Free Speech
Comments
-
OK.
You are the regulator for whatever twitter is in the US.
What's your first stab at attempting to regulate it.0 -
who is the regulator in the UK?rick_chasey said:OK.
You are the regulator for whatever twitter is in the US.
What's your first stab at attempting to regulate it.
I would leave it to the courts let them decide if they are breaking any laws regarding incitement, sedition or freedom of speech0 -
The courts apply regulations.surrey_commuter said:
who is the regulator in the UK?rick_chasey said:OK.
You are the regulator for whatever twitter is in the US.
What's your first stab at attempting to regulate it.
I would leave it to the courts let them decide if they are breaking any laws regarding incitement, sedition or freedom of speech0 -
Free speech isn't such a great thing sometimes either you can make yourself look a right idioto.1
-
then let them decide which regulations are being breachedFirst.Aspect said:
The courts apply regulations.surrey_commuter said:
who is the regulator in the UK?rick_chasey said:OK.
You are the regulator for whatever twitter is in the US.
What's your first stab at attempting to regulate it.
I would leave it to the courts let them decide if they are breaking any laws regarding incitement, sedition or freedom of speech
0 -
Do neither of you think you need new regulation for social media?surrey_commuter said:
then let them decide which regulations are being breachedFirst.Aspect said:
The courts apply regulations.surrey_commuter said:
who is the regulator in the UK?rick_chasey said:OK.
You are the regulator for whatever twitter is in the US.
What's your first stab at attempting to regulate it.
I would leave it to the courts let them decide if they are breaking any laws regarding incitement, sedition or freedom of speech
0 -
That's an odd conclusion. I think you suggested regulation, bht that it is hard. SC said no leave.it to the courts. I pointed out that the courts would merely interpret and apply current regulations. How do you conclude from that I disagree in principle with regulations?rick_chasey said:
Do neither of you think you need new regulation for social media?surrey_commuter said:
then let them decide which regulations are being breachedFirst.Aspect said:
The courts apply regulations.surrey_commuter said:
who is the regulator in the UK?rick_chasey said:OK.
You are the regulator for whatever twitter is in the US.
What's your first stab at attempting to regulate it.
I would leave it to the courts let them decide if they are breaking any laws regarding incitement, sedition or freedom of speech0 -
I wasn't sure which was why i asked.First.Aspect said:
That's an odd conclusion. I think you suggested regulation, bht that it is hard. SC said no leave.it to the courts. I pointed out that the courts would merely interpret and apply current regulations. How do you conclude from that I disagree in principle with regulations?rick_chasey said:
Do neither of you think you need new regulation for social media?surrey_commuter said:
then let them decide which regulations are being breachedFirst.Aspect said:
The courts apply regulations.surrey_commuter said:
who is the regulator in the UK?rick_chasey said:OK.
You are the regulator for whatever twitter is in the US.
What's your first stab at attempting to regulate it.
I would leave it to the courts let them decide if they are breaking any laws regarding incitement, sedition or freedom of speech0 -
it could be argued that twitter has abandoned its status as a technology company in favour of a media company status. Albeit they are deciding what is acceptable or not according to its own rules and not those governing the media as they still argue they are a technology not a media company.surrey_commuter said:To me the unanswered (by the courts) question is whether these are media companies or platforms.
Sky News is a media company and is responsible for the legality of it's content.
Sky broadband is a platform and they are not responsible for the legality of any content that you see on it
Sky TV hosts other TV channels so if anybody was to be sued it would not be Sky but they obviously have an opinion on the content broadcast on their platform.
Twitter/Facebook/Google have no content, they are platforms.
If a nutter tries to organise a lynching next Saturday and uses Twitter, Facebook and the local pub as his platform then where does the responsibility lie?0 -
SC is not accurate. While Twitter does not generate the content itself, it does and always has edited what you see, both through its algorithm and more recently through specific 'News' notifications. They seem a lot like a publisher to me.kingstongraham said:
If he leaves a notice on the pub notice board and the landlord sees it and doesn't remove it, then there is some responsibility with the landlord, no?surrey_commuter said:To me the unanswered (by the courts) question is whether these are media companies or platforms.
