Twitter Banishment "is what they do in China"

[pgher]

I got put in FB jail for 24 hours once, and don't even know why.

I created a page that was unpublished for being an imposter. I still don't know why and there's no way to really appeal. I mean, there is, but I think the email goes to a black hole.

[mahagonny]

Who has the right ...

Too long to read (upthread). Summary, don't worry about Trump's freedom of of speech being suppressed. He's still got more of it than any of us. Freedom to be heard will never be equal.

[Sun_Worshiper]

We should be concerned about big tech companies having so much control over what we see and what we are not able to see. However, they also have a right to remove content from their platforms, and this is especially true when that content is (1) demonstrably false and (2) likely to incite violence. It is notable that Parlor has itself taken down a post from a Trump attorney calling for Pence to be assassinated.

In addition to (or instead of) being upset with social media companies, Republicans and conservatives should look in the mirror and think about some of the insane content that they have been posting. Republican/conservative accounts that do not traffic in deranged misinformation, conspiracy theories, and calls for violence are not being canceled, as far as I can see.

Finally, Republicans in congress should think hard about the solution they are proposing. Amending or doing away with section 230, will lead to more censorship, not less.

[eigen]

But this goes back to the whole issue of whether they are a "platform" or a "publisher". If they are going to "edit" (in an extreme case, like this, of banning someone), then how much responsibility do they have to monitor EVERYTHING posted, and what rules do they have to follow about what kind of censorship they can (or possibly "must" ) engage in?

Other questions arise, such as:
Does the need to censor depend on the size of a person's following?
Does it depend on the popularity of a specific posting?

If some sort of non-profit organization started a similar platform, (so it wouldn't be a private company), should the rules be the same?

A non-profit organization is still (usually) a corporation. It just has different tax rules.

I think they're trying to do enough to avoid being liable for everything, so that they can make their own rules. All of these platforms do have rules; Trump dodged them by being "newsworthy."

What would they be "liable for"? And what possible line(s) could be drawn that could be reasonably upheld, given the millions of users and millions of posts every day? Most especially, if they can be liable for what they allow, they can no doubt be held laible for what they censor, (especially if can be shown to be somehow discriminatory).

They want to avoid the situation dismalist describes. Twitter etc. don't want to be regulated monopolies with some government agency forcing them to police user posts. They want the section 230 liability protections that separate them from e.g. newspapers.

But that's exactly the point. If they have the resources to police certain accounts, and choose to do so, they're acting like a publisher. If they claim it's impossible to police all accounts, and so they don't do it at all, they're acting like a platform. The more policing they do, the less they can claim the protection of a platform. If they don't spell out (and abide by) clear, objective, published rules about what they censor, they deserve to be treated like a publisher, with all of the liability that entails.

This not how section 230 works. There's no differentiation between a publisher and a platform.

230 is simple: users are legally liable for the content they post. It protects you when you forward an email, it means I'm not legally liable for what you post on this forum, it means that the CHE was not liable for what people posted in discussion comments.

230 makes no distinctions between publishers and platforms: it just refers to "interactive computer service". There's no amount of moderation that makes something no longer an "interactive computer service". The whole point was to separate out things that had user submissions from things like newspaper Op-Eds. The latter is discussed as a "publisher" because the newspaper editors screens Op-Ed pieces and chooses to publish them in the paper. They're not submitted directly by users.

The title is snarky, but the article is good: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

[eigen]

What is being reported by everyone is that Apple and Google Play are threatening to ban Parler (the free-speech-friendly Twitter competitor) unless it institutes a speech-control policy. 

To be clear, they've stopped hosting the app as a download. It can still be downloaded from somewhere else and installed on Android, installed on a jail-broken iPhone, or accessed through the web browser on either.

No longer being willing to host and distribute a piece of software is hardly the same as "banning Parler".

In new news, AWS is pulling hosting for Parler, so they will need to switch to another host or host it themselves. I don't know why so many websites try to be reliant on some intermediate host rather than doing it themselves, honestly- it puts you in a much more precarious situation.

What this highlights is how critical it is that Net Neutrality be in place at the federal level. A company does not have to do business with you, but you can put your own site on the internet without having to do business with anyone else. And it is then critically important that we have laws that prevent ISPs from blocking traffic to or from that site.

[marshwiggle]

The title is snarky, but the article is good: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

That was really informative. Thanks for the link.

