So Facebook and Twitter decide to be Publishers

Gotta’ ask about that one, too:

Did Facebook, Twitter, or AOC actually either close down (Denial Of Service Attack) the Post’s website or remove the Hunter Biden stories from the Post site ?

If not, then how are they blocking the story ?

[see my question about Biden/Harris stickers and your car]

Do Twitter and Facebook have legitimate “Terms of Service” issues with either hacked material or publication of personal information ?

Do these social media companies retain any right to ensure the factual accuracy of certain kinds of stories shared on their site ?

What they are is corporations setting rules for their platform and trying to navigate towards making money. Capitalists should be proud of them.

Wahhh! I’m upset that facebook and twitter are not promoting and distributing Russian propaganda and lies that are designed to disrupt our elections! Wahhhh! As private companies, they should be forced to distribute our bullshit propaganda! Wahhhh!

My thoughts exactly. I’m only confused by the OP’s apparent outrage.

~Max

No, they aren’t. They are simply not giving voice to the Post’s pathetic partisan hatchet job.

Nobody is required to spread your propaganda.

I’m not.

I’m not. I understand exactly why he is “outraged”.

As private corporations, they can censor any content published on their sites. The First Amendment only prohibits Congress from making censorship legislation.

Trump’s campaign Twitter account just got suspended.

That is newsworthy.

~Max

This sums it up rather well. “Wahhh, you are censoring me! You have to let me plaster your car with stickers!”

Jimmy Dore is a lowlife scumbag. Kept doubling down on the Seth Rich conspiracy even when Seth Rich’s family were pleading for it to stop and his memory not to be a political football.

I like Jon Healey’s take on the whole situation in the editorial section of the Los Angeles Times:

~Max

The OP is repeating GOP talking points but is having trouble sticking the landing. We’re supposed to be outraged enough to want a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Basically, they want Facebook to either a) be liable for every single thing published by its users or b) forced to abandon all attempts at curation.

That’s why there’s all the talk about Facebook et al being “publishers.”

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. If that was the goal, this topic is probably beyond the point of no return. I invite @eenerms to make a new topic and specifically reference Section 230 so we know the discussion is about law and not politics/news.

~Max

In the politics/news arena, I finally got a push notification about Hunter Biden.

Well, no. It’s about the Twitter/Facebook controversy. And why is the FB thing more important than the contents of the article? Because the article is bullshit, but the other more relevant.

Still trying to understand the NY Post’s angle on this one. It seemed like their take was that Hunter Biden used his influence to do some such. I feel strange for asking but isn’t the Vice President of the United States pretty powerful on his own?

I see today that the angle is slightly different, saying that Hunter introduced Burisma to his dad, but like they had no idea who he was and that their paths wouldn’t eventually intersect.

Here’s Twitter’s official response.

What?
Since when?
Even if we equate “decline to publish” and “censor” (which we should not as they are two very different terms with two very different meanings), that not only isn’t true - it can’t be true. It doesn’t make any sense at all.

There’s no way for everyone to publish everything. Even the most ethical publisher in the world is going to select which stories to run based on timeliness, audience interest, and their own evaluation of the veracity of the report. Otherwise, your local paper would be obliged to print the rundown and results of the the most recent rugby game between New South Wales high school students as told by the losing team’s hooker’s grandmother.

… and she wasn’t even at the match!