Strongly disagree with this stance.
It was censorship. It wasn't censorship, in the narrow legal US definition, but it was censorship broadly speaking. And that kind of censorship is wrong. I think that it went wrong as soon as it narrowed the discourse to 'by definition' - at that moment it turned off human level reasoning, and went purely for what could be deductively shown and purely legalistic.

It is of course relevant, in the US legal system, whether or not twitter has acted illegally by making dumb moves towards silencing their political opponents, and there may be benefits to their being shut up.
And there's discussion of the specifics of section230 that are not something we can avoid - breaking section230 are going to have consequences on these kinds of issues for example. But a duck is a duck @dna

@jeffcliff I’m not too familiar with 230, yet. I’m fine with using other platforms that meet my needs, more.. Im just glad I won’t get locked away for posting controversial stuff..

· · Tootle for Mastodon · 1 · 0 · 1
@dna maybe therein lies the rub

how to craft a legal framework to ensure this broader censorship harm is taken into account

seems logically impossible but necessary at the same time - an impossible to move rock, worn by an infinite ocean
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Our Kindbook Social Media Network Community is focused on discussing creative endeavours, artistic expressions, sustainability solutions, personal updates, local news and super inspiring world events and discoveries. We have a news feed that makes us feel uplifted and inspired to be the change we wish to see in the world.