,
17 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
2 weeks ago, @SaraJeong brilliantly debunked 💩GOP arguments that #Section230 requires, or should require, political neutrality
nytimes.com/2019/08/06/tec…
Today, also in NYT, @daiwaka cites those very same arguments as if they were good-faith, serious proposals, rather than 💩
nytimes.com/2019/08/06/tec…
Today, also in NYT, @daiwaka cites those very same arguments as if they were good-faith, serious proposals, rather than 💩
@daiwaka Do you even NYTimes, bro?
How could you possibly present Hawley and Cruz's interpretation of 230 as if it's anything other than complete horseshit?
The obvious purpose of the law, as @SarahJeong, is to KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF CONTENT MODERATION DECISIONS
How could you possibly present Hawley and Cruz's interpretation of 230 as if it's anything other than complete horseshit?
The obvious purpose of the law, as @SarahJeong, is to KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF CONTENT MODERATION DECISIONS
Read the law again. Congress was unambiguous about its goals.
Cruz and Hawley know this. They're just looking for another
opportunity to present "conservatives" (defined so broadly as to include ACTUAL NAZIS) as victims of some left-wing "cosmopolitan" (cough, cough) conspiracy
Cruz and Hawley know this. They're just looking for another
opportunity to present "conservatives" (defined so broadly as to include ACTUAL NAZIS) as victims of some left-wing "cosmopolitan" (cough, cough) conspiracy
You did a better job at describing the law than, say, the Daily S̶t̶o̶r̶m̶e̶r̶ Caller or Breitbart, but you got some pretty key things wrong
You missed THE MOST important part of the law: "in part"
Websites also lose protection if they help create content
You missed THE MOST important part of the law: "in part"
Websites also lose protection if they help create content
For example, Backpage would NOT have been protected for sex ads that it hired a Philippine company to help draft to make them more effective
And Roommates.com was not protected when it solicited racially discriminatory housing preferences from its users. Read the case!
And Roommates.com was not protected when it solicited racially discriminatory housing preferences from its users. Read the case!
Chris Cox has said that the two most important words in #Section230 are "in part." You completely fail to mention this vital limitation on the law's protections.
If you'd bothered to interview other lawyers, we could have explained this to you
If you'd bothered to interview other lawyers, we could have explained this to you
You also repeat @TedCruz's false claim that #Section230 is a subsidy for big tech.
It's just not.
Have you read the letter we co-signed with 50 academics & 27 other policy orgs? We debunk the "subsidy" myth.
digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewconten…
It's just not.
Have you read the letter we co-signed with 50 academics & 27 other policy orgs? We debunk the "subsidy" myth.
digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewconten…
.@DanielleCitron is a friend and a super smart cookie, but her proposal to require "reasonable" content moderation would deprive websites, especially small sites, of 230's central protection against "death by ten thousand duck bites"
Her view is an extreme minority among 230 experts, yet your article fails to provide any counter to her view, or even explanation as to why websites NEED to be protected not just from immunity but from an avalanche of lawsuits
The problem, again, is the Internet's VAST scale
The problem, again, is the Internet's VAST scale
Your article makes the same mistake as Daily Caller/Breitbart 💩: making it sound like this is all about big tech (or a tiny fringe of truly noxious sites like 8chan) without even mentioning the very long tail of websites that rely on 230, such as Wikipedia, Yelp, Etsy, GoFundMe
Last but most outrageously, you leave the reader with the impression that Section 230 is responsible for 8Chan while failing to explain that the Republican proposals to "fix" 230 are clearly intended to PREVENT social networks from moderating such noxious content on their sites
Yes, Section 230 protects 8chan in deciding not to take down lawful content, but it also protects Facebook & Google from having to justify how they moderate white nationalist Nazi shit against the Cruz/Hawley complaining that they're "censoring conservatives"
It's painfully obvious that Republicans are trying to "work the refs" to discourage social media sites from moderating content that violates their Terms of Service just for fear of incurring further wrath from Trump and his zombie army of brownshirt trolls
230(c)(2)(A) also protects Cloudflare in deciding not to continue providing DDOS protection service to 8Chan
Do you really want 8Chan to be able to sue Cloudflare for "censoring" them?
This is hard stuff, even for lawyers. That's why good reporters interview MULTIPLE experts
Do you really want 8Chan to be able to sue Cloudflare for "censoring" them?
This is hard stuff, even for lawyers. That's why good reporters interview MULTIPLE experts
But, really, couldn't you at least have talked to @SarahJeong first? She's actually a lawyer and took the time to dig in deep to this topic.
Ironically, her "opinion column" entailed far more objective journalism than your "reporting"
You're doing the reporter thing wrong, man
Ironically, her "opinion column" entailed far more objective journalism than your "reporting"
You're doing the reporter thing wrong, man
@sarahjeong And I assume you weren't responsible for writing this text or putting on the cover of the business section, but your editors should be ashamed of themselves for this preposterous Breitbart-level technopanic sensationalism
