Comments
LizardWizard444 t1_ja2vln2 wrote
Well yess he's a manbaby with an emerald spoon in his mouth
DankVectorz t1_ja3lsce wrote
This suit is from a 2017 event
bingybunny t1_ja7sj4u wrote
the supreme court was doing the oral arguments last week on the 21st and 22nd. i listened to it. the statutes in question were written pre algorithm and none of the justices sound computer literate
[deleted] t1_ja5shvf wrote
[deleted]
fisherbeam t1_ja3re4w wrote
It’s not like they banned the president over the taliban. This is why Elon shouldn’t have bought the company. We were much safer before.
[deleted] t1_ja1sn3s wrote
[deleted]
RefanRes t1_ja2gmt5 wrote
They'd be targeted so probably van rentals, DIY shops and companies that sell electronic parts.
GetlostMaps t1_ja2h4a0 wrote
Pilot training courses, with discounts for students who don't take landing lessons.
Yes I know that wasn't Isis. Don't @ me.
jihadijohhn t1_ja326pw wrote
This is a policy from old Twitter. It isn't something enacted by Musk.
FawksyBoxes t1_ja2we6a wrote
I mean almost every major corporation has dropped advertising since uncle musky took over
Myriachan t1_ja63a7i wrote
Reminds me of the dude who sold his company’s old truck and it ended up in ISIS’s hands with the company phone number still painted on in ISIS pictures.
WritingRites t1_ja1snrg wrote
"But if we don't let one extremist ideology be allowed on here, we can't allow any!"
DavidHewlett t1_ja24njj wrote
“Both sides!”
BaconIsAVeg2 t1_ja30uj6 wrote
"If we ban ISIS, we'd also have to ban MTG and Boebert and a ton of conservative leaders!"
elpajaroquemamais t1_ja334gy wrote
This should be their argument tbh.
Dagamoth t1_ja3c0x4 wrote
Is it their argument but they’re not saying the quiet part out loud yet.
asmorbidus t1_ja3pkrx wrote
What the hell did Magic: the Gathering do?
KesonaFyren t1_ja428v7 wrote
MTGathering is more comprehensible than MTGreene, maybe you're on to something though
GroundbreakingAd4158 t1_ja52vj4 wrote
They already have been banning conservatives for some time.
Good-Candidate3044 t1_ja4fdwe wrote
Tell me you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article.
It's the 2007 suit lol. The people who banned all Conservative thought but allowed litteral terrorists to remain on the platform.
bigfatfun t1_ja29vfd wrote
Will argue to the Supreme Court that being the internet supplier to ISIS is ok; tries monthly to stop supplying internet to Ukrainian people trying not to be killed in their homes by a madman.
Fuck musk
melbourne_giant t1_ja2c5ti wrote
Must has been the CEO for all of 5 minutes compared to how long the company has actually been around.
But sure, fuck Musk.
OfLittleToNoValue t1_ja2rxpa wrote
Will it make you happier to hear fuck that ignorant cock jack Dorsey too?
Omnipresent_Walrus t1_ja2m1sk wrote
The fuck does that have to do with anything?
PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES t1_ja2wupk wrote
The Supreme court case in question is about a terrorist attack that happened in 2017 which was about 5 years before elon bought Twitter.
Omnipresent_Walrus t1_ja36yg7 wrote
And the way it's being argued now is... Happening now. It doesn't change that these arguments are happening under his watch.
AndyHN t1_ja3diqc wrote
To prevent the company that he owns now from being held responsible for something the company did before he owned it, his lawyers have to justify the things that the company did before he owned it. It's not like he can concede that the policy was wrong, change it, and any judgement will be enforced against the previous ownership.
Omnipresent_Walrus t1_ja3fi6z wrote
They doesn't change that what's being said is nonsense?
AndyHN t1_ja43wdb wrote
A guy in California was just acquitted of DUI because in CA it's legal to drive under the influence if the result of not driving puts someone at greater risk of harm. His lawyer argued successfully in court that he was at greater risk of harm if he didn't flee in his car when his wife caught him with his girlfriend. That sounds like nonsense to me, but it worked.
Whatever nonsense is being argued by Twitter's lawyers will only be dumb if it doesn't work. What would be dumber would be not using every argument they can think of to clear their client.
InternetPeon t1_ja1whq2 wrote
Looks like Musk has got things all buttoned up on free speech boys.
000Spectator t1_ja22vvh wrote
Which is inadvertently correct. The law states that you conspire when you knowingly aid and abet criminality. if someone online tells you to spend all your money on the lottery and you actually do it, that’s your fault? Keep in mind that there are ways to help the enemy purposely and fail purposely in their fruitless endeavor.
ChronWeasely t1_ja33l3z wrote
The implications for social media are huge though. A ruling against Facebook will fundamentally change the role of the social media companies. The internet will become "less free" as companies need to regulate so much information that they'll reject an incredible amount to deflect possible litigation.