Sky News is a media company and is responsible for the legality of it's content.
Sky broadband is a platform and they are not responsible for the legality of any content that you see on it
Sky TV hosts other TV channels so if anybody was to be sued it would not be Sky but they obviously have an opinion on the content broadcast on their platform.
Twitter/Facebook/Google have no content, they are platforms.
If a nutter tries to organise a lynching next Saturday and uses Twitter, Facebook and the local pub as his platform then where does the responsibility lie?
Hugo Rifkind writes on this in The Times today - "So if Twitter is like the old thing that is, say, Speakers’ Corner, then his banning is an outrage. Whereas if, by contrast, we feel Twitter is more like a private publisher, then they should be free to publish — or not publish — whatever they damn well like. The trouble is, you can go half-mad trying to decide which one of these old things Twitter is, for the very simple reason that it is neither of them. You might as well debate whether a helicopter is a bicycle or a horse."1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Given that the House of Representatives will vote to ask Vice-President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Donald Trump immediately and if that doesn't happen, a vote to impeach the president will be held on Wednesday on the grounds of "incitement of insurrection", it seems this argument about censoring of any "free speech" right of centre is moot.
Democracy and these private company platforms are singing from the same hymn sheet as far as Trump is concerned."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
They are neither - they publish information generated by third party users.david37 said:
it could be argued that twitter has abandoned its status as a technology company in favour of a media company status. Albeit they are deciding what is acceptable or not according to its own rules and not those governing the media as they still argue they are a technology not a media company.surrey_commuter said:To me the unanswered (by the courts) question is whether these are media companies or platforms.
Sky News is a media company and is responsible for the legality of it's content.
Sky broadband is a platform and they are not responsible for the legality of any content that you see on it
Sky TV hosts other TV channels so if anybody was to be sued it would not be Sky but they obviously have an opinion on the content broadcast on their platform.
Twitter/Facebook/Google have no content, they are platforms.
If a nutter tries to organise a lynching next Saturday and uses Twitter, Facebook and the local pub as his platform then where does the responsibility lie?
The section 230 arguments in the USA is done in obvious bad faith - removing section 230 protection from Twitter would mean it couldn't exist without removing many more posts, not that it would allow alternative viewpoints.0 -
I get the impression that Twitter will be joining the nostalgia thread if things progress much further.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
There is a similar argument to be had around why Papypal is not a bank and is unregulated.0
-
This gets to my point about existing laws.rjsterry said:
SC is not accurate. While Twitter does not generate the content itself, it does and always has edited what you see, both through its algorithm and more recently through specific 'News' notifications. They seem a lot like a publisher to me.kingstongraham said:
If he leaves a notice on the pub notice board and the landlord sees it and doesn't remove it, then there is some responsibility with the landlord, no?surrey_commuter said:To me the unanswered (by the courts) question is whether these are media companies or platforms.
Sky News is a media company and is responsible for the legality of it's content.
Sky broadband is a platform and they are not responsible for the legality of any content that you see on it
Sky TV hosts other TV channels so if anybody was to be sued it would not be Sky but they obviously have an opinion on the content broadcast on their platform.
Twitter/Facebook/Google have no content, they are platforms.
If a nutter tries to organise a lynching next Saturday and uses Twitter, Facebook and the local pub as his platform then where does the responsibility lie?
Hugo Rifkind writes on this in The Times today - "So if Twitter is like the old thing that is, say, Speakers’ Corner, then his banning is an outrage. Whereas if, by contrast, we feel Twitter is more like a private publisher, then they should be free to publish — or not publish — whatever they damn well like. The trouble is, you can go half-mad trying to decide which one of these old things Twitter is, for the very simple reason that it is neither of them. You might as well debate whether a helicopter is a bicycle or a horse."
