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, @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.