MrTastix t1_ja47eeu wrote
It's already "less free" in the sense that massive corporations are incentivised to act in certain ways out of profit.
Look at all the demonetisation fiascos YouTube has had over the years, for instant. It's not free by virtue of it being owned by corporate interests who only agenda is more money.
000Spectator t1_ja5inc2 wrote
Freedom isn’t the issue, it’s portable accountability. This also distracts from the social media corporations selling of personal information for profit.
ChronWeasely t1_ja5wkun wrote
Well that's just a separate issue and not covered by this supreme court case. Section 230 of the CDCA provides a lot of protections to hosts and depending on the wording of the ruling, a lot could change in a lot of places. Youtube receives lifetimes of videos every day. If every single one needed a full screening before hosting, something would have to give. Costs would increase on their end. While I can say "they can just shrug off the cost" we know that's not how it would play out. Not saying I like it, and I think hosts need some responsibility, but these things are all tied together. Not to mention possible effects on ad revenue due to slower publishing of content and the likes.
Legal Eagle did a good video about it last week. I'd recommend checking it out.
quikfrozt t1_ja33nqt wrote
I’m amazed all these foreign belligerents and governments are all happily using an American platform. It’s like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan having stuff published in the NYT during WW2.
KesonaFyren t1_ja42win wrote
Or 20,000 people attending a Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden 6 months before Hitler invaded Poland!
Xaero_Hour t1_ja3qpu7 wrote
Do not interrupt an enemy when they are in the middle of making a mistake.
[deleted] t1_ja1qvao wrote
[deleted]
Sentsuizan t1_ja1xv2o wrote
Their logic is like saying you wouldn't prosecute the phone company for the crimes discussed over the telephone but their algorithm was actively pushes content which promotes terrorism
GeerJonezzz t1_ja60bu9 wrote
People who search, promote, like, follow, things relating to ISIS are going to be exposed to more ISIS things.
You watch dog and cat videos in YT search engine, eventually you’ll start seeing cats and dogs, and probably a mix of some other animals like rabbits or squirrels on your homepage and more often on the side bar. That’s how these algorithms work.
Unless you can prove said algorithms purposefully promote things like ISIS to people who do not search for these things then there should be no issue.
You can watch this video about, well, pretty much the same case involving YT, alleging that there algorithms promote harmful ideologies:
RandomComputerFellow t1_ja3swvl wrote
Well. I really dislike Twitter but considering that this is about the lack of proactive actions to prevent ISIS using it and not about them actively allowing it, they are definitely right that it is not the same. I mean it is still a question if Twitter can and should be requited to take proactive actions but just calling it the same as aiding and abetting terror is a stretch. The same way one could also argue that Toyota aids or abets terror when they produce white pickup trucks. I would rather look at companies like TikTok which have much more dubious interests here.
Yukondano2 t1_ja5rclj wrote
Yeah I am really fucking concerned by how many people are jumping on this. They sound like a bunch of tech illiterate 70 year olds who don't understand how the internet works and assume it's like TV and newspapers. You can't act like websites endorse content by hosting it, the sheer scale of these sites and how the web works, means that applying that belief completely wrecks the internet. Yeah they should do what they can, and we can argue some sites do too little. But you will never get rid of bad content like this. It's like trying to end all crime in a city.
twcau t1_ja23ccj wrote
“It’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for ‘em.”
Whako4 t1_ja3axbm wrote
don’t the 3 letter organizations tell twitter to let them on the platform so they can be monitored?
Enschede2 t1_ja2llab wrote
Wolf Cola everyone!
mistercrinders t1_ja3rnir wrote
Wouldn't banning ISIS be silencing conservative voices? Checkmate Republicans.
Good-Candidate3044 t1_ja4g1pj wrote
Yet they remained at the time of this case where Western Republican voices were silenced and banned.
White man saying you like guns deleted and banned.
Brown man literally throwing homosexuals off of buildings A-OK with us.
[deleted] t1_ja1yum6 wrote
[removed]
Redboy45672 t1_ja560og wrote
Isis and MAGA is like a flat circle. It’s all the same shit. They just worship a different god
yourwitchergeralt t1_ja5lcdj wrote
ALLOW IT, & Track everyone that supports the terrorist shit..
undefinitive t1_ja6fx98 wrote
I'm such a free speech absolutist I actually believe ISIS should be allowed to use major social media platforms.
12altoids34 t1_ja78mqf wrote
If they win the mafia will probably get their own Twitter account.
Crooked_Cock t1_ja7gs62 wrote
It 100% is.
You have the power to prevent them from using your platform
You just fucking don’t for some reason.
Chariots487 t1_ja9a1hh wrote
Everyone in the world bout to forget how long they've been doing this so they can try and make it all about the mean new owner who doesn't say the nice words.
