Twitter sues Texas AG to halt 'retaliatory' demand for internal content-moderation rulebook in wake of Trump ban Twitter has sued the Attorney General of Texas, accusing him of bullying the biz in retaliation for nuking Donald Trump’s account. The US state issued civil investigative demands to Google, Facebook, Twitter [PDF], Amazon Web Services, and Apple on January 13. These demand that the tech giants hand over documents describing “ …
Does El Reg have any evidence to substantiate that libel?
Parler is technology. Technology has no political stance. The people running Parler had strict content policies, required people to provide identity to sign up and banned much of the hate speech seen on Twitter - e.g. threats to kill people.
That Parler happened to have extremist users differentiates it from Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites in absolutely no way at all. There are people across the political spectrum on all of them. Parler had many issues that would justify criticism so perhaps attack it on those grounds, rather than besmirching it because some users had political views with which you disagree.
Eh?
What's been going on at El Reg? I haven't been here for a while (new user name) and the first comment I read is someone upset at Parler being allegedly "libelled". Wow. I mean just, wow!
Still it's going to be a good show this. My first amendment rights versus your first amendment rights it seems like. Although I do admit to being confused here, probably because I'm not a lawyer (phew!) but in the past certain political groups have wanted businesses to be able to refuse service on the basis of religion, sexual orientation or whatever and now the reverse seems to be true. Apparently on-line comment farms should take all comers regardless of whether or not they want to post extreme political views. I know that's not necessarily the immediate outcome here but it would seem to be the endgame.
Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service?" once championed by certain political groups.
Funny how time likes to flip context on people with big opinions.
It's a far-right haven. It's fair comment to call it a far-right-friendly place. It may have non-far-right people on it, but it's known, well known, for being home to far-right internet outcasts.
Are there far-right people on Facebook and Twitter? Sure, but with billions of users total, that's not what they are famous for. Parler is famous for being a haven for the far-right.
Far-right isn't defamatory, anyway.
C.
It's a statement of opinion based on disclosed facts using an obviously subjective rhetorical label ("far right"), and there's no evidence at all that the clearly non-defamatory statement would or could cause the business any damage.
US courts would dismiss at a motion for summary judgment phase (or earlier, depending on where any putative suit was filed), and while UK courts might actually hear a libel suit (if anyone bothered to file one), there's little chance it would survive any attempt to show damage.
The "disclosed facts" include, conveniently, Amazon's filings in Parler's attempt to sue them: numerous examples of material that contravened Amazon's TOS and which, remarkably, happened to be slanted to the right wing...
Far-right isn't defamatory, anyway.
Quite so, it isn't.
The confusion arises because it happens that, all over the world, that particular section of the political spectrum is mostly populated by deadbrain assholes.
It is yet to be fully determined, but it has been postulated in some scientific circles that it is a very specific behaviour with an origin in a genetic condition that causes reduced blood flow ie: oxygen to the brain.
O.
"It's a far-right haven. It's fair comment to call it a far-right-friendly place. It may have non-far-right people on it, but it's known, well known, for being home to far-right internet outcasts."
Define 'far right'. I think you actually mean 'right wing'. In my book, 'far right' would be jack-booted Swastika toting Nazis (even though the Nazis and Fascists were left-wing political institutions - but never mind).
It's become clear to me over the years that, as far as people 'on the left' are concerned anyone with views to the right of theirs is 'far right'. It's got to the point where I don't even argue about it any more.
If you'd have said Parler is/was predominantly right wing, I would have agreed with you, in the same way that Twitter is predominantly left wing.
Wasn't the reason cited by AWS for cancelling them linked to their far-right bias and use in the coup attempt? In which case it is fair to say that in the article. Blame AWS for their actions (you probably are) as people just call it like they saw it.
Given Parler couldn't find alternates to host them for a while, it is obvious that quite a few other companies consider them far right and didn't want to touch them either. So you could also argue, the common view is that they are far-right and another good reason the Reg can call them that.
Paxton is definitely exceeding his mental powers. I wonder what he’s actually doing for the citizens of Texas, considering he’s under indictment for securities fraud and he spends a lot of his time filing frivolous lawsuits meant only to suck up to Trump. Texas, really, you can and should do better than the clowns allegedly running your state. Maybe Mexico would take you back?
"Paxton is definitely exceeding his mental powers."
Objection! Assumes powers not in evidence.
"Maybe Mexico would take you back?"
They claim to be the only state that can secede from the Union. Most of the rest of us wish they'd stop babbling about it and get on with it. Mexico doesn't want 'em, either.
I've lived in Texas all my life and I have heard and read it several times. It was supposedly a condition to joining the union when Texas became a state. I have no idea if it really exists or not, or is legally enforceble if it does. Either way I think secession is a dumb idea that seems to fit in nicely with the times.
I am reasonably certain that there was a clause in the original treaty of Union that allowed Texas to divide itself into five at will, as well as to secede. As is often the case, however, subsequent events, particularly those of 1861, nullified the treaty. Texas's annexation to the Union in 1865 did not undo that nullification.
On the other hand, such codes of conduct, which are used as a basis for expelling people from the platform should be available to all users, otherwise how do they know if they are breaking the rules.
