"...it won't be over anything related to use of likeness."
I'd I agree with you there: it's not the likeness that's the problem. It's the wide dissemination of embarrassing private information without any apparent legitimate informative purpose. Like an upskirt photo, the fact that many people in the restaurant might have the same view doesn't mean it's OK to tweet the image to the world at large.
It seems significant that Twitter wasn't a party to that case. People seem to be enthusiastically conflating it with some sort of ruling on what Twitter can or must do. I'm not sure if you are, but even bringing it up worries me.
Twitter has those, too, like having to carve out an exemption in the rules for Trump's account, or accusations of bias that lead to Congressional hearings.
We have a more fundamental disagreement than tweets in that case. If anyone should be allowed to post anything, what about images of child pornography?
I'm interested in a different aspect here than the discussion of sexism and who fired whom at this point. If you're running a blog as a public evangelist for a company, and twitter is part of that public presence, and you emit a tweet which includes a picture of people and criticism of them without their permission, surely this constitutes a violation of commercial use-of-likeness laws in most states, doesn't it?
Twitter doing a bad job of determining which photos are "in the public interest" and removing photoes that should not be removed still doesn't translate to "you can't take photos of public places" by any measure. At the very worst it just means that people stop posting photos on twitter to avoid one avenue of report bombing.
I have repeatedly argued that we need legal user protections that protect users from large corporations arbitrarily enforcing their rules with no real appeal process or transparency. However, fear mongering with projections that have no basis in reality does not help move us in that direction.
OK, but there are definitely plenty of clear cut cases and Twitter has historically had issues dealing even with these. This isn't an issue of media in general, we're talking about Twitter, that's what the article is about.
It's a violation in the moral sense, depending of course in your morals. Twitter's image involves the protection if free speech, so it's problematic for them.
Twitter, and all other social media, are places of public accommodation, no different from a restaurant or hotel. As such they should not be allowed by law from having discriminatory rules based on any protected class or idea. It is beyond time for these platforms to be held to the same standards that we held other places of public accommodation to during the civil rights movement.
Despite your feelings, that's not the issue. The issue is that the government apparently coerced Twitter to do it, which would be a First Amendment violation.
It's really that simple. Twitter isn't being compelled to do anything either way! But if Twitter isn't an appropriate setting for a public forum, then the gov't can be forced not to use Twitter for certain things.
This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the government's right to use those features.
> Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different.
There are strict rules that separate public service from campaigning activities.
So one important factual question in this case is what side of that divide the accounts in question (e.g., @realdonaldtrump) are on.
I can place a contrarian, a nitpicker, a bully, even an algo, as twitter's manager of content. Twitter Users submit CP complaints. Then 99.99% responses are:
"After careful review of the content, we have not found this material violets twitter policy of no CP on our sites"
Truth is the eye of the beholder.
Thus, if the beholder is responsible for the decision and it is wrong, should they not be held accountable in the court of law? Even if it means lots of lawsuits?
I will say no. The algorithm isn't the problem at all. There is 1 thing and 1 thing alone that is the problem.
Twitter and others exist entirely because of Section 230. That as a platform they will not be held liable for the content they host.
But there's a caveat. They may only censor content within very specific categories which most people would agree with.
>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-
>(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
That right there is the extent twitter may censor. They cannot go beyond this but they can go less. You are not obligated to remove all lewd things from their website. Twitter clearly does not given how much porn and gore they host. Twitter actively allows death threats. Good faith is super important in this rule.
So lets roll this up into what exactly is the problem in the context of current events. Rachel Levine and mass banning of conservatives.
Rachel Levine was unimpressive achieving nothing of note. She got appointed to a 4 star admiral position solely because of being trans. Then got labelled as woman of the year? Where is the achievement? Just immediately right to 4 star general and woman of the year?
That's not even the controversy. The controversy is that Twitter is banning people for saying "Richard levine spent 54 years of his life as a man" or "men aren't women" not even naming anyone or even linking trans issue. It is a fact that men aren't women. That's why they are separate words.
The conservatives literally wrote what is factual and got banned. They intentionally crafted it this way to show the bad faith.
Now let's roll back to section 230. Twitter is acting in bad faith to restrict specific viewpoints. In so doing creating a protected class of people. Not unlike how twitter actively allows Putin or various other tinpot dictators but doesn't allow trump? It's all bad faith by twitter.
The problem is obvious. Twitter is in clear violation of section 230 but the government refuses to enforce this rule. So Twitter gets all of the liability protections and none of the requirements of free speech.
Now go back to conservatives who just got disenfranchised. Do you think they are going to take the ban and say, you know what maybe I was wrong about trans people. No. They are going to be radicalized more.
Twitter is creating hatred for trans people. As a trans person, twitter is one of the key players in why trans people are hated, and worse the coming consequences for this will not be good for us trans people.
Now imagine twitter got a legal letter saying section 230 good faith will now be enforced. That a single ideological ban like "men aren't women" will be an immediate suspension of their section 230 protection and they will be held as a publisher.
This immediately solves the problem. Twitter doesn't exist without section 230, they would be forced to immediately solve this huge problem.
It’s quite ironic that people think this is a first amendment or censorship issue when the real first amendment issue would be if Twitter were not allowed to do this.
> My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers.
Ok but clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content. In effect, it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down. Would you say that fairly describes your position or am I misinterpreting you?
I'd I agree with you there: it's not the likeness that's the problem. It's the wide dissemination of embarrassing private information without any apparent legitimate informative purpose. Like an upskirt photo, the fact that many people in the restaurant might have the same view doesn't mean it's OK to tweet the image to the world at large.
reply