Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Sunday November 17, @05:32AM   Printer-friendly

From the horse's own mouth:

The Guardian has announced it will no longer post content on Elon Musk's social media platform, X, from its official accounts.

In an announcement to readers, the news organisation said it considered the benefits of being on the platform formerly called Twitter were now outweighed by the negatives, citing the "often disturbing content" found on it.

"We wanted to let readers know that we will no longer post on any official Guardian editorial accounts on the social media site X," the Guardian said.
...
Responding to the announcement, Musk posted on X that the Guardian was "irrelevant" and a "laboriously vile propaganda machine".

Last year National Public Radio (NPR), the non-profit US media organisation, stopped posting on X after the social media platform labelled it as "state-affiliated media". PBS, a US public TV broadcaster, suspended its posts for the same reason.

This month the Berlin film festival said it was quitting X, without citing an official reason, and last month the North Wales police force said it had stopped using X because it was "no longer consistent with our values".

In August the Royal National orthopaedic hospital said it was leaving X, citing an "increased volume of hate speech and abusive commentary" on the platform.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by darkfeline on Sunday November 17, @08:48AM (43 children)

    by darkfeline (1030) on Sunday November 17, @08:48AM (#1382138) Homepage

    Didn't Disney and a bunch of companies that said they were leaving X just come back recently?

    Virtue signalling only gets you so far (until you run out of money).

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by RamiK on Sunday November 17, @10:27AM

      by RamiK (1813) on Sunday November 17, @10:27AM (#1382141)

      Didn't Disney and a bunch of companies that said they were leaving X just come back recently?

      Apparently they only stopped twitting on one of their secondary accounts but never stopped twitting on their main and all their other accounts nor did they stop advertising on X: https://www.piratesandprincesses.net/disney-parks-return-to-tweeting-on-x-after-elon-musk-told-iger-to-go-fk-yourself/ [piratesandprincesses.net]

      So, their empty threats were the virtue signalling and it got them pretty far seeing how everyone fell for it.

      --
      compiling...
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Sunday November 17, @02:19PM (38 children)

      by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 17, @02:19PM (#1382154) Journal

      > Didn't Disney and a bunch of companies that said they were leaving X just come back recently?

      Yes, they did. There's some interesting backstory behind it, too. The advertiser boycotts were organized by a small number of "Independent" parties.

      The first, Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), chose to close and disband when X accused them of organizing an illegal boycott. The rumor is several of their member companies (a nontrivial portion of the Fortune 500) looked at the way the GARM membership system worked and realized both that there was a problem, and they'd share liability in any legal decisions against GARM. They punched the self-destruct button.

      The second was X's lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate. They demonstrated that CCDH worked extremely hard and in bad faith to manufacture examples of corporate advertising adjacent to "bad" content. How hard? They took old accounts (bypassing new account protections), followed and interacted a bunch of racists and not-just-republicans-but-actual-Nazi content generators to teach the algorithm what they wanted, and then scrolled through more content than a human user would see in decades to find ONE example of inappropriate-adjacent advertising. X lost that suit, but CCDH took a big credibility hit.

      The third, most recent, story is that the FCC dug into "NewsGuard". They're being accused of running a censorship cartel made up of advertisers, fact-checkers, and the Biden Administration. If those are correct, then companies relying on NewsGuard might not be eligible for section 230 protections.

      Peeling the onion, it doesn't look like this was just virtue signaling; It was Musk derangement syndrome.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Sunday November 17, @02:23PM

        by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 17, @02:23PM (#1382155) Journal

        The above post contains an error.

        X's suit against CCDH was for scraping Terabytes of data off of Twitter against the TOS. It was Media Matters that did the follow-the-Nazi thing.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Spamalope on Sunday November 17, @07:01PM

        by Spamalope (5233) on Sunday November 17, @07:01PM (#1382191) Homepage

        Op's comment isn't flamebait, it's context to the 'going off in a huff' performance.
        The 'X is now Nazi' narrative was a politically motivated lie. To the extent anything like that was accurate, it was false flag or selective interpretation.
        As revealed by 'The Twitter files', the TOS had been being applied as a political weapon while the company denied it. After switching to X, the TOS started being applied to toxic voices on the left as well as right and community notes changed policies to improve.
        On that note I've seen the community notes on X evolve into something as good as I've seen given that'd it's subject to organized group brigading attacks intended to disrupt it's neutral policy. For the areas where I've got personal knowledge (aka, can check independently), they've been accurate and nothing I'd quibble over. I've seen examples of mis-steps pointed out - and them course correcting which is a great sign.
        And... media companies were used to posting political boosterism or outright hoaxes as fact, and started getting called out for that. They didn't like it at all. So long as they keep calling out lies of the right I'm a fan (aka - don't do just-before-X twitter but with political tribes revered - I'm not in either tribe and want someone to keep them vaguely honest since the traditional press won't) I'm not expecting miracles, just less bad than the shitshow everywhere else. (Notes seems to have settled on a modern version of the Slashdot mods + meta mods system? At least looks like that from the outside)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @08:04AM (33 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @08:04AM (#1382245)

        The third, most recent, story is that the FCC dug into "NewsGuard". They're being accused of running a censorship cartel made up of advertisers, fact-checkers, and the Biden Administration. If those are correct, then companies relying on NewsGuard might not be eligible for section 230 protections.

        And you're welcome. [techdirt.com]

        • (Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday November 18, @03:11PM (27 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @03:11PM (#1382289) Journal
          Read the section [cornell.edu]:

          (2)Civil liability

          No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

          (A)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, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

          (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

          The argument here is that NewGuard isn't operating in good faith and hence, section 230's protection from civil liability doesn't apply. Your link doesn't refute that argument, it merely ignores it.

          If you said “Once a company like that starts moderating content, it’s no longer a platform, but a publisher”

          I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that you’ve likely heard this from someone else — perhaps even someone respected — but it’s just not true. The law says no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law does distinguish between “interactive computer services” and “information content providers,” but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying “platform” or “publisher.” There is no “certification” or “decision” that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else.

          To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a “platform” or a “publisher.” What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it.

          Really, this is the simplest, most basic understanding of Section 230: it is about placing the liability for content online on whoever created that content, and not on whoever is hosting it. If you understand that one thing, you’ll understand most of the most important things about Section 230.

          To reinforce this point: there is nothing any website can do to “lose” Section 230 protections. That’s not how it works. There may be situations in which a court decides that those protections do not apply to a given piece of content, but it is very much fact-specific to the content in question. For example, in the lawsuit against Roommates.com for violating the Fair Housing Act, the court ruled against Roommates, but not that the site “lost” its Section 230 protections, or that it was now a “publisher.” Rather, the court explicitly found that some content on Roommates.com was created by 3rd party users and thus protected by Section 230, and some content (namely pulldown menus designating racial preferences) was created by the site itself, and thus not eligible for Section 230 protections.

          followed by the ridiculous claim:

          So, again, even if (c)(2) applied, most content moderation could avoid the “good faith” question by relying on that part, (c)(2)(B), which has no good faith requirement.

          In this case, it isn't about platform versus publisher (notice that ElizabethGreene used the phrase "If those [accusations] are correct" to indicate her assertion was conditional on the accusations of a censorship cartel, which would be moderation in bad faith, not on whether the social media customers of NewGuard were platforms or publisher), but rather whether or not the moderation is in good faith. Ass to the second claim, the customers of NewGuard aren't the information content providers - they're the platforms on which the information content providers operate.

          Let's given an example. If SoylentNews uses NewGuard, they run afoul of section (c)(1)(A). If I as a user/information content provider of SN use NewGuard, then (c)(2)(B) applies.

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @04:53PM (26 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @04:53PM (#1382313)

            Yep. You're wrong on Section 230 too.

            Go back and read the law again. And while you're at it, check out some more info surrounding section 230 (see below and/or do your own web search).

            It will show you just how wrong you and ElizabethGreene are.

            First off, even if sites are "censoring" based on anything, be it Newsguard, tea leaves, chicken entrails or anything else, that's not a Section 230 issue. If the government is involved, it might be a First Amendment issue. In which case, it's not a Section 230 issue, it's a First Amendment issue.

            Section 230 says that you (that means corporations, individuals, SoylentNews, etc.) can't be sued for something a third party posts on your site. It does not mean that no one can be sued. If there is defamation, you can sue whoever posted such content under defamation laws. If there is censorship and a government agency is involved, you can sue the government under the First Amendment.

            What you may not do is force other folks to host content they do not wish to host on their property. An example: If what you're claiming is true, I should be able to come over to your house, project gay furry porn on the side of your house with max volume and you would have to allow me to do so.

            What's that? I can't post/display whatever I want on your property? If that's the case, why doesn't that apply to SoylentNews or X or Facebook? Get it now? I imagine not, but at least I tried.

            https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/have-trouble-understanding-section-230-don-t-worry.-so-does-the-supreme-court [lawfaremedia.org]
            https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supreme-court-rules-twitter-not-liable-for-isis-content/ [scotusblog.com]
            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-section-230-liability-shield-internet-companies/ [cbsnews.com]
            https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/18/23728423/supreme-court-section-230-gonzalez-google-twitter-taamneh-ruling [theverge.com]
            https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legal [eff.org]

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18, @05:31PM (16 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @05:31PM (#1382320) Journal

              Go back and read the law again. And while you're at it, check out some more info surrounding section 230 (see below and/or do your own web search).

              And yet, I already quoted the relevant passages in both the law and in your linked article. They won't change when I reread them. The problem will remain.

              First off, even if sites are "censoring" based on anything, be it Newsguard, tea leaves, chicken entrails or anything else, that's not a Section 230 issue. If the government is involved, it might be a First Amendment issue. In which case, it's not a Section 230 issue, it's a First Amendment issue.

              No, I already showed how it's a Section 230 issue. The censoring has to be made in good faith and used for the purpose of "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".

              And when the government is involved, it becomes a First Amendment issue. Acting as a censor proxy for any US government (federal, state, or local) immediately involves the First Amendment.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @05:50PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @05:50PM (#1382323)

                No, I already showed how it's a Section 230 issue. The censoring has to be made in good faith and used for the purpose of "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".

                And who decides that? You? Yeah, right.

                If you'd even read a little about contract law or *gasp* gone to law school, you'd know that "good faith" is so poorly defined that it's pretty much meaningless.

                I tell you what, why don't you file a lawsuit against *anybody* claiming they're not operating in good faith. Or save yourself the money and just ask a lawyer.

                You're ignorant of the law, the facts and relevant jurisprudence.

                It would be risible if it weren't so sad. I pity you.

              • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday November 18, @05:53PM (7 children)

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @05:53PM (#1382325) Journal

                If your interpretation is correct it would mean that if someone sent a political diatribe to a site that is dedicated to exchanging meal recipes then the site would 1. have to accept it, and 2. not be able to delete such material from their site. It is patently absurd, as is your interpretation.

                Lots of sites are selective about the material that they host that is provided by someone else. They are NOT responsible for it and can, if they choose, refuse to accept it and may delete it as being irrelevant to their site.

                We have been granted 501c(3) status based on there being a public good in discussing items related to STEM, no matter how loose that connection might be. If we suddenly change and start publishing material on unrelated topics then that status could well be withdrawn.

                No site is compelled to host material that they do not wish to host. That does not affect the protection of Section230. We ascertained this very early on in our site's history from sources competent in this matter.

                --
                I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
                • (Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday November 18, @08:48PM (6 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @08:48PM (#1382358) Journal

                  If your interpretation is correct it would mean that if someone sent a political diatribe to a site that is dedicated to exchanging meal recipes

                  First, we've already abandoned the premise that sites can censor on any basis and still be in compliance with Section 230. This would fully fall under good faith restriction of stuff that is objectionable because it is off topic.

                  A better example would be your meal recipe site hired another company to help keep it clean of that list of undesirable stuff, and then you find that they're deliberately censoring posts from anyone who talks about low carb recipes for political reasons.

                  We have been granted 501c(3) status based on there being a public good in discussing items related to STEM, no matter how loose that connection might be. If we suddenly change and start publishing material on unrelated topics then that status could well be withdrawn.

                  As long as SN select stories that are mostly STEM related, they're good, right?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @09:02PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @09:02PM (#1382363)
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18, @09:26PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @09:26PM (#1382371) Journal
                      I already quoted the relevant parts of Section 230. Please come up with a real argument.
                  • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Monday November 18, @09:15PM (1 child)

                    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @09:15PM (#1382367) Journal

                    First, we've already abandoned the premise that sites can censor on any basis and still be in compliance with Section 230

                    No we haven't - you have, but you are wrong.

                    This would fully fall under good faith restriction of stuff that is objectionable because it is off topic.

                    So 'objectionable' could be anything we want it to be, which is in complete contradiction to the first of your statements that I have quoted. Your Alice-in-Wonderland interpretation of meaning whatever you want it to mean has not been tested in court.

                    In fact, everything you are claiming is actually explained in the original link passed to you in " rel="url2html-130627">https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=62663&commentsort=0&mode=threadtng&threshold=-1&page=1&cid=1382245#commentwrap

                    You cannot have read it otherwise you would not be spouting the rubbish that you are.

                    --
                    I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
                    • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday November 18, @09:36PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @09:36PM (#1382372) Journal

                      So 'objectionable' could be anything we want it to be, which is in complete contradiction to the first of your statements that I have quoted.

                      Who is "we"? Newsguard is neither the platform provider or user. And the rest of your post, I already addressed [soylentnews.org]. The link in question doesn't address censorship done in bad faith even though the author asserts otherwise.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, @12:29AM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, @12:29AM (#1382402)

                    First, we've already abandoned the premise that sites can censor on any basis and still be in compliance with Section 230. This would fully fall under good faith restriction of stuff that is objectionable because it is off topic.

                    You abandoned it. That doesn't make it so, khasslltakerow.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 19, @12:54PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 19, @12:54PM (#1382459) Journal

                      You abandoned it. That doesn't make it so, khasslltakerow.

                      I hope you realize that was really dumb.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @07:40PM (6 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @07:40PM (#1382350)

                What you may not do is force other folks to host content they do not wish to host on their property. An example: If what you're claiming is true, I should be able to come over to your house, project gay furry porn on the side of your house with max volume and you would have to allow me to do so.

                What's that? I can't post/display whatever I want on your property? If that's the case, why doesn't that apply to SoylentNews or X or Facebook? Get it now? I imagine not, but at least I tried.

                • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday November 18, @08:50PM (5 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @08:50PM (#1382359) Journal

                  An example: If what you're claiming is true, I should be able to come over to your house, project gay furry porn on the side of your house with max volume and you would have to allow me to do so.

                  I find it interesting how spectacularly irrelevant some of these examples are. The side of my house is not a social media site. But even if it were, there's a Section 230 carve-out for porn.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @09:06PM (4 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @09:06PM (#1382364)

                    I find it interesting how spectacularly irrelevant some of these examples are. The side of my house is not a social media site. But even if it were, there's a Section 230 carve-out for porn.

                    Private property is private property. Whether it's a house or a server.

                    If the owner of a house has property rights over the house, why doesn't that owner have the same rights over their server?

                    Or are you some kind of communist?

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18, @09:50PM (3 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @09:50PM (#1382377) Journal

                      Private property is private property. Whether it's a house or a server.

                      Private property is not automatically subject to Section 230.

                      If the owner of a house has property rights over the house, why doesn't that owner have the same rights over their server?

                      The two are not the same. The server is being used to provide a public forum space which exploits Section 230. If you want the protection of that law, you need to follow the restrictions of that law.

                      Further, with some research, I found that Newsguard exhibits [soylentnews.org] cartel behavior as well as threatening behavior. At that link, I mention a blog that was interrogated after the owner had publicly criticized Newsguard which asked pointed and intrusive questions about the funding for the blog as well as why the blog did not self-describe itself as "a conservative or libertarian perspective" (answer: because the owner of the blog did not perceive themselves as having a conservative or libertarian perspective nor felt that value would be added to the blog by clarifying their political stances). The implication being that if Newsguard didn't like the answers to their questions then something bad could happen to the advertising revenue for that blog (which apparently is non existent).

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @10:14PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @10:14PM (#1382384)

                        The two are not the same. The server is being used to provide a public forum space which exploits Section 230. If you want the protection of that law, you need to follow the restrictions of that law.

                        There is no "restriction" there. If you run a service which allows 3rd party content, Section 230 shields you from lawsuits relating to content posted by third parties. Full stop.

                        You keep talking out of your ass, [techdirt.com] If you don't stop I'm going to start thinking you might be Fusty in disguise.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18, @10:34PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @10:34PM (#1382390) Journal
                          I find it interesting how you posted that link four times rather than argue in good faith. Remember the quotable definition of insanity [quoteinvestigator.com]? You could spam that link a thousand times and you be no more wrong or right than you are now - though a thoughtful reader would correctly observe that repetition is a common symptom of error.

                          There is no "restriction" there. If you run a service which allows 3rd party content, Section 230 shields you from lawsuits relating to content posted by third parties. Full stop.

                          This observation while correct is irrelevant. Remember I just wrote:

                          The two are not the same. The server is being used to provide a public forum space which exploits Section 230. If you want the protection of that law, you need to follow the restrictions of that law.

                          Further, with some research, I found that Newsguard exhibits [soylentnews.org] cartel behavior as well as threatening behavior. At that link, I mention a blog that was interrogated after the owner had publicly criticized Newsguard which asked pointed and intrusive questions about the funding for the blog as well as why the blog did not self-describe itself as "a conservative or libertarian perspective" (answer: because the owner of the blog did not perceive themselves as having a conservative or libertarian perspective nor felt that value would be added to the blog by clarifying their political stances). The implication being that if Newsguard didn't like the answers to their questions then something bad could happen to the advertising revenue for that blog (which apparently is non existent).

                          That has nothing to do with the alleged liability from third party content. Newsguard doesn't provide content. It censors content. Even then, if it were censoring content on the grounds allowed by (c)(2)(A) (since it isn't a information content provider, it doesn't get to hide behind the more permissive (c)(2)(B)), it would be in the good. But it's creating a censorship cartel instead. That's bad faith and may run afoul of anti-trust law or RICO as well, depending on how things play out.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @10:27PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @10:27PM (#1382388)

                        The two are not the same. The server is being used to provide a public forum space which exploits Section 230. If you want the protection of that law, you need to follow the restrictions of that law.

                        Any service that allows third party content, including your butt plug testing mailing list is "subject" (i.e., shielded from lawsuits for stuff posted by third parties) to Section 230.

                        jackass. [techdirt.com]

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday November 18, @05:39PM (8 children)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @05:39PM (#1382322) Journal

              Yes, our own spammers have claimed that same thing - that we are not complying with the requirements of Section 230. I used to point it out to them that they are wrong - but they either don't read it or don't understand it. It is like when they claim that we are preventing free speech. We are not obliged to provide a platform to anyone, but least of all those who do not wish to follow the site rules.

              I wish you more luck that I have had in fighting that battle, despite it being stated in lots of places that what we are doing is perfectly normal and acceptable in law.

              --
              I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @05:52PM (6 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @05:52PM (#1382324)

                Well, what do you expect? It's khallow.

                He talks out of his ass so frequently that I'm surprised when he actually makes sense.

                Whatever.

                • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Monday November 18, @08:53PM (5 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @08:53PM (#1382360) Journal
                  I quoted the relevant part of the Section 230 law itself and you're still bullshitting. If you aren't going to act serious, I'm not going to treat you seriously.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @09:09PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @09:09PM (#1382365)
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @09:13PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @09:13PM (#1382366)

                    Quote what you like, but relevant jurisprudence says you're flat wrong. And you will continue to be. Hilariously so. And we'll keep laughing at you. So go ahead and quadruple down with your ridiculousness [techdirt.com]:

                    If you said “Section 230 requires all moderation to be in “good faith” and this moderation is “biased” so you don’t get 230 protections”

                    You are, yet again, wrong. At least this time you’re using a phrase that actually is in the law. The problem is that it’s in the wrong section. Section (c)(2)(a) does say that:

                            No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of 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, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

                    However, that’s just one part of the law, and as explained earlier, nearly every Section 230 case about moderation hasn’t even used that part of the law, instead relying on Section (c)(1)’s separation of an interactive computer service from the content created by users. Second, the good faith clause is only in half of Section (c)(2). There’s also a separate section, which has no good faith limitation, that says:

                            No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of… any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material….

                    So, again, even if (c)(2) applied, most content moderation could avoid the “good faith” question by relying on that part, (c)(2)(B), which has no good faith requirement.

                    However, even if you could somehow come up with a case where the specific moderation choices were somehow crafted such that (c)(1) and (c)(2)(B) did not apply, and only (c)(2)(A) were at stake, even then, the “good faith” modifier is unlikely to matter, because a court trying to determine what constitutes “good faith” in a moderation decision is making a very subjective decision regarding expression choices, which would create massive 1st Amendment issues. So, no, the “good faith” provision is of no use to you in whatever argument you’re making.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18, @09:52PM (2 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @09:52PM (#1382378) Journal
                      That assumes (c)(2)(B) applies - like users censoring other posts with moderation. When it doesn't, like when you have a third party doing censoring on your site, then you're stuck with (c)(2)(A).
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @10:21PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @10:21PM (#1382387)

                        That assumes (c)(2)(B) applies - like users censoring other posts with moderation. When it doesn't, like when you have a third party doing censoring on your site, then you're stuck with (c)(2)(A).

                        You mean like when people with a clue mod you down? Does that mean you think you can hold SoylentNews liable for third-party moderations? Or that you could sue SoylentNews for deleting your posts altogether? Your "reasoning" isn't. It's just making unsupported claims that something you *wish* was so is actually so. Sorry, thinking doesn't make it so.

                        And there's no jurisprudence to support your bullshit either.

                        Go ahead. Show me one case. Even one case where a judge has ruled that way. Just one.

                        CDA was enacted 28 years ago. If that were actually the law we should have seen at least one case where that happened.

                        I won't hold my breath.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18, @10:41PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @10:41PM (#1382392) Journal

                          You mean like when people with a clue mod you down? Does that mean you think you can hold SoylentNews liable for third-party moderations? Or that you could sue SoylentNews for deleting your posts altogether? Your "reasoning" isn't. It's just making unsupported claims that something you *wish* was so is actually so. Sorry, thinking doesn't make it so.

                          My post was the opposite of what you assert above. No I don't mean that and if you had read my post, you would have known that.

                          That assumes (c)(2)(B) applies - like users censoring other posts with moderation. When it doesn't, like when you have a third party doing censoring on your site, then you're stuck with (c)(2)(A).

                          I find it bizarre that you even quote it and still don't get what is said. Combine this inability to read with your now six times you've reposted the TechDirt link rather than argue in good faith, means you don't have a serious argument.

                          I guess I'll just have to talk to the grown ups in the thread instead.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Monday November 18, @06:09PM (4 children)

          by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @06:09PM (#1382328) Journal

          Perhaps I was mistaken. It is entirely possible that I misread the intent of this section, specifically, of this letter [x.com] from the Commissioner of the FCC to Alphabet, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft. It appeared, to me, to be a very thinly veiled threat.

          For now, I am writing to obtain information from you that can inform the FCC's work to
          promote free speech and a diversity of viewpoints. As you know, Big Tech's prized liability
          shield, Section 230, is codified in the Communications Act, which the FCC administers.2 As
          relevant here, Section 230 only confers benefits on Big Tech companies when they operate, in
          the words of the statute, "in good faith."
          3

          It is in this context that I am writing to obtain information about your work with one
          specific organization-the Orwellian named NewsGuard.4 As exposed by the Twitter Files,
          NewsGuard is a for-profit company that operates as part of the broader censorship cartel.5
          Indeed, NewsGuard bills itself as the Internet's arbiter of truth or, as its co-founder put it, a
          "Vaccine Against Misinformation."6 NewsGuard purports to rate the credibility of news and
          information outlets and tells readers and advertisers which outlets they can trust.7 As the U.S.
          House Committee on Small Business 2024 Staff Report stated, "[t]hese ratings, combined with
          NewsGuard's vast partnerships in the advertising industry, select winners and losers in the news
          media space."8 NewsGuard does so by leveraging its partnerships with advertising agencies to
          effectively censors targeted outlets.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @07:36PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @07:36PM (#1382349)
          • (Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday November 18, @09:16PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @09:16PM (#1382368) Journal
            I heard [thehill.com] about these guys some time ago:

            Recently, I wrote a Hill column criticizing NewsGuard, a rating operation being used to warn users, advertisers, educators and funders away from media outlets based on how it views the outlets’ “credibility and transparency.”

            Roughly a week later, NewsGuard came knocking at my door. My blog, Res Ipsa (jonathanturley.org), is now being reviewed and the questions sent by NewsGuard were alarming, but not surprising.

            [...]

            Brill and his co-founder, L. Gordon Crovitz, want their company to be the media version of the Standard & Poor’s rating for financial institutions. However, unlike the S&P, which looks at financial reports, NewsGuard rates highly subjective judgments like “credibility” based on whether they publish “clearly and significantly false or egregiously misleading” information. They even offer a “Nutrition Label” for consumers of information.

            Of course, what Brill considers nutritious may not be the preferred diet of many in the country. But they might not get a choice since the goal is to allow other companies and carriers to use the ratings to disfavor or censor non-nutritious sites.

            [...]

            I was first asked for information on the financial or revenue sources used to support my blog, on which I republish my opinion pieces from various newspapers and publish original blog columns.

            Given NewsGuard’s reputation, the email would ordinarily trigger panic on many sites. But I pay not to have advertising, and the closest I come to financial support would be my wife, since we live in a community property state. If NewsGuard wants to blacklist me with my wife, it is a bit late. Trust me, she knows.

            NewsGuard also claimed that it could not find a single correction on my site. In fact, there is a location for readers marked “corrections” to register objections and corrections to postings on the site. I also occasionally post corrections, changes and clarifications.

            NewsGuard also made bizarre inquiries, including about why I called my blog “Res Ipsa Liquitur [sic] – the thing itself speaks. Could you explain the reason to this non-lawyer?” Res ipsa loquitur is defined in the header as “The thing itself speaks,” which I think speaks for itself.

            But one concern was particularly illuminating:

            “I cannot find any information on the site that would signal to readers that the site’s content reflects a conservative or libertarian perspective, as is evident in your articles. Why is this perspective not disclosed to give readers a sense of the site’s point of view?”

            I have historically been criticized as a liberal, conservative or a libertarian depending on the particular op-eds. I certainly admit to libertarian viewpoints, though I hold many traditional liberal views.

            For example, I have been outspoken for decades in favor same-sex marriage, environmental protection, free speech and other individual rights. I am a registered Democrat who has defended reporters, activists and academics on the left for years in both courts and columns.

            The blog has thousands of postings that cut across the ideological spectrum. What I have not done is suspend my legal judgment when cases touch on the interests of conservatives or Donald Trump. While I have criticized Trump in the past, I have also objected to some of the efforts to impeach or convict him on dubious legal theories.

            Yet, NewsGuard appears to believe that I should label myself as conservative or libertarian as a warning or notice to any innocent strays who may wander on to my blog. It does not appear that NewsGuard makes the same objection to HuffPost or the New Republic, which run overwhelmingly liberal posts. Yet, alleged conservative or libertarian sites are expected to post a warning as if they were porn sites.

            So not only are they offering a censorship service to social media sites, they're extorting blogs too, building up a blacklist for advertisers to avoid.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @10:04PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @10:04PM (#1382382)

            Threat or not, it's a steaming pile of horse hockey.

            Why? Because Section 230 isn't some "gift" to big tech by the Democrats in order to stifle speech.

            In fact, it applies to everyone connected to the Internet. To my Pixelfed instance which only I use. To SoylentNews.org. To your mailing list, IRC server, XMPP server, website and any other sort of thing where third parties can post stuff.

            And it doesn't matter whether it's an individual, a small business, Meta, Google or some random Mastodon instance.

            As such, it protects *everyone*. Remove Section 230 and you take away those protections (and to be clear, such protections are from nuisance lawsuits when some jackass doesn't like what some third party has posted on your site) from everyone.

            What would be the result do you think? Any sane person would either shut down their site (or not allow third parties to post on their site), which would get rid of pretty much every site like SoylentNews and the Better Business Bureau and every other site that can't afford to operate under threat of lawsuits.

            Who would that leave? Just the biggest players, Meta, Google, X, (possibly, but maybe not) Reddit. Because they're the only ones who have the resources to operate in such an environment.

            If getting rid of every mom and pop site on the Internet is your goal, then getting rid of Section 230 is the way to go.

            Don't get all wrapped up in *claims* (where's the actual evidence) of censorship. Ask yourself, "Cui Bono?" And if the answer is the folks you're suspicious of, does it really make sense to push for getting rid of Section 230?

            But don't believe me. I'm just some random asshole on the Intertubes. Go see for yourself.

            Sure Jim Comer and Brendan Carr will piss and moan about NewsGuard, but what *exactly* is Newsguard supposed to have done that's inappropriate?

            Have customers? And those customers include government agencies? What about SpaceX? You could say the same about them. Or Amazon, or Microsoft or Google or any of tens of thousands of government contractors.

            Instead of being told there's some "there" there, go see for yourself instead of listening to folks (both in the media and in government) who have every reason to distort the truth.

            Unless it doesn't matter to you if someone distorts the truth as long as such distortion comports with what you want to believe. If so, I'm wasting my time. I hope I'm not.

            • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Monday November 18, @10:53PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @10:53PM (#1382396) Journal
              Nobody is advocating removing Section 230. ElizabethGreene correctly observes that Section 230 protection is not absolute. My view is that creating a censorship cartel is not protected by Section 230 for the reasons I've stated [soylentnews.org] before.

              Unless it doesn't matter to you if someone distorts the truth as long as such distortion comports with what you want to believe. If so, I'm wasting my time. I hope I'm not.

              There are many ways to distort the truth. Creating a single censor that most social media outlets use is one such way.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @01:40PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @01:40PM (#1382267)

        Not one reference/link.

        Please back up your claims.

        kthxbye :-*

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by https on Sunday November 17, @04:18PM

      by https (5248) on Sunday November 17, @04:18PM (#1382166) Journal

      Well yes. Kinda had to. The impending administration of the USA has made it clear that punishment is in order for everyone, but especially those who cross #45 or the greedy muppet.

      --
      Offended and laughing about it.
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday November 18, @12:05AM (1 child)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Monday November 18, @12:05AM (#1382220)

      Didn't Disney and a bunch of companies that said they were leaving X just come back recently?

      Well, Disney heard it reeks of Nazism now. So ya know, traditions [pastemagazine.com]...

  • (Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday November 17, @11:39AM (5 children)

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 17, @11:39AM (#1382144) Journal

    So I can quit on principle?

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by mcgrew on Sunday November 17, @07:00PM (1 child)

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Sunday November 17, @07:00PM (#1382189) Homepage Journal

      Not if you work for the evil son of a bitch. But you should pity him and his fellow stupidly rich assholes, greed is the very worst, self destructive of all of the addictions. Greed puts cocaine and heroin to shame when it comes to addictions.

      --
      A man legally forbidden from possessing a firearm is in charge of America's nuclear arsenal. Have a nice day.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, @09:15PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, @09:15PM (#1382206)
      careful, any move you make could be labeled 'virtue signaling', and at that point ... for some reason... that ends* the discussion.

      * void where approved political leanings
  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday November 17, @01:01PM (1 child)

    by looorg (578) on Sunday November 17, @01:01PM (#1382147)

    They are not alone. It's almost as if they organized it as several other European media outlets "by accident" stopped with X at the same time as The Guardian. Guardian was just the most well known one and perhaps leading the effort. But looking at a national level for a few countries they where not alone. Their readers probably demanded it or they got tired of being called mean names on X by the people they pissed off.

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by mcgrew on Sunday November 17, @07:04PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Sunday November 17, @07:04PM (#1382194) Homepage Journal

      I never was on X [mcgrewbooks.com], even before the Nazi bought it. Deleted my Farsebook account when they wanted me to train their bots for free.

      --
      A man legally forbidden from possessing a firearm is in charge of America's nuclear arsenal. Have a nice day.
  • (Score: 2) by Frosty Piss on Sunday November 17, @03:26PM (1 child)

    by Frosty Piss (4971) on Sunday November 17, @03:26PM (#1382158)

    But the big corporations that are already in bed with the MAGA Cult, or want to be, are flocking to X to dump their pocket change into Musk's accounts. The gains from the deep-pocket Suits probably greatly outnumbers the folks like the Guardian, who weren't spending anyoney in Trump Land anyway.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by mcgrew on Sunday November 17, @07:08PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Sunday November 17, @07:08PM (#1382196) Homepage Journal

      But the big corporations that are already in bed with the MAGA Cult...

      Who do you think are responsible for MAGA in the first place? MAGA is the CEO's wet dream! Note that were it not for advertisers, there would be no "culture war." The culture way is a feint, to keep you from seeing the class war they have been waging against the working class since Reagan.

      --
      A man legally forbidden from possessing a firearm is in charge of America's nuclear arsenal. Have a nice day.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by VLM on Sunday November 17, @05:47PM (4 children)

    by VLM (445) on Sunday November 17, @05:47PM (#1382180)

    The Who? Oh wait they're a british music band.

    I think The Guardian is dead legacy media that no one pays attention to anymore. Huh I wonder why. Might be the leftist virtue signalling. Naah everyone loves that and they should double, no triple down, on that to turn their circulation numbers around.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/288278/circulation-trend-of-the-guardian-newspaper-uk/ [statista.com]

    Oooof Brutal. In 2021 they stopped reporting circulation numbers because they dropped below 100K.

    Google thinks the UK has about 68M peeps, so whatever will 0.15% of the UK do without their favorite fish wrap? I suppose the other 99.85% of the population will not even notice when The Guardian closes.

    • (Score: 2) by Spamalope on Sunday November 17, @06:50PM

      by Spamalope (5233) on Sunday November 17, @06:50PM (#1382187) Homepage

      You've hit on a primary reason. X is a direct competitor, and no long a political ally so no reason to drive traffic there. The rest is political bluster.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, @09:17PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, @09:17PM (#1382208)

      Huh I wonder why. Might be the leftist virtue signalling.

      so... how much did twitter lose when it made its hard right turn? here's a hint: it begins with a b.

    • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday November 18, @07:47PM

      by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @07:47PM (#1382351)

      So? Print news has been in a precipitous decline for years now. Any that haven't moved online have already closed.

      --
      The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by corey on Tuesday November 19, @01:23AM

    by corey (2202) on Tuesday November 19, @01:23AM (#1382408)

    > Musk posted on X that the Guardian was "irrelevant" and a "laboriously vile propaganda machine".

    Small correction (sorry can’t do strikethrough on my phone):

    > Musk was "irrelevant" and a "laboriously vile propaganda machine".

    FTFY

(1)