If the mail online wrote that a high profile person was a nonce they would get sued.
If I wrote that on Twitter I would be surprised and delighted if they left me alone and only sued Twitter.
Weren’t a bunch of nobody’s sued/prosecuted for breaching a super injunction?0 -
Interesting politically* as this gives the Reps a great chance to show they've made a clean break with Trump...blazing_saddles said:a vote to impeach the president will be held on Wednesday on the grounds of "incitement of insurrection", .
*ewwwwWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I don't think libel laws are really up to the job.surrey_commuter said:
This gets to my point about existing laws.rjsterry said:
SC is not accurate. While Twitter does not generate the content itself, it does and always has edited what you see, both through its algorithm and more recently through specific 'News' notifications. They seem a lot like a publisher to me.kingstongraham said:
If he leaves a notice on the pub notice board and the landlord sees it and doesn't remove it, then there is some responsibility with the landlord, no?surrey_commuter said:To me the unanswered (by the courts) question is whether these are media companies or platforms.
Sky News is a media company and is responsible for the legality of it's content.
Sky broadband is a platform and they are not responsible for the legality of any content that you see on it
Sky TV hosts other TV channels so if anybody was to be sued it would not be Sky but they obviously have an opinion on the content broadcast on their platform.
Twitter/Facebook/Google have no content, they are platforms.
If a nutter tries to organise a lynching next Saturday and uses Twitter, Facebook and the local pub as his platform then where does the responsibility lie?
Hugo Rifkind writes on this in The Times today - "So if Twitter is like the old thing that is, say, Speakers’ Corner, then his banning is an outrage. Whereas if, by contrast, we feel Twitter is more like a private publisher, then they should be free to publish — or not publish — whatever they damn well like. The trouble is, you can go half-mad trying to decide which one of these old things Twitter is, for the very simple reason that it is neither of them. You might as well debate whether a helicopter is a bicycle or a horse."
If the mail online wrote that a high profile person was a nonce they would get sued.
If I wrote that on Twitter I would be surprised and delighted if they left me alone and only sued Twitter.
Weren’t a bunch of nobody’s sued/prosecuted for breaching a super injunction?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
see it as a start point for the law to figure out what these organisations arerjsterry said:
I don't think libel laws are really up to the job.surrey_commuter said:
This gets to my point about existing laws.rjsterry said:
SC is not accurate. While Twitter does not generate the content itself, it does and always has edited what you see, both through its algorithm and more recently through specific 'News' notifications. They seem a lot like a publisher to me.kingstongraham said:
If he leaves a notice on the pub notice board and the landlord sees it and doesn't remove it, then there is some responsibility with the landlord, no?surrey_commuter said:To me the unanswered (by the courts) question is whether these are media companies or platforms.
Sky News is a media company and is responsible for the legality of it's content.
Sky broadband is a platform and they are not responsible for the legality of any content that you see on it
Sky TV hosts other TV channels so if anybody was to be sued it would not be Sky but they obviously have an opinion on the content broadcast on their platform.
Twitter/Facebook/Google have no content, they are platforms.
If a nutter tries to organise a lynching next Saturday and uses Twitter, Facebook and the local pub as his platform then where does the responsibility lie?
Hugo Rifkind writes on this in The Times today - "So if Twitter is like the old thing that is, say, Speakers’ Corner, then his banning is an outrage. Whereas if, by contrast, we feel Twitter is more like a private publisher, then they should be free to publish — or not publish — whatever they damn well like. The trouble is, you can go half-mad trying to decide which one of these old things Twitter is, for the very simple reason that it is neither of them. You might as well debate whether a helicopter is a bicycle or a horse."
If the mail online wrote that a high profile person was a nonce they would get sued.
If I wrote that on Twitter I would be surprised and delighted if they left me alone and only sued Twitter.
