Mike Masnick ✅Feb 23, 2023
I have lots of respect for the investigative journalism that @Julia has done for many many years. But her first opinion piece in the NY Times, about Section 230 gets a ton of basic facts wrong, misunderstands the law, and proposes an unworkable and dangerous "fix" https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/23/your-simple-solution-to-section-230-is-bad-julia-angwin-edition/
Your ‘Simple Solution’ To Section 230 Is Bad: Julia Angwin Edition

It’s getting to be somewhat exhausting watching people who don’t understand Section 230 insisting they have a simple solution for whatever problems they think (mostly incorrectly) are c…

Techdirt
Show threadex0du5Feb 24, 2023

@mmasnick @Julia Your reply sounds very yt. It seems to ignore the fact that platforms have monetary gain from hosting of harmful speech, and does not acknowledge the systematizing forces involved here. The “I can’t monitor everyone making me money” defense is weak.

Air don’t make money off of transmitting speech. Twitter does. Twitter is a full-hearted participant in the speech, incentivizing it even.

I don’t agree in tearing down all liability limitations, but these arguments are poor.

Show threadMike Masnick ✅Feb 24, 2023

@ex0du5 @Julia I don't know what your first sentence means.

But as for the rest, we have different rules for liability for those "transmitting" speech for a damn good reason. If we had liability for transmitting speech, no one would transmit your speech any more.

Show threadex0du5Feb 24, 2023

@mmasnick @Julia The first sentence is a commentary about how your entire response attempts to frame bad actors as individuals and not systems of harm, a very white viewpoint that has been used to persist structuralized systems of harm.

And the second is a very ignorant response. They transmit speech because it makes them money. People regularly take on risk for the opportunity at profit, which is actually what this is all about. You are sounding really out of touch.

Show threadex0du5Feb 24, 2023
@mmasnick @Julia In fact, your arguments sound like Elon’s “I’m just about free speech” framing while hate speech has skyrocketed on his platform. The pretending of a lack of participation in the harm is really gross, and factually clearly wrong.
Show threadK Smith MI

@ex0du5 @mmasnick @Julia

Since Musk has owned Twitter, its ads revenues are way down. So much for your theory that "sites host harmful speech because it makes then money".

Feb 24, 2023 at 5:25pmWeb
Show threadex0du5Feb 24, 2023
@K_Smith_MI @mmasnick @Julia Facebook internal memos show they refused to limit hate speech because of the ad revenue effects. Google is still rolling bank on YouTube (nearly 30 billion). Hell, Breitbart is profitable. This is a weird angle to attack the point that they don’t host out of generosity and wouldn’t flee if there was liability involved.