AaronHillelSwartz t1_ja2href wrote
Waiting to see how these foreign rulings effect domestic policy on information oligopolies. Or rather, how the Supreme Court will tailor these decisions to also effect American expression.
They unfortunately aren't granting certiorari for any antitrust lawsuit giving consumers actual choices of the platforms they use.
I suppose if I were as old as the average SC Judge I wouldn't want to do too much heavy lifting either, considering giving the consumer true choice (which is the primary property of capitalistic frameworks), would be difficult considering there are also enormous intellectual property rights stifling competition.
The Court needs a way in to create more consumer choices in online platforms, but I doubt they are even looking, more likely actively not looking.
The incentives from a corporate and executive branch (and maybe even congressional branch) are strongly against true choice at this level of speech.
But this is concerning the First Amendment of the sacred Constitution, not the second, or the third, et cetra. And The Court speaks for the Constitution as established in Marbury v. Madison. Their primary axial directive is maintaining balance of powers, and then to maintain freedom of speech, on down the constitutional amendments (and in their totality).
So, even though it might not be in the interest of the Executive Branch and the corporatacracy of America - imo, it would be nice to be inspired again, to see The Court do it's duty, even if it's difficult. Too far gone are the days of Benjamin Cardozo and feeling alive and vibrant and virile when reading law made by the highest court in the land by life appointed lawmakers. Gone is the feeling of inspiration.
TheLonleyStrategos t1_ja3bfgj wrote
I mean they're not wrong..... However they do ban people for random shit so yeah
TastyBullfrog2755 t1_ja5y1jh wrote
Where do we draw the line?
GeerJonezzz t1_ja61117 wrote
This case is bullshit, my problem with Twitter is how Elon selectively moderates the platform to satiate his ego. You can’t reasonably stop or perfectly moderate groups like ISIS or ISIS-adjacent organizations that can slip by and say whatever dumb shit to say, and you can’t stop people searching for said groups. Like, you can’t rid Facebook or Snapchat of all CP… you can’t stop all people from seeking or even stumbling upon that content.
Millions of people make accounts everyday with fake names, emails, details and post stuff without verification. Some literally make accounts that last minutes just to DM some sick or stupid shit to as many people as possible or get something trending.
It’s like trying to stop all crime… just can’t do it, or at least can’t do it without flipping society upside down.
You can ask for better, or new forms of moderation but that’s really it.
OldBob10 t1_ja4glso wrote
Free speech for billionaires and terrorists, not for thee…
Killawife t1_ja4zzh2 wrote
On the one hand, I don't consider it being piracy to host a website where people can upload materials to share with other people if YOU are only hosting the site and the protocols. But, on the other hand , I do consider twitter in its current form to be poison and everything it does, like giving awful people a zone to spout their hatred from, is therefor wrong. Stop aiding and abetting terror, both foreign and domestic.
Blue_water_dreams t1_ja5uahn wrote
I guess Elon doesn’t disagree with ISIS.
MuddaFrmAnnudaBrudda t1_ja3cg64 wrote
Proving himself to be exactly what I thought he was.
Micheal42 t1_ja2pnte wrote
Is twitter arguing that ISIS is not a terrorist organisation? If not then they have no other cards to play.
HaikuKnives t1_ja3f435 wrote
The argument is that a platform can't be held responsible for content generated by users, even if those users are themselves reprehensible. Take away this protection, and Swap out ISIS with any other group that might have speech that others object to (LGBTQ+ rights activists, Communist party, US secessionists, garden variety racists, drag show promoters, onlyfans content creators, etc) and you'll see that platforms will be forced to turn off user content or so heavily moderate content that nothing that's even advertiser-unfortunately would be allowed on the platform.
I condemn ISIS, and their message. I do not condemn the medium that ISIS used.
KamikazeArchon t1_ja6dpdu wrote
ISIS is not just a group that has "speech that others object to", and claiming it's an issue of just "speech that others object to" is disingenuous.
Yes, there's a difficult grey area somewhere between "common carrier" (the phone company isn't liable if you happen to talk about terrorism over the phone) and "active participant" (someone starting a newspaper specifically and solely to publish ISIS messages). The difficulties are not what you're presenting.
Micheal42 t1_ja3kmuo wrote
Aren't we then treating Twitter more as a technology than as a company. And aren't we considering ourselves at war with Isis? Either way we enact sanctions against anyone working with Russia, who aren't directly at war with, why should someone who works with ISIS be treated any differently?
For me the line isn't about individuals, it's about groups. ISIS shouldn't get better treatment or exceptions in places we wouldn't make them for Russia.
HaikuKnives t1_ja3l93x wrote
Twitter (the platform) is a technology though. We also have not sanctioned Twitter for hosting Russian sympathizers so this comparison falls apart from the get-go.
