. The FCC does not need the legislature to waste its time, it has the authority to regulate, and the courts have the authority to apply law to facts. NEWSPAPERS are private entities, too -- they are not the government. But they don't have special immunity, carved out just for them, the way Twitter does.
1
@TK_100 I don't have an auntie, or a Facebook account, or a Twitter account. Any more nonsense or trash talk you care to spout?
1
@TK_100 Two can play that game: "awww, did your social media stocks just take a hit? Don't cry." Pfft!
1
@adanactnomew7085 The POINT is exactly the one Krystal and Saagar have been making: Twitter enjoys BROAD immunities that no comparable entities do, because they are a "platform," not a "publisher." Now, they not only want the immunity, but also the right to do EVERYTHING that publishers do, without the responsibility that publishers have. Clear now? (Or, you could just watch the entire video before skipping to the comments.)
1
@adanactnomew7085 But no one says these platforms are not allowed to delete content. Of course they are. The only question is, what level of immunity should they enjoy when they do act as editors? Can they choose to delete whatever they like, and leave up whatever they please (including proven defamation -- they have the right to leave it up, see the Yelp case, Supreme Court of California), and be responsible to absolutely no one for their decisions? You're responsible for the consequences of your speech. So am I. So are newspapers. You, I, and newspapers can face a lawsuit. "Moderation" is not a neutral act. If one viewpoint is censored but not another, it makes it appear that no one agrees with the censored viewpoint, and everyone agrees with the viewpoint allowed to stand. Usually, complaints about moderation are deleted as well. Just how much immunity for these decisions is appropriate? Hm? This is getting sinister.
1
@adanactnomew7085 Non sequitur. Sec. 230 immunity is the issue. Full stop.
1
@adanactnomew7085 Red herring . . . :D
1
@adanactnomew7085 The individual freedom to sue someone who has actually harmed you, and to hold them individually responsible instead of looking to government or other collectives to look out for you, and keep you "safe" in advance, is a fundamental free market principle, too. Except not under Sec. 230. Funny how suddenly, no free market.
1
@adanactnomew7085 You're just trolling at this point. NO ONE is saying what you are imputing to them, but you just repeat the same non sequiturs. That's because you cannot deal with my arguments. So go argue with yourself. Who cares?
1
@asnmdnss He's just a troll. Notice how trolls are never moderated, LOL.
1
@adanactnomew7085 We never said they can't moderate. Please prove that we said they can't moderate. You needn't do research. Just copy and paste where we said so, right here. Saying we said what we never said, and pretending to disagree with something we never maintained, is a non sequitur. Gosh you're lucky to get so much free education today.
1
@adanactnomew7085 How does that imply they cannot "moderate content?" No one said they can't be a publisher.
1
@adanactnomew7085 That's true. YOU are not a troll. You are a commenter who happens to be trolling now. Thanks for correcting me.
1
@adanactnomew7085 They can be publishers if they want to be publishers. That's called freedom. We are for freedom.
1
@asnmdnss Private companies have huge leeway in censoring, but they also face real world consequences for it. And there is a ton of stuff they can't censor or retaliate against ("deplatform") with impunity: an authentic, good faith whistle blower, a discrimination complaint properly brought, union activity that follows the law, etc. No one is free from the consequences of questionable decisions. Except the twits at Twitter, etc., LOL.
1
@adanactnomew7085 Oh yeah? So, end defamation suits? End injunctions ordering someone to cease intentional infliction of emotional distress, such as urging a depressed minor to commit suicide? Not your place to say? You'd decline jury duty in a defamation case, or an aggravated bullying case? Or, is it only private companies that should have complete freedom, "no limits," while the rest of us, private individuals, should have to bear the consequences of what we say? CUT THE CRAP.
1
@adanactnomew7085 No one has this "complete freedom." No one can say whatever they feel like, and suppress whatever speech they feel like, without consequences. Consider this: one person uses Facebook to urge another to commit suicide. Another person comes in and says, "No! Don't kill yourself, don't listen to them!" Facebook moderators censor the one saying don't "kill" yourself, and leave the one urging "suicide" alone. No consequences for Facebook? Not up to you to say? Maybe Facebook censors the word "kill," because it is offensive, whereas "suicide" is a neutral, quasi-scientific term. LOL but not funny.
1
@adanactnomew7085 Total bad faith on your part. Done here.
1
@adanactnomew7085 You've failed to deal with hypothetical, where FACEBOOK does NOT censor the person urging suicide, and DOES censor the person saying "no, don't kill yourself." One post (urging suicide) stays up, the other (begging the person not to kill themselves) goes down. I didn't say you were rude. I said you argue in bad faith (voila la preuve), and you are wasting my time.
1
@TK_100 Project much? This has devolved purely into a matter of whose ox is being gored. That's exactly what it should not be. Read Nadine Strossen for an explanation why.
1
@adanactnomew7085 Its "own" posts? What in the world do you mean? No, Facebook is NOT legally required to remove posts by its users on its platform urging anyone to commit suicide. Look it up. Because you clearly don't know.
1
@TK_100 Your reading list should include Nadine Strossen.
1
What is "this?" Platforms that act like publishers should not have Section 230 immunity. The newspapers don't. The newspapers have First Amendment freedom, which does not cover them for reckless publishing of defamation. But platforms can't be held responsible at all.
1