Weren’t a bunch of nobody’s sued/prosecuted for breaching a super injunction?0 -
Would the Daily Mail website be responsible for the content of a post on its comment section? Or would it be the person who posted it?rjsterry said:
SC is not accurate. While Twitter does not generate the content itself, it does and always has edited what you see, both through its algorithm and more recently through specific 'News' notifications. They seem a lot like a publisher to me.kingstongraham said:
If he leaves a notice on the pub notice board and the landlord sees it and doesn't remove it, then there is some responsibility with the landlord, no?surrey_commuter said:To me the unanswered (by the courts) question is whether these are media companies or platforms.
Sky News is a media company and is responsible for the legality of it's content.
Sky broadband is a platform and they are not responsible for the legality of any content that you see on it
Sky TV hosts other TV channels so if anybody was to be sued it would not be Sky but they obviously have an opinion on the content broadcast on their platform.
Twitter/Facebook/Google have no content, they are platforms.
If a nutter tries to organise a lynching next Saturday and uses Twitter, Facebook and the local pub as his platform then where does the responsibility lie?
Hugo Rifkind writes on this in The Times today - "So if Twitter is like the old thing that is, say, Speakers’ Corner, then his banning is an outrage. Whereas if, by contrast, we feel Twitter is more like a private publisher, then they should be free to publish — or not publish — whatever they damn well like. The trouble is, you can go half-mad trying to decide which one of these old things Twitter is, for the very simple reason that it is neither of them. You might as well debate whether a helicopter is a bicycle or a horse."
0 -
I think it is impractical to hold them responsible for all content.kingstongraham said:
Would the Daily Mail website be responsible for the content of a post on its comment section? Or would it be the person who posted it?rjsterry said:
SC is not accurate. While Twitter does not generate the content itself, it does and always has edited what you see, both through its algorithm and more recently through specific 'News' notifications. They seem a lot like a publisher to me.kingstongraham said:
If he leaves a notice on the pub notice board and the landlord sees it and doesn't remove it, then there is some responsibility with the landlord, no?surrey_commuter said:To me the unanswered (by the courts) question is whether these are media companies or platforms.
Sky News is a media company and is responsible for the legality of it's content.
Sky broadband is a platform and they are not responsible for the legality of any content that you see on it
Sky TV hosts other TV channels so if anybody was to be sued it would not be Sky but they obviously have an opinion on the content broadcast on their platform.
Twitter/Facebook/Google have no content, they are platforms.
If a nutter tries to organise a lynching next Saturday and uses Twitter, Facebook and the local pub as his platform then where does the responsibility lie?
Hugo Rifkind writes on this in The Times today - "So if Twitter is like the old thing that is, say, Speakers’ Corner, then his banning is an outrage. Whereas if, by contrast, we feel Twitter is more like a private publisher, then they should be free to publish — or not publish — whatever they damn well like. The trouble is, you can go half-mad trying to decide which one of these old things Twitter is, for the very simple reason that it is neither of them. You might as well debate whether a helicopter is a bicycle or a horse."
However, tools must be made available to report content. If a post has been reported, a judgement can be made. They can then either remove illegal content or take responsibility for continued hosting of it.
Taste and agenda editing would inevitably happen too but that’s a whole different discussion.0 -
Sounds a lot like Twitter.morstar said:
I think it is impractical to hold them responsible for all content.kingstongraham said:
Would the Daily Mail website be responsible for the content of a post on its comment section? Or would it be the person who posted it?rjsterry said:
SC is not accurate. While Twitter does not generate the content itself, it does and always has edited what you see, both through its algorithm and more recently through specific 'News' notifications. They seem a lot like a publisher to me.kingstongraham said:
If he leaves a notice on the pub notice board and the landlord sees it and doesn't remove it, then there is some responsibility with the landlord, no?surrey_commuter said:To me the unanswered (by the courts) question is whether these are media companies or platforms.
Sky News is a media company and is responsible for the legality of it's content.