Micheal42 t1_ja3rf0s wrote
Not if you believe that they shouldn't be hosting actual russian government agents. Russian sympathizers is so broad a term as to be useless. The comparison I'd draw would be to actual government agents. Those are the people from ISIS I'd want to stop, people who actually work for them. Not just some dickhead in his basement living in the west going "oh I love ISIS".
In this comparison you could take the people suffering under Isis rule and twitter the technology as analogous. That being they're being used against their will to prop up something that they shouldn't be used to prop up. Putin, ISIS members power and the spreading of ISIS propaganda.
To that end if the people who own Twitter, the platform, aren't able or willing to stop them being used then they shouldn't benefit from any of the things that come from being housed in the west, just the same as people who break the embargo against Russia should face consequences too.
GeerJonezzz t1_ja60olt wrote
This reads like somebody who doesn’t know how the internet works.
Micheal42 t1_ja61isz wrote
That's one way to dismiss what I just said I suppose.
GeerJonezzz t1_ja62ref wrote
I stopped reading at the “Those are the people from ISIS I’d want to stop, people who actually work for them”.
My brother in Christ have you ever heard of a VPN?
How can you tell the difference between some random ISIS shitter from Iowa vs. random Muslim villagers with IPhone 11’s on untraceable networks? They’re not gonna be hosting livestreams and giving out their IP’s…
You don’t actually think places like Twitter and Facebook allow ISIS or terrorists to post if actually verified and reported, do you?
Micheal42 t1_ja6550n wrote
Then how does the supreme court know it's Isis posting?
GeerJonezzz t1_ja7ru18 wrote
They don’t know if these people are actually ISIS members or just ISIS affiliates/supporters. The argument is that people who promote terrorist shit are effectively terrorists themselves. So it doesn’t automatically mean they would be any general or officer on the ground within the organization and not would it matter because the message being spread is all the same…
Micheal42 t1_ja7sivr wrote
So you'd say an even harder line than me? As in that the platform benefits from being used and owned by the west or America and so should walk the line everyone else in that situation has to, i.e not supporting Russia and no spreading of ISIS messages?
For me that's a harder line to reach because then you're saying they can't be publicly discussed and I think it's important to do so because if they have any value at all we want to separate the value from their behaviours and if they don't we want to be able to show that in a way that demonstrates confidence.
If I've misunderstood you or if you have another take I'd be happy to hear it though.
GeerJonezzz t1_ja7y4ur wrote
No, actually, my only suggestion would be better moderation with improved AI and algorithms, and changing aspects or features of these platforms to make work easier for moderation teams. And of course, much more transparency. All in all, it’s a big ask but more reasonable as it flows with the natural optimization and improvement of automatic features.
Trying to get rid of bad actors online is no different than trying to eliminate all crime. Twitter, FB, Instagram, has more people than any city in the world many times over.
The fact is, unwanted people and content will always exist. As people, in a social and cultural sense, our focus should be to educate people on how to navigate the internet and social media. How to protect ourselves and how to interact with extreme content either illicit or ideological instead of wanting to limit and control everything that goes on.
There are arguments for having the government be more responsible in alleviating moderation duties from these companies on these websites- which I’m not opposed to but I’m not familiar with the pro’s and con’s of it to discuss it.
Micheal42 t1_ja8c0qp wrote
Interesting, thanks for sharing your view
GeerJonezzz t1_ja8ct07 wrote
Well, sure, thanks for reading and engaging.
I just don’t want to come off like some laissez faire government, free speech absolutist kind of guy. It’s just the internet is a hard place to secure so I think people are quick to assume you can just sort of lockdown these spaces and there would be no problems or drawbacks.
SpiritJuice t1_ja680el wrote
Legal Eagle has a great video covering this subject that I recommend watching. It covers Section 230, how it applies to this lawsuit, and how the plaintiffs winning would really hurt the internet and use generated content sites. Link below.
Micheal42 t1_ja687u1 wrote
I like legal eagle, (I just realised both words use the same letters haha) so I'll definitely watch this later. Thanks for the link
Rolling_Beardo t1_ja3h4jn wrote
It’s because Elon is making money off it so it can’t be bad!
QuestionableAI t1_ja3ig0k wrote
Ban Elon's shit or nationalize it. That little rich Nazi needs to be brought to heel.
chrisco125 t1_ja1uj9s wrote
Except that it is the same.
swisscriss t1_ja207s6 wrote
This is honestly ridiculous, have they even considered all the lonely, isolated men that could use some purpose in their lives? Or the poor FBI agents that have been reduced to radicalizing basement dwellers. That's not even mentioning how hard it is to transfer money to people who bank through their mom's credit union
Calbinan t1_ja1ssma wrote
Meanwhile, people are still banned for criticizing Elon.