Blocked from twitter

[Jackmanandboy]

Editorial decision making has been a core process for the free press since printing was invented, when to print or when not to print and the consequences of breaking the law by publishing something that is illegal or damaging. In this case by accepting an editorial role social media organisations open the door for legal responsibility for anything published on their sites. In the past they have denied that they have any such responsibility. The consequences of this responsibility for individuals and organisations are considerable and it could be argued that less information will reach the public domain as a result.

Whoosh!

"Editorial descisions" is as I said it was, in the context of "Section 230 of The Communications Decency Act" as viewed (incorrectly) by conservatives.

This act protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else.

These people contend that the platforms, by moderating users (hate speech, racism, anti semitism and other conservative "talking points") are making "editorial descisions" and therefore publishers/media.

Conservatives (small c) dont like Section 230 but don't realise that if the proection is removed their views will face a lot more moderation/banning as the website is then likely to face litigation.

You miss the point, Jack had not.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/13/trump-twitter-ban-jack-dorsey-chief-executive

 

[DJack]

I was going to ask what "Jack had not." but I really am not bothered nor am I interested inany back on forth As I ain't a Yank, conservative or Twitter user.

All I will say is, that when you use a platform you must abide by its terms of service. If you fall foul of these then you would face censure and or sanction which could ultimately include banning fromthat platform - This is called MODERATION and is a LEGAL action. Admittedly twitter made a financial decision not to moderate Trump early on but since they started this (probably another financial decision) they have warned him of his need to keep to the terms of service and the dangers of not adhering to this.

You were active when this site was on Fansnetwork (and before?) and you would have seen posters being banned for contravening the TOS (usually to an extreme level for banning). This again was moderation and was indeed often actioned by the moderators. It was not an editorial decision.

Thank you, enjoy your evening.

Edit to restate this is all in refernce to the US legal code in respect of Section 230 of The Communications Decency Act.

 

[Best_loser]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelRapaport/status/1349470087531556864