Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet -

#KillAllPedos

A Platform We Can All Believe In
kiwifarms.net
Do you realize how hard it is for Null to keep the site running? His entire family received death threats, Vordrak's group of loonies spent a year harassing them, they tried to pin terrorist threats on Null (the incident where Vordrak called a school and said he would bomb them comes to mind) and a tranny even showed up at his mom's door with a knife. He's under constant threats of lawsuits, his reputation is ruined and people want him behind bars. He basically had to flee the country.
Yes, definitely. I am acutely aware of those things. And I have thanked Josh for his efforts. For most (normal) people, running this site would be more trouble than it's worth. Only true believers get into this sort of business, and only the most dedicated of the true believers remain. I hope he sticks around. Hopefully he doesn't quit the internet over Trump's mean tweets.

The protection that section 230 gives us is the only thing keeping this forum afloat because if someone could come after Kiwifarms legally, they definitely would. People have spent thousands of dollars trying to take us down already.
Now that is something we disagree on. Section 230 isn't the only law that can be used to defend against litigation. For that matter, the current version of § 230 isn't necessarily the best version that can be made. While § 230 protects many great web entrepreneurs, it protects some very malevolent actors as well. It does not need to be that way. It is possible for Congress to draft a law that protects people like Josh and KF, while still holding multinational social media companies accountable for their bad behavior. I reject this idea that we must necessarily protect both, even if one good and the other is bad. Congress can fine-tune this statutory scheme to address the problems it creates, while preserving the benefits.

Also, keep in mind that § 230 doesn't prevent the federal government from bringing criminal charges, even if the charges are ultimately bogus. I hate to say it, but if the feds really had a hard-on for Josh, they could easily destroy him and KF. They do this to people all the time. Section 230 may create an illusion of security, but the threat of death by litigation is always there.

For someone to open Pineapple Plantation, they would need to have balls of steel.
That we agree on.
 

Fangsofjeff

♡ i like corn ♡
kiwifarms.net
Yes, definitely. I am acutely aware of those things. And I have thanked Josh for his efforts. For most (normal) people, running this site would be more trouble than it's worth. Only true believers get into this sort of business, and only the most dedicated of the true believers remain. I hope he sticks around. Hopefully he doesn't quit the internet over Trump's mean tweets.
I'm pretty sure he said he would vanish only if section 230 is repealed. It makes sense since his websites would be forced to close and remaining in the public eye would only get him an extra heaping of harassment.
 

#KillAllPedos

A Platform We Can All Believe In
kiwifarms.net
I'm rather ambivalent about it. I share the opinion of the majority that spending on political campaigns is essentially a form of speech, at least for most such activities, although it is hard to say that a campaign donor who donates equally to both sides is actually expressing a political opinion instead of just a desire that whoever gets elected does their bidding. If the Court is going to make a mistake about free speech issues, though, I would prefer it err on the side of more rather than less freedom. Possibly CU erred on the side of freedom.

It is one of many things (including Section 230) that has enabled Twitter specifically and social media in general to become a cancer on the body politic.
What are the chances that without Section 230, the Court would have eventually created an immunity based on its holding in Citizens United? The Court is not shy about making free-wheeling policy decisions when it feels it must.

In terms of protecting/promoting social media censorship, CU may actually be more of a problem than § 230. I do understand why the Court ruled that way, but IMO they really got it grievously wrong. It's one of the few times I've found myself agreeing with a Stevens dissent. In the age of the internet, the First Amendment protects almost nothing but corporate speech.

The real problem isn't that Section 230 exists and immunizes platforms, it's that these platforms are allowed to censor at all. We don't need to punish users by forcing platforms to censor them. Instead, there should be a prohibition of the actual problematic behavior, which is these platforms being allowed to censor at all. There is no reason Twitter should be allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination while having a monopoly on its form of social media.
I don't disagree with any of that. I wouldn't have a problem with § 230 if it was used in the way it was intended. But at present, § 230 is basically like 1A for social media companies, except it restrains private persons instead of the government. In that capacity, it's a powertool of oppression.

I realize that § 230 in practice is applied on a categorical basis. But is that really the way it was supposed to be? By its terms, is § 230 really supposed to apply to all social media companies, regardless of what they're doing? And what of this "good faith" standard? Is it so malleable that it really means there's no standard at all? IIRC even Volokh, with his Google bux, acknowledged that 230 is vulnerable to criticism on that basis.

Yes, there are other ways to defend against lawsuits, enjoy spending six figures and up just for pretrial motion practice.
Six figures, just for a Rule 12? For a legally frivolous claim, generously requiring 16 hours of work at $700 an hour, I think we're in the neighborhood of $11K. If it's not a frivolous claim, different story, but in that case probably best to settle anyway. And if it's a business, aren't those fees deductible anyway?
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Six figures, just for a Rule 12? For a legally frivolous claim, generously requiring 16 hours of work at $700 an hour, I think we're in the neighborhood of $11K. If it's not a frivolous claim, different story, but in that case probably best to settle anyway. And if it's a business, aren't those fees deductible anyway?
Settle for what? The Kiwi Farms doesn't have money to settle shit. The only settlement offer is basically shutting it down.
 

Kenneth Erwin Engelhardt

Person of Interest
kiwifarms.net
Trump should be encouraging more Twitter and Facebook alternatives like Gab in the marketplace if he is worried about discrimination against conservatives. I agree. He should not be poking his nose into Facebook, Instagram or Twitter policies.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin

Kenneth Erwin Engelhardt

Person of Interest
kiwifarms.net
You can tell how fucking dumb Twitter is because if they had balls they'd delete the tweet entirely and not hide the tweet with a warning label that makes everyone want to click it to see what Donnie Drumpf said that crossed the line for the Twitter MiniTrue. Especially when the warning label says "in the public's interest for the tweet to remain accessible," I mean holy shit, who wouldn't want to click the tweet to see what Orange Man has to say. It's literally like if the Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes or booze said that "it may be in the public's interest to drink/smoke this product to see how bad it really is."

It's impressive how fucking stupid Trump's enemies are. If this half-assed, limp-wristed (literally, the Twitter MiniTrue is ran by a flaming homo) bullshit passes for "the Resistance" then America deserves a Neocon Don presidency forever and ever.
No they really can't delete it when it is from the President of the United States. And yes, it is in the public interest to keep it accessible.
 

King Ghidorah

kiwifarms.net
Trump should be encouraging more Twitter and Facebook alternatives like Gab in the marketplace if he is worried about discrimination against conservatives. I agree. He should not be poking his nose into Facebook, Instagram or Twitter policies.
Genuinely good luck getting gab in the public eye with the mother of all smear campaigns burying it practically forever
 

#KillAllPedos

A Platform We Can All Believe In
kiwifarms.net
Settle for what? The Kiwi Farms doesn't have money to settle shit. The only settlement offer is basically shutting it down.
That’s if it’s a meritorious claim that can’t otherwise be nipped at the pleadings stage. Step #1 is really don’t have there be any meritorious claims against you. And from what I see, there really aren’t that many plausible claims against KF. What, is it defamatory to expose someone as a furry? Is the pedo gonna sue for getting exposed as a pedo? They might, but that’s an easy 12(b)(6).
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
That’s if it’s a meritorious claim that can’t otherwise be nipped at the pleadings stage.
Those are going to exist. People are going to commit defamation even on completely normie sites like Facebook. When they do, the platform will have to engage in costly litigation on a technically complex issue like vicarious liability. This is going to be prohibitively expensive for the Farms, but will also be even for larger platforms like Facebook, which will face dozens or hundreds of such suits, and will be continually inundated with possibly meritorious claims of defamation. Rather than analyze them individually at great expense, the only affordable option will be simply to delete posts or close accounts.

Normie sites may even actually have it worse, since the claims are going to be generic normie type defamation, like people getting in fights with family members and people they know irl, about shit like next door fences, borrowed tools and other normie shit. To some extent the fact most people getting mad at the Farms are just going to be incompetent lolcows whose real life stories are ludicrous, we're actually in better shape there, much like ED and other drama sites. Most people are going to be discouraged from even bringing suit over things like that because they really have no reputation or career anyway.
 

#KillAllPedos

A Platform We Can All Believe In
kiwifarms.net
Those are going to exist. People are going to commit defamation even on completely normie sites like Facebook. When they do, the platform will have to engage in costly litigation on a technically complex issue like vicarious liability. This is going to be prohibitively expensive for the Farms, but will also be even for larger platforms like Facebook, which will face dozens or hundreds of such suits, and will be continually inundated with possibly meritorious claims of defamation. Rather than analyze them individually at great expense, the only affordable option will be simply to delete posts or close accounts.

Normie sites may even actually have it worse, since the claims are going to be generic normie type defamation, like people getting in fights with family members and people they know irl, about shit like next door fences, borrowed tools and other normie shit. To some extent the fact most people getting mad at the Farms are just going to be incompetent lolcows whose real life stories are ludicrous, we're actually in better shape there, much like ED and other drama sites. Most people are going to be discouraged from even bringing suit over things like that because they really have no reputation or career anyway.
Well it would certainly be more expensive than blanket immunity. Just to be clear, I think it would be terrible policy to always hold social media sites liable as publishers, just like it's bad policy to always give them immunity. I could live with a functional approach to immunity, but giving blanket immunity to some of largest most powerful companies in the world is just asking for trouble.
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Well it would certainly be more expensive than blanket immunity. Just to be clear, I think it would be terrible policy to always hold social media sites liable as publishers, just like it's bad policy to always give them immunity.
Having to argue about and decide it every single time is even worse policy. It effectively doesn't exist if you're out $50K or more every time you have to argue the ridiculously complex issue of vicarious liability on a case by case basis with slightly different facts than every other time.

Platform immunity isn't something that was invented out of thin air with Section 230. There has always been a distinction between publishers, distributors and platforms.

Generally, if you are the publisher of a work, you are liable for it.

Distributors have responsibility for material they distribute, but only if they are aware that they are distributing it.

Platforms, though, have total immunity.

Under the traditional distinction, for instance, if I am the publisher of a work, say I am a newspaper and I print and physically distribute newspapers including editorials calling Bob a pedophile, I am the one responsible for every part of the transaction and I am strictly responsible for whatever defamatory content is in it.

A distributor would be something like a news stand selling my newspapers. These are not liable unless they are actually aware of defamatory content, like for instance, a pornographic magazine calling a famous TV preacher a literal motherfucker.

A platform is usually something like a common carrier, such as a telephone company or (under Section 230) an ISP. These enjoy blanket immunity. You would not want a telephone company held liable every time someone said something defamatory to another person using a telephone and Congress, in its wisdom, decided to grant this same kind of immunity to ISPs.

Now, if there is a problem here it is, IMO, not that ISPs get blanket immunity, but that they're getting platform privileges, i.e. a near total immunity from litigation, without having platform obligations, i.e. being legally required to carry traffic for anyone. They're getting to censor and moderate (like a publisher or distributor would) but yet getting the immunity heretofore only given to common carriers.

If anything needs to be fixed, it's to force them to act like common carriers.

However, I think perhaps this kind of special regulation should be limited to extremely large corporations, perhaps by applying a First Amendment level of protection to those that deal directly with the government, like Twitter and Google are currently doing, or with a minimum market cap of something in the billions.

Getting kicked off Kiwi Farms or RetardEra or some niche site because of their weird moderation policies doesn't really harm anyone.

If you get kicked off Google, though, you're often going to end up not able to do basic shit, especially when you have stuff like jobs requiring people to use Google Docs, things requiring Two Factor Authentication from Google Authenticator, etc. Never mind employers who demand to see social media as part of the application process, forcing you to explain why you're kicked off Facebook or, if you're just a Luddite, why you refuse to even have an account there at all. Etc.
 

#KillAllPedos

A Platform We Can All Believe In
kiwifarms.net
Having to argue about and decide it every single time is even worse policy. It effectively doesn't exist if you're out $50K or more every time you have to argue the ridiculously complex issue of vicarious liability on a case by case basis with slightly different facts than every other time.
That's not really what I meant. It shouldn't have to be litigated extensively in every case. If the site is operating in a certain defined capacity, then the immunity would apply as a matter of law. Ideally, it would be just as useful to a site like this as § 230 presently is (speedy, inexpensive, etc.), but it wouldn't protect giant multinational tech platforms if they engage in partisan behavior. Perhaps that's not a "functional" approach and more of a "modified categorical" approach.

Platform immunity isn't something that was invented out of thin air with Section 230. There has always been a distinction between publishers, distributors and platforms.

Generally, if you are the publisher of a work, you are liable for it....
I know. I'm not too fluent with the details of this area of common law torts, but I know that Section 230 was enacted in the backdrop of some sort of judge-made framework for allocating defamation liability. Bottom line, without 230, many of these tech "platforms" could be treated as publishers/distributors of actionable info.

A platform is usually something like a common carrier, such as a telephone company or (under Section 230) an ISP. These enjoy blanket immunity. You would not want a telephone company held liable every time someone said something defamatory to another person using a telephone and Congress, in its wisdom, decided to grant this same kind of immunity to ISPs.
Of course. And likewise, it almost goes without saying that we don't want telephone companies moderating our phone calls the way Twitter "moderates" political dissidents on its "platform." I imagine if they did, they'd be in big trouble. Or I hope they would be.

Now, if there is a problem here it is, IMO, not that ISPs get blanket immunity, but that they're getting platform privileges, i.e. a near total immunity from litigation, without having platform obligations, i.e. being legally required to carry traffic for anyone. They're getting to censor and moderate (like a publisher or distributor would) but yet getting the immunity heretofore only given to common carriers.

If anything needs to be fixed, it's to force them to act like common carriers.
Well it appears our positions aren't that far apart after all.

However, I think perhaps this kind of special regulation should be limited to extremely large corporations, perhaps by applying a First Amendment level of protection to those that deal directly with the government, like Twitter and Google are currently doing, or with a minimum market cap of something in the billions.
Agreed.

Getting kicked off Kiwi Farms or RetardEra or some niche site because of their weird moderation policies doesn't really harm anyone.

If you get kicked off Google, though, you're often going to end up not able to do basic shit, especially when you have stuff like jobs requiring people to use Google Docs, things requiring Two Factor Authentication from Google Authenticator, etc. Never mind employers who demand to see social media as part of the application process, forcing you to explain why you're kicked off Facebook or, if you're just a Luddite, why you refuse to even have an account there at all. Etc.
Agreed.
 

Superman93

My Balls!
kiwifarms.net
That's not really what I meant. It shouldn't have to be litigated extensively in every case. If the site is operating in a certain defined capacity, then the immunity would apply as a matter of law. Ideally, it would be just as useful to a site like this as § 230 presently is (speedy, inexpensive, etc.), but it wouldn't protect giant multinational tech platforms if they engage in partisan behavior. Perhaps that's not a "functional" approach and more of a "modified categorical" approach.



I know. I'm not too fluent with the details of this area of common law torts, but I know that Section 230 was enacted in the backdrop of some sort of judge-made framework for allocating defamation liability. Bottom line, without 230, many of these tech "platforms" could be treated as publishers/distributors of actionable info.



Of course. And likewise, it almost goes without saying that we don't want telephone companies moderating our phone calls the way Twitter "moderates" political dissidents on its "platform." I imagine if they did, they'd be in big trouble. Or I hope they would be.



Well it appears our positions aren't that far apart after all.



Agreed.



Agreed.
Websites shouldn’t be exempted or punish for being too popular
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
Tags
None