[Puget]

Funny how conservatives are all for free enterprise and corporate rights until companies start doing things they don't like, then they want the government to step in and tell companies what content they most allow on their private platforms.

Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!

[writingprof]

Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!

I assume that the right combination of private companies acting in unison could prevent even this.  Am I mistaken?

[pgher]

Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!

I assume that the right combination of private companies acting in unison could prevent even this.  Am I mistaken?

How? A number of companies make setting this up easier (Amazon being a prime example) but none are necessary.

[RatGuy]

I got put in FB jail for 24 hours once, and don't even know why.

I created a page that was unpublished for being an imposter. I still don't know why and there's no way to really appeal. I mean, there is, but I think the email goes to a black hole.

Every 18 months or so, my Facebook account is disabled because someone has reported me as using a false name and profile picture. There's a long process of getting it reinstated. On the other side of the coin, I've seen flagrantly fake accounts used to harass family members -- all of which is apparently allowed. I've spoken on the fora before about my ongoing struggle with some of that garbage. Of course the rules don't work as intended.

[writingprof]

Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!

I assume that the right combination of private companies acting in unison could prevent even this.  Am I mistaken?

How? A number of companies make setting this up easier (Amazon being a prime example) but none are necessary.

I don't know how. That's why I'm asking. But I'm pretty certain that the neo-Nazi site 8chan was kicked off the web after Cloudfare denied it services. (Pardon me if I've got the names wrong. We mainstream-Republican neo-Nazis sometimes struggle to recall the details of our own mythology.)

[marshwiggle]

Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!

I assume that the right combination of private companies acting in unison could prevent even this.  Am I mistaken?

How? A number of companies make setting this up easier (Amazon being a prime example) but none are necessary.

I don't know how. That's why I'm asking. But I'm pretty certain that the neo-Nazi site 8chan was kicked off the web after Cloudfare denied it services. (Pardon me if I've got the names wrong. We mainstream-Republican neo-Nazis sometimes struggle to recall the details of our own mythology.)

I hear ya. During the debates about Obamacare when they talked about the "death panels" in Canada I was having trouble remembering all of the details of them. Unpatriotic of me, I know.

[eigen]

Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!

I assume that the right combination of private companies acting in unison could prevent even this.  Am I mistaken?

How? A number of companies make setting this up easier (Amazon being a prime example) but none are necessary.

I don't know how. That's why I'm asking. But I'm pretty certain that the neo-Nazi site 8chan was kicked off the web after Cloudfare denied it services. (Pardon me if I've got the names wrong. We mainstream-Republican neo-Nazis sometimes struggle to recall the details of our own mythology.)

You're thinking about Gab and 9Chan, I think. GoDaddy pulled the domain registration from Gab, best of my recollection- but they could still register in another company, or become a domain registrar themselves.

It seems like there is no right-wing group who is willing to set up as a domain registrar, which is strange, as it seems like it would be a profitable niche.

[namazu]

Nothing is stopping Trump from setting up his own website or messaging system, hosted on his own server, to communicate with his followers. He could even charge them a subscription rate!

I assume that the right combination of private companies acting in unison could prevent even this.  Am I mistaken?

How? A number of companies make setting this up easier (Amazon being a prime example) but none are necessary.

I don't know how. That's why I'm asking. But I'm pretty certain that the neo-Nazi site 8chan was kicked off the web after Cloudfare denied it services. (Pardon me if I've got the names wrong. We mainstream-Republican neo-Nazis sometimes struggle to recall the details of our own mythology.)

You're thinking about Gab and 9Chan, I think. GoDaddy pulled the domain registration from Gab, best of my recollection- but they could still register in another company, or become a domain registrar themselves.

Nah, he's right that it was Cloudflare pulling the plug on 8chan: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/security-cut-off-cesspool-hate-8chan-forum-64778026

It seems like there is no right-wing group who is willing to set up as a domain registrar, which is strange, as it seems like it would be a profitable niche.

Yeah, that's interesting.

[dismalist]

Mercy! Thank you all for informing me of all these right wing websites, communications services, and social media, of which I had no clue.

It is true that anyone can create his own website, and that is good. But it is not good enough. Again, consider the common carrier railroad analogy to using the web. To use the railroad tracks, one would have to buy one's own locomotive and carriage to avail oneself of the railroad tracks.

No, "net neutrality" for the net is not good enough. Gotta have a common carrier type solution for the web.