Should Amazon Web services remove Twitter?

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here are the prevailing standards:

Sheryl Sandberg Slammed For Saying Capitol Riot Was Not 'Largely' Planned On Facebook


Media Matters “identified at least 70 active Facebook groups that were either named for or affiliated with ‘Stop the Steal’ that Facebook could have taken action against long before today.” Of the 70 groups the watchdog found, 46 of them were private.
I don't know if I made it clear enough before, but Facebook and Twitter are definitely to be held to the same standards in my view on the moral side -- they have to spend the $$$ to do a good job moderating, or else they are harmful and should be held to account.

Ultimately the law follows moral goals. Over time, that's the evolution of the law, normally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timothyu
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,444
8,397
up there
✟303,917.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I don't think it's ok, nor should it be legal, to have a forum where everyone can see planning for violent attacks ongoing.
You make a good point but you also leave the door open for changes against let's say, the manufacturers of cars whose customers decide to use them while riding in them to commit some crime (and may use the car to do so including a terrorist act). Should Fords be banned but GM allowed to carry on just because adolf admired Henry Ford and had his picture on the wall?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This doesn't happen often, but for once I may be more 'conservative' than everyone else in the immediate discussion, even though my positions tend to be mostly 'libertarian'.

I don't think it's ok, nor should it be legal, to have a forum where everyone can see planning for violent attacks ongoing.

And I don't think Parler will really change.

I'd not host them if I could and they'd pay $1 million a month.

No way.

I'm too old and conservative maybe. :)

I hope you don't use Facebook

Bloomberg

U.S. Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, wrote to Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg and asked him to “undertake reasonable measures” to retain any content linked to the attacks that may be needed for future legal action.

“The texts, videos and pictures posted to your platforms -- and associated meta-data, cloud backups and subscriber information -- are critical evidence in helping to bring these rioters to justice,” Warner wrote in a letter dated Friday. “The United States Capitol is now a crime scene.”
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
For over 20 years and before social media, key words online or in emails triggered the attention of security forces online, and it was then determined whether the user of the words represented threat. So why all of a sudden is this being presented as a new issue?
This doesn't make sense to me. Issues of moderation have been ongoing for decades.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I hope you don't use Facebook

Bloomberg

U.S. Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, wrote to Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg and asked him to “undertake reasonable measures” to retain any content linked to the attacks that may be needed for future legal action.

“The texts, videos and pictures posted to your platforms -- and associated meta-data, cloud backups and subscriber information -- are critical evidence in helping to bring these rioters to justice,” Warner wrote in a letter dated Friday. “The United States Capitol is now a crime scene.”

Ah, but friend, I don't plan illegal actions, you see. :)

I'm very content for law enforcement to try to catch those that break the law.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They'd have to use the standard tools that are the norm, to get 230 protection themselves, I'm thinking on that liability side. Unless I see something to cancel the "good faith" requirement in the instance of clear definite knowledge, I can't set it aside.

I have shown you a scholarly article discussing the case law, one of the earliest decisions that specifically said that notification didn't set aside the liability protection, and a document from Trump's Justice Dept. that discuss elimination of this as one of the possible reforms.

I get that you have a hunch, but do you have any evidence that actual court cases are deciding in your favor, as opposed to the ones cited which are not?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ah, but friend, I don't plan illegal actions, you see. :)

I'm very content for law enforcement to try to catch those that break the law.

But people do so on Facebook is the point. I would hope you wouldn't plan illegal actions.

But parler is not the only one in this boat.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think we often both agree on what individual sentences mean, usually. That's not at issue for me, that sentence.

Then can you find the sentence that says they must moderate such content? Because that one doesn't.
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,444
8,397
up there
✟303,917.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Issues of moderation have been ongoing for decades.
Yes, remember in the 50's when schools were expected to stifle free thinking, expression and speech in favour of the official government line? They used communism as the excuse back then. Always some reason to keep the masses compliant.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Then can you find the sentence that says they must moderate such content? Because that one doesn't.
on a mobile device, hard to type quickly...

To me, personally, the first answer (of the 3 aspects) that comes to mind is the service agreement:
Amazon Web Services’ Trust and Safety team told Parler chief policy officer Amy Peikoff that the platform continues to host “violent content” that violates AWS’ terms of service.

That's enough of course by itself.

As we already agreed, AWS has the right to set their own terms of service.

2nd thing that comes to mind is their terms in this regard are good ones morally.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
on a mobile device, hard to type quickly...

To me, personally, the first answer (of the 3 aspects) that comes to mind is the service agreement:


That's enough of course by itself.

As we already agreed, AWS has the right to set their own terms of service.

2nd thing that comes to mind is their terms in this regard are good ones morally.

We don't dispute Amazon has the right. I was talking about what sentence in section 230 supports your view of it.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
  • Like
Reactions: tall73
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We don't dispute Amazon has the right. I was talking about what sentence in section 230 supports your view of it.
If you read the well written summary in the legal brief to congress:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10306.pdf

Something I noticed even in (c)(1) (not our main discussion) included:
"Some courts have employed a “material contribution” test to determine if Section 230(c)(1) applies, holding that a service provider may be subject to liability if it “materially contribute[d] to the illegality” of the disputed content. Others have said that service providers may be liable if they “specifically encourage[] development of what is offensive about the content.”

That seems to me meaningful in relation to Parler if the implied advertisement or selling point of Parler is anything similar to be understood to be: "come and say whatever you like" and it means: including things that most any other site would remove, i.e. -- including whatever, like defamation, or incitement, stuff that is illegal. Even if it is just clearly implied. (I aware that Parler seems to have changed its public stance though after losing AWS services)

Of course I noticed the possible trend in less 230 c(1) immunity with the speculation that "...might be that plaintiffs have gotten better at pleading facts alleging that service providers help develop content, and now bring more meritorious cases."