Sky broadband is a platform and they are not responsible for the legality of any content that you see on it
Sky TV hosts other TV channels so if anybody was to be sued it would not be Sky but they obviously have an opinion on the content broadcast on their platform.
Twitter/Facebook/Google have no content, they are platforms.
If a nutter tries to organise a lynching next Saturday and uses Twitter, Facebook and the local pub as his platform then where does the responsibility lie?
Hugo Rifkind writes on this in The Times today - "So if Twitter is like the old thing that is, say, Speakers’ Corner, then his banning is an outrage. Whereas if, by contrast, we feel Twitter is more like a private publisher, then they should be free to publish — or not publish — whatever they damn well like. The trouble is, you can go half-mad trying to decide which one of these old things Twitter is, for the very simple reason that it is neither of them. You might as well debate whether a helicopter is a bicycle or a horse."
However, tools must be made available to report content. If a post has been reported, a judgement can be made. They can then either remove illegal content or take responsibility for continued hosting of it.
Taste and agenda editing would inevitably happen too but that’s a whole different discussion.0 -
If you treat twitter like they are responsible for every tweet created on the platform it will basically cease to function.0
-
Agreed. But once made aware of a possible legal issue, there is no excuse for keeping it.rick_chasey said:If you treat twitter like they are responsible for every tweet created on the platform it will basically cease to function.
As said by KG, it is largely what they can do at the moment.
I don’t think they should be able to continue to host illegal content.
Disputed content gets a whole lot more fuzzy.0 -
I guess the world might keep turning.rick_chasey said:If you treat twitter like they are responsible for every tweet created on the platform it will basically cease to function.
I think there is possibly a middle ground between treating them the same as news site editors and the current falsehood of 'we just provide a platform'. It has never been *just* a platform.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Well, things might get a little stickier for Parler - if I'm reading this right, 70Tb of data was hacked on Sunday as they were taking down the site, including pretty much everything. I guess that the FBI will be interested...
0 -
agreed, crushing their business model is no reason not to do something.rjsterry said:
I guess the world might keep turning.rick_chasey said:If you treat twitter like they are responsible for every tweet created on the platform it will basically cease to function.
I think there is possibly a middle ground between treating them the same as news site editors and the current falsehood of 'we just provide a platform'. It has never been *just* a platform.
I would be tempted to remind them of their responsibilities with the threat of legislation if they don't up their game with regards to flagging and taking down inappropriate content0 -
as an aside a friend posted something on FB about Covid and I rebutted it with some Coopsteresque quality lunacy and before you know it half a dozen freaks had piled in and then the thread disappeared0
-
You would destroy the forum too.surrey_commuter said:
agreed, crushing their business model is no reason not to do something.rjsterry said:
I guess the world might keep turning.rick_chasey said:If you treat twitter like they are responsible for every tweet created on the platform it will basically cease to function.
I think there is possibly a middle ground between treating them the same as news site editors and the current falsehood of 'we just provide a platform'. It has never been *just* a platform.
I would be tempted to remind them of their responsibilities with the threat of legislation if they don't up their game with regards to flagging and taking down inappropriate content0 -
surrey_commuter said:
as an aside a friend posted something on FB about Covid and I rebutted it with some Coopsteresque quality lunacy and before you know it half a dozen freaks had piled in and then the thread disappeared
FB's algorithms are coming down weird and hard on covid posts - a friend of mine whose FiL recently died from it shared a post alerting friends to one of the current vaccination scams, and she was timed out for 24hrs by FB.0 -
True.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:as an aside a friend posted something on FB about Covid and I rebutted it with some Coopsteresque quality lunacy and before you know it half a dozen freaks had piled in and then the thread disappeared
FB's algorithms are coming down weird and hard on covid posts - a friend of mine whose FiL recently died from it shared a post alerting friends to one of the current vaccination scams, and she was timed out for 24hrs by FB.
My wife shared a post which could only be described as positive thinking but it was removed and the only conceivable reason could be covid.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1
