Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I would say you're proposing a false dichotomy. There are 4 options or more.

In the case of Twitter, in order to maintain their "good samaritan" the extent of their "content moderation" is quite specficic.

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.

The NYPost article was damaging a political opponent to be sure. It was not obscene, lewd, filthy; though clearly twitter allows porn so these are immediately ruled out. It wasn't violent by any means.

Was it harassing or otherwise objectionable? Well I think there's some good debate possible but that debate is cut off immediately because the "content moderation" must be done in good faith. This very clearly is violated.

So Twitter did not content moderate as per the laws they must obey. Therefore we now have 2 options. Twitter loses platform protections and becomes directly liable for any and all content they publish aka any anonymous person posting. OR they stop their censorship.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: