Ok, once more, 230 covers defamatory remarks specifically and a few other select situations. It doesn't cover criminal liability.
If a paper publishes an editorial/letter to the editor that moves to incite violence they can be held liable for damages. 230 does not address this.
What is the liability to social media if they remove some posts that are designed to create violence but not others? That's my underlying question.
There is a reason I ask this. I saw someone claiming that they were banned for calling on people to protect monuments that protesters said they were going to take down.
Of course, the person claiming this didn't show/say exactly what he originally posted but conveniently had a screen cap of the protester calling for the monument to be toppled.
If the counter-protester had his post removed and the protesters didn't would Twitter be liable for any destruction or violence incited by the protesters removing the statue since they chose to let that post remain?
If you look at section 230 cases you see that it applies to defamatory statements, IP and a select few other situations. They aren't liable for defamatory statements and only really lose immunity if they promise to remove and don't or materially change what is posted. There is nothing I can find relating to criminal activity beyond that. At least, nothing seems to be mentioned in the brief material on case laws regarding 230.
Which is why I said I think we need clarification from the judiciary.
My admittedly limited understanding is that if someone is deciding what should and shouldn't be published they are no longer a content platform. At that point they are publishers and need to be held accountable as such.
Now, to your point, is it reasonable to expect social media companies to be able to police their content 100%? Clearly, that answer is no. Should they be liable? Possibly. To what extent? I don't know.
I would think if something is reported multiple times and is clearly a violation of law- inciting violence for instance- and they do nothing then they would/should be liable. It would be a high burden of proof for whomever is prosecuting, as it should be.
My thoughts exactly. I hope that Parler ends up as advertised. It would be good to see civil discourse from all sides. Not that there is much civility online anyhow.
I clarified the first question you quote: were they purposely doing something that violated the ToS? Were they spamming users OR did they get banned for their politics? There is a difference.
So far no one has proven the assertion that "the admins ban otherwise benign political speech along ideological lines." That's what I want to know. If they are, then they need called out for being hypocrites.
Thank you Stephen. If you could link to the specific article I would appreciate it. From my understanding the code doesn't seem to refer to content platforms but service providers.
"The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions."
You can debate what it means my "provides or enables computer access... to a computer server" but a plain reading of the code doesn't imply content platforms.
230 clearly refers to a service provider as not being liable for the illegal actions of its users- such as people pirating software or music or someone putting out illegal content (child porn, classified information, etc). It doesn't (and really couldn't at the time) take into account social media.
Without judicial or federal clarification I would hesitate to apply it to content platforms.
Again, that doesn't mean that 230 doesn't apply to those platforms but it needs clarified and revised as the technology has changed. There needs to be clarification as to whether platforms like Twitter/FB or Parler would qualify.
I most certainly am not Flynn. I definitely don't work for the intelligence services. I don't know what you're talking about. The NSA/CIA/FBI are all fake news. They don't actually exist. It's all deep state, you know.
No, not Dizka (now I need to look that person up). Just a fan of westerns and from Arizona. I didn't want someone coming back saying I didn't have the balls to post with an account.
Personally, any platform censoring anyone (as is their right) needs to be treated as publishers under the law. That makes them liable for actions done as a result of their system.
Basically, if Antifa or the KKK were promoting violence, such as a planned riot or attack, then Twitter/FB/Parler could be liable if they didn't remove the post.
I'd be happy to hear from both groups. Quite frankly, I've seen plenty from both sides on Twitter that never got banned.
I know some who have gotten banned, at least temporarily, for things like not using preferred pronouns or saying trans women/men aren't their preferred gender. I'm pretty sure those are things that explicitly go against Twitter's ToS.
Did they get banned because Parler didn't like their political stance or because they were trying to push the system to purposely see what it took to get banned?
The one admits that a group joined just to "screw with MAGA folks" and another admits to doing it to "[call] them out on their sketchy legal tactics."
How did they do this? Were they spamming? Did they post what they knew were against the ToS? It would be nice to see TD dig a little more into this.
You could also set up your own account and slowly start posting crazier and crazier shit to see what happens. Start with tin foil hat conspiracies and eventually go full blown Montana militia member.
Taking a punch at Parler is great if it's deserved but they never claimed they were the wild west where anything and everything goes. It seems that people think just that from the responses to Thor Benson on Twitter. Parler claims that they aren't going to ban based on politics but make no promises about purposely trying to break the ToS.
Re: Re: Re:
Ok, once more, 230 covers defamatory remarks specifically and a few other select situations. It doesn't cover criminal liability.
If a paper publishes an editorial/letter to the editor that moves to incite violence they can be held liable for damages. 230 does not address this.
What is the liability to social media if they remove some posts that are designed to create violence but not others? That's my underlying question.
There is a reason I ask this. I saw someone claiming that they were banned for calling on people to protect monuments that protesters said they were going to take down.
Of course, the person claiming this didn't show/say exactly what he originally posted but conveniently had a screen cap of the protester calling for the monument to be toppled.
If the counter-protester had his post removed and the protesters didn't would Twitter be liable for any destruction or violence incited by the protesters removing the statue since they chose to let that post remain?
Re: Re: Re:
If you look at section 230 cases you see that it applies to defamatory statements, IP and a select few other situations. They aren't liable for defamatory statements and only really lose immunity if they promise to remove and don't or materially change what is posted. There is nothing I can find relating to criminal activity beyond that. At least, nothing seems to be mentioned in the brief material on case laws regarding 230.
Re:
Which is why I said I think we need clarification from the judiciary.
My admittedly limited understanding is that if someone is deciding what should and shouldn't be published they are no longer a content platform. At that point they are publishers and need to be held accountable as such.
Now, to your point, is it reasonable to expect social media companies to be able to police their content 100%? Clearly, that answer is no. Should they be liable? Possibly. To what extent? I don't know.
I would think if something is reported multiple times and is clearly a violation of law- inciting violence for instance- and they do nothing then they would/should be liable. It would be a high burden of proof for whomever is prosecuting, as it should be.
Re: Re: Re:
My thoughts exactly. I hope that Parler ends up as advertised. It would be good to see civil discourse from all sides. Not that there is much civility online anyhow.
Re:
I clarified the first question you quote: were they purposely doing something that violated the ToS? Were they spamming users OR did they get banned for their politics? There is a difference.
So far no one has proven the assertion that "the admins ban otherwise benign political speech along ideological lines." That's what I want to know. If they are, then they need called out for being hypocrites.
Re:
Thank you Stephen. If you could link to the specific article I would appreciate it. From my understanding the code doesn't seem to refer to content platforms but service providers.
"The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions."
You can debate what it means my "provides or enables computer access... to a computer server" but a plain reading of the code doesn't imply content platforms.
230 clearly refers to a service provider as not being liable for the illegal actions of its users- such as people pirating software or music or someone putting out illegal content (child porn, classified information, etc). It doesn't (and really couldn't at the time) take into account social media.
Without judicial or federal clarification I would hesitate to apply it to content platforms.
Again, that doesn't mean that 230 doesn't apply to those platforms but it needs clarified and revised as the technology has changed. There needs to be clarification as to whether platforms like Twitter/FB or Parler would qualify.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Headline?
I most certainly am not Flynn. I definitely don't work for the intelligence services. I don't know what you're talking about. The NSA/CIA/FBI are all fake news. They don't actually exist. It's all deep state, you know.
Re: Re: Misleading Headline?
I will admit to being tall, fit, good looking, accomplished and kind to animals. Well, at least kind to animals, anyhow!
Re: Re: Misleading Headline?
No, not Dizka (now I need to look that person up). Just a fan of westerns and from Arizona. I didn't want someone coming back saying I didn't have the balls to post with an account.
Personally, any platform censoring anyone (as is their right) needs to be treated as publishers under the law. That makes them liable for actions done as a result of their system.
Basically, if Antifa or the KKK were promoting violence, such as a planned riot or attack, then Twitter/FB/Parler could be liable if they didn't remove the post.
Re: Re: Re: You can't really make an argument without the facts
I'd be happy to hear from both groups. Quite frankly, I've seen plenty from both sides on Twitter that never got banned.
I know some who have gotten banned, at least temporarily, for things like not using preferred pronouns or saying trans women/men aren't their preferred gender. I'm pretty sure those are things that explicitly go against Twitter's ToS.
I've yet to see examples of actual disparity.
Misleading Headline?
Did they get banned because Parler didn't like their political stance or because they were trying to push the system to purposely see what it took to get banned?
The one admits that a group joined just to "screw with MAGA folks" and another admits to doing it to "[call] them out on their sketchy legal tactics."
How did they do this? Were they spamming? Did they post what they knew were against the ToS? It would be nice to see TD dig a little more into this.
You could also set up your own account and slowly start posting crazier and crazier shit to see what happens. Start with tin foil hat conspiracies and eventually go full blown Montana militia member.
Taking a punch at Parler is great if it's deserved but they never claimed they were the wild west where anything and everything goes. It seems that people think just that from the responses to Thor Benson on Twitter. Parler claims that they aren't going to ban based on politics but make no promises about purposely trying to break the ToS.
Re: You can't really make an argument without the facts
Exactly, I hope this can get bumped up above the noise. Sure, they got banned. What did they do?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by azkid.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt