SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2024, @08:04AM (33 children)
And you're welcome. [techdirt.com]
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday November 18 2024, @03:11PM (27 children)
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.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2024, @04:53PM (26 children)
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 2024, @05:31PM (16 children)
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.
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 2024, @05:50PM
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 2024, @05:53PM (7 children)
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.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday November 18 2024, @08:48PM (6 children)
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.
As long as SN select stories that are mostly STEM related, they're good, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2024, @09:02PM (1 child)
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ [techdirt.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18 2024, @09:26PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Monday November 18 2024, @09:15PM (1 child)
No we haven't - you have, but you are wrong.
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.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday November 18 2024, @09:36PM
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 2024, @12:29AM (1 child)
You abandoned it. That doesn't make it so, khasslltakerow.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 19 2024, @12:54PM
I hope you realize that was really dumb.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2024, @07:40PM (6 children)
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 2024, @08:50PM (5 children)
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 2024, @09:06PM (4 children)
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 2024, @09:50PM (3 children)
Private property is not automatically subject to Section 230.
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 2024, @10:14PM (1 child)
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 2024, @10:34PM
This observation while correct is irrelevant. Remember I just wrote:
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 2024, @10:27PM
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 2024, @05:39PM (8 children)
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.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2024, @05:52PM (6 children)
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 2024, @08:53PM (5 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2024, @09:09PM
Seems like you could some of this [techdirt.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2024, @09:13PM (3 children)
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]:
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18 2024, @09:52PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2024, @10:21PM (1 child)
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 2024, @10:41PM
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.
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 2024, @06:09PM (4 children)
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2024, @07:36PM
https://www.axios.com/2024/06/14/newsguard-oversight-committee-investigation-free-speech [axios.com]
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday November 18 2024, @09:16PM
[...]
[...]
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 2024, @10:04PM (1 child)
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 2024, @10:53PM
There are many ways to distort the truth. Creating a single censor that most social media outlets use is one such way.