,
9 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD. This @TheAtlantic article by @alexismadrigal has its own slight of hand and what it *doesn't say* is very revealing. #Section230 theatlantic.com/technology/arc…
The article does a good job describing the history of the term "platform" and how its use has expanded over time. BUT - here's the slight of hand - it suggests the term "platform" has always conveyed neutrality. Yet technical platforms were often quite "opinionated".
TCP/IP, for example, is by design better for services that don't fail under high latency or out-of-order delivery of information (email, for instance) than for those that need in-order, real time delivery (two-way video chats, for example).
Some platforms were even opinionated beyond the technical aspects. Linux, for example, is an operating system platform under the GNU General Public License "copyleft" licence that dictates the permissible business models for software built on that platform.
The point? "Platform" doesn't necessarily mean "neutral", although I think Alexis is right that many have used the term that way.
POINT 2 (This is the good one). The article has a little clause saying platform rhetoric was used for "creating a legal framework." But Alexis never explains what framework he means. Does he mean Section 230, the key legal framework for platforms? Why doesn't he say? 
Probably because the article's main point - platforms have been claiming to be neutral - is irrelevant to Section 230. In fact, 230 was created to *permit* platforms to non-neutrally moderate user content w/o triggering liability for all user content. techdirt.com/articles/20190…
Contrary to the little clause's implication, platform neutrality rhetoric didn't motivate adoption of Section 230. It's the opposite. I bet this clause was a post-edit remainder at the Atlantic after @voxdotcom screwed up this same argument. vox.com/technology/201…