But...it's Section 230(c)(2) that matters more for our discussion (or at least the one I was doing) --
regarding the "good faith" requirement when there is any moderation at all, which it seems is always going to eventually be forced to occur with something like Twitter or Parler or Facebook. Sooner or later they have to moderate (if they want to continue to exist) because sooner or later there will be prominent instances of outright federal criminal activity (see below) --

For that I would recommend reading the pdf carefully starting at Section 230(c)(2) through to the end.

While the good faith requirement applies in 230c2, Section 230 Exceptions seems cogent us here, to me, in that at least some important federal crimes are apparently not protected by 230 immunity. e.g. -- Incitement to riot is illegal under U.S. federal law, for instance.

230 reads in part:

"(1)No effect on criminal law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title..."
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

But section 231 for example says:

(a)
"Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which may in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function..."

Basically, section 230 doesn't cancel section 231 and so on.




 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you read the well written summary in the legal brief to congress:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10306.pdf

Something I noticed even in (c)(1) (not our main discussion) included:
"Some courts have employed a “material contribution” test to determine if Section 230(c)(1) applies, holding that a service provider may be subject to liability if it “materially contribute[d] to the illegality” of the disputed content. Others have said that service providers may be liable if they “specifically encourage[] development of what is offensive about the content.”

That seems to me meaningful in relation to Parler if the implied advertisement or selling point of Parler is anything similar to be understood to be: "come and say whatever you like" and it means: including things that most any other site would remove, i.e. -- including whatever, like defamation, or incitement, stuff that is illegal. Even if it is just clearly implied. (I aware that Parler seems to have changed its public stance though after losing AWS services)

Their policy was to allow legal speech. They did not allow incitement etc. in their rules, so that doesn't seem it would apply.

Of course I noticed the possible trend in less 230 c(1) immunity with the speculation that "...might be that plaintiffs have gotten better at pleading facts alleging that service providers help develop content, and now bring more meritorious cases."

There have been many suits that attempt to argue around based on the above. For instance, some have argued that algorithms that promote content, etc. contribute to. In most cases these have not been upheld. In fact your source indicates that out of hundreds only a few have.

While the good faith requirement applies in 230c2, Section 230 Exceptions seems cogent us here, to me, in that at least some important federal crimes are apparently not protected by 230 immunity. e.g. -- Incitement to riot is illegal under U.S. federal law, for instance.

230 reads in part:

"(1)No effect on criminal law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title..."
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

But section 231 for example says:

(a)
"Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which may in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function..."

Basically, section 230 doesn't cancel section 231 and so on.

If you want a good place to read about individual cases and attempts to argue around, check this out:

Second Circuit Issues Powerful Section 230 Win to Facebook in "Material Support for Terrorists" Case-Force v. Facebook - Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The linked case talks about how Facebook was not held responsible for terrorist organizing on their platform, and reviews the previous similar situations.

Clearly terrorism is against federal law, but it is the terrorist that is subject to the law.

If you look to the side of the blog he covers a lot of other cases by category. And the story links to a number of related section 230 cases.

This is not a one-off case. Notice his linked discussion of failed cases alleging material support of terrorists.

* Eleventh Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Materially Supporting Terrorists” Fails–Palmucci v. Twitter
* Another Appellate Court Rejects “Material Support for Terrorist” Claims Against Social Media Platforms–Crosby v. Twitter
* Tenth Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Materially Supporting Terrorists” Fails–Sinclair v. Twitter
* Ninth Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Materially Supporting Terrorists” Fails–Clayborn v. Twitter
* Eighth Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Materially Supporting Terrorists” Fails–Copeland v. Twitter
* Seventh Different Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Material Support to Terrorists” Fails–Taamneh v. Twitter
* Another Social Media “Material Support to Terrorists” Lawsuit Fails–Cain v. Twitter
* “Material Support for Terrorists” Lawsuit Against YouTube Fails Again–Gonzalez v. Google
* Fifth Court Rejects ‘Material Support for Terrorism’ Claims Against Social Media Sites–Crosby v. Twitter
* Twitter Didn’t Cause ISIS-Inspired Terrorism–Fields v. Twitter
* Section 230 Again Preempts Suit Against Facebook for Supporting Terrorists–Force v. Facebook
* Fourth Judge Says Social Media Sites Aren’t Liable for Supporting Terrorists–Pennie v. Twitter
* Another Court Rejects ‘Material Support To Terrorists’ Claims Against Social Media Sites–Gonzalez v. Google
* Facebook Defeats Lawsuit Over Material Support for Terrorists–Cohen v. Facebook
* Twitter Defeats ISIS “Material Support” Lawsuit Again–Fields v. Twitter
* Section 230 Immunizes Twitter From Liability For ISIS’s Terrorist Activities–Fields v. Twitter
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Their policy was to allow legal speech. They did not allow incitement etc. in their rules, so that doesn't seem it would apply.



There have been many suits that attempt to argue around based on the above. For instance, some have argued that algorithms that promote content, etc. contribute to. In most cases these have not been upheld. In fact your source indicates that out of hundreds only a few have.



If you want a good place to read about individual cases and attempts to argue around, check this out:

Second Circuit Issues Powerful Section 230 Win to Facebook in "Material Support for Terrorists" Case-Force v. Facebook - Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The linked case talks about how Facebook was not held responsible for terrorist organizing