Surely that should be part of the T&Cs or EULA for the site?
As for the rest of it, no idea. But a request for the basic rules of the platform is not unreasonable.
It depends on what they mean by content moderation. For me, there has to be a clearly listed set of rules that the users of the platform has to follow, otherwise their content could be moderated or they could be expelled. If you don't know the rules, how can you keep within them?
"Surely that should be part of the T&Cs or EULA for the site?"
It is. It's called the terms of service. One of the very first things they write is "We also retain the right to create limits on use and storage at our sole discretion at any time without prior notice to you."
Seems pretty definitive io me. Twitter's servers, twitters rules. They are allowed to be completely arbitrary and capricious over who is allowed to access them, and how, and why, and when. And they tell you that, right up front. Just like you do with your own computer(s), right?
Don't like it? Tough shit. You don't own Twitter. You don't make their rules. All you can do is whine about it and/or walk away from their service. I recommend the latter.
Their "policies and practices regarding content moderation" should not be “highly confidential”
They're the rules by which people are expected to behave on their system.
These should be public so people know how they're expected to behave.
Obviously Twitter is trying to reserve the right to ban people "just because" and "special circumstances" and the AG is calling them on it.
It's like when Apple or Google pull people's apps and the developer goes "well I know my app isn't malware and as far as I can tell doesn't break any of the rules... so what gives?" and they just get a stony silence.
Their "policies and practices regarding content moderation" should not be “highly confidential”
They're the rules by which people are expected to behave on their system.
No they're not, the published rules are found here https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules
These should be public so people know how they're expected to behave."
If someone can't follow or understand the published rules what difference will the content moderation rules make?
Sounds fair, but they've shown an unwillingness to fairly apply their own rules. While the former president's comments hit all the buttons for removal, doing so under the claim of inciting violence on a platform that was perfectly fine (by their inaction, at least) with being used to coordinate not just peaceful protests, but violent ones and looting and general attempts at overthrowing order with the BLM movement seems a bit suspect.
Also, that's twitter. What rules did Amazon use to kick Twitter's competition off AWS?
"Obviously Twitter is trying to reserve the right to ban people "just because" and "special circumstances" and the AG is calling them on it."
Yup.
Where exactly are you extracting some right to use someone else's property against their wishes?
How much do these people pay Twitter for use of the system? Or Apple, or Google, come to that? So there's no expectation of service, no warranties of availability.
The _only_ reason that Twitter publishes their policies is because they want users, and they calculate that having a fairly light touch in terms of rules.
If this entitled position was even vaguely sane, people could demand air time on Fox News (or OANN or NewsMax or...)
Bizarrely enough, "conservatives" like to pretend they're the party of small government, but they'll happily take from successful businesses on some specious argument that, apparently, someone owes them a website!
Speaking of cake... weren't all these outraged conservatives recently engaged in battles defending the right of bakers not to have to decorate wedding cakes for same sex couples? Because private businesses couldn't be forced to publish words they disagree with?
They defend the right to not provide services to some people, then start getting upset when a company decides not to provide services to some other people.
So, in summary, if the social media company won't let you publish your messages on their website, start a bakery and ice your posts onto cakes instead. You're free to do so.
If you're under the impression that one side does not lie a lot more than the other, you're not paying attention either. And I don't like either side lying unless there is a valid reason like real national security (not political national security which in itself a lie) to do it.
Perhaps you misunderstood my comment. Should Trump have been banned from Twitter? Yes, long ago. Is the governor of Texas doing this for political reasons? Quite possibly. I'm not arguing against either of those two points.
But why would Twitter consider its “policies and practices regarding content moderation” to be “highly confidential”? That should be publicly-published information, accessible before signing up for an account, rather than a corporate secret. It would certainly help dispel the conspiracy theories that they target folks based on political opinion.
It's entirely possible that the governor is doing this for political reasons. But he does have a point - the details of what gets banned and why should be published, visible to at least the users of the platform. And not just the TOCs, but the actual details.
Twitter's response seems to come across as "we don't want to let anyone know what behavior is banned". Be transparent - publish it!
This is just foolish nonsense. What it actually "just proves" is nothing.
1. Why shouldn't a business be partisan? Explain your answer with particular reference to Fox News!
2. If 81 million people voted for X, and 74 million voted for Y, and you want to reach the greatest number of customers, which group would you prefer?
3. If you are concerned about truth and accuracy, would you try to limit comments from people who maliciously spreads lies and deceit?
4. Your ignorance of the legal system is stunning. As part of this suit, would the defendant be able to conduct discovery on the plaintiff? (hint: three letters, rhymes with Tess)
5. If you're facing an "investigation" by a piece of sh*t politician who has recently sued to prevent another state conducting its own elections in accordance with rulings from its own courts, and who is under indictment for securities fraud and accused by his own office of bribery and abuse of office, do you prefer the idea of a lawsuit managed under the auspices of a federal court or a partisan hatchet job conducted by the aforementioned indicted political piece of sh*t?
There have been many false claims that Amazon and Twitter have broken the First Amendment by denying a platform to the far right.
As the First Amendment only prohibits GOVERNMENT interference with free speech, Amazon and Twitter can not be guilty of breaking it as they are not part of the government.
As can be seen from the text the limitation is only on Congress
The text of the First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
When someone speaks of their First Amendment rights, they are speaking about rights enshrined in the First Amendment. As part of the constitution, the Amendment can only address government.
Now, when I go to a public square, grab my soap box, and start speachifying, I am exercising my right to free speech. Humans being lazy creatures, I might even claim to be exercising my First Amendment right. If someone objects to my words, and they come by with a loud speaker, and use it speak over me, are you going to claim with an honest face that my right to free speech is at that point effective? There is a term, "heckler's veto". If we allow (or encourage) that, then we no longer allow effective use of the right.
What if, in some region of the country, a political party has come to dominate politics to the point that nomination by the party is tantamount to election. Suppose further that this party refuses my entry. No government violating any right as far as the eye can see. I claim that in fact said party is denying my right to be effective in my voting. (And for those who don't understand what I am talking about, in Grovey v. Townsend, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the rule by the Texas Democratic Party forbidding blacks from participating in their primary was constitutionally sound. Not our finest moment at all.
Big tech is hanging out at the town square. They are handing out megaphones to some people and not to others. (Also, playing Madame Defarge and plastering flashing signs all over the place) For many, many people, these platforms are loudspeakers allowing them to reach tens if not hundreds of times as many people (who actively want to hear what is being said) as any other method.
To deny the reality of the network effect and say, "build your own" or some such is at best disingenuous.
Certainly, we expect (and demand) that content promoting, planning or celebrating acts which are malum in se be taken down. But my idea of what counts differs rather drastically from, say, Pooh Bear's. And there is a strong concern that there is institutional bias in these companies against conservatives. It's easy to dismiss the anecdotes. I myself would be skeptical except that:
I personally witnessed, in 2015, a director at Google brag at a TGIF (weekly company-wide town hall meeting) that they had thrown an election in Central America.
Of course, El Reg reported research in August 2016 catching Google suppressing negative search suggested for Hillary Clinton.
El Reg also reported in 2012 that Facebook "partnered" with the Barack Obama reelection campaign to use their network. I've not heard of them doing so with any conservative candidate.
"Free speech", like "poverty", is intrinsically a comparative term. For thousands of years, even the ability to write a letter was the province of a few Mandarins. Then came universal education, and paper, so that the term "papers" was expressly included in the Fourth Amendment. Now, I can send an email to any of three billion people. IF, and ONLY IF, we can both find ISPs that allow us to do so.
Bottom line: Freedom of speech is one thing, but freedom of the press is another, and belongs to the man who owns one.
I own a press (a couple, actually). You are not allowed to use them, because I say so. It is mine, and that is my choice to make. No court in the land (except maybe in Texas ... and they will get stomped on by SCotUS) will overturn my decision. It's a private property thing.
Likewise, twitter (go ogle, et alia) owns a press. You are allowed to publish tweets on it just as long as they say you can use it. When they decide that you cannot use it any more, you're out of there. Because they say so. Don't like it? Don't use it. I don't, and have no difficulty getting my point across. Twitter (and go ogle, et alia) is not the only press in town.
Have you gone through all the presses in town, and now nobody will loan you one anymore? Perhaps it's because you've been rolling around in muck and nobody wants you around because you stink bad enough to knock a buzzard off a shit wagon at 400 paces downwind. Clean up your act, or stay ostracized.
No one is stopping you from speaking - however no one is compelled to hand you a megaphone to blast your speech around the town. The constitution does not demand that a business provides the means for your speech to be send around the world.
If the Republican Party actually embraced the far right conspiracy ideas etc, it would be easily within their financial resources to setup a data center and host Parler themselves. Given that the majority of the Republican Party is however not stupid enough to want anything to do with the far right, Parler and its extremist users will stay in the cold.
Icon for those people stupid enough to believe in the far right conspiracy theories =====>
I see lots of left wing twitter accounts getting short term "bans" - as far as I can tell, from orchestrated complaints by groups not sharing those left wing views, based on what owners of those accounts have said (IRL said, not said on social media as I don't do much social media)
So some Twitter "censorship" seems to work well for right wing groups
I do not know if similar efforts done against right wing accounts as don't (knowingly) have any friends who run right wing accounts But generally when there's a complaints / takedown system that's got minimal human involvement then you get people "gaming in" to suit their agendas - e.g. I know there have been campaigns by trans activists to get Graham Linehean (Father Ted creator) and others kicked off twitter... interestingly things like that seem to backfire as I know people who were not particularly bothered one way or the other about trans rights (might have plenty of lefty mates, but despite what preconceptions may exist, most are more bothered about poverty, unfair benefits system catching low wage earners in cliff edge situations, etc. than being "woke") but a fair few of them have gone towards disliking trans activists as they seem to be a group very active in targeting anyone who makes a single comment they disagree (even if most of their views are similar in other atreas) with rather than trying to be positive and engage with people they disagree with in a less confrontational way)., often a problem with single issue obsessions where you alienate people you actually have plenty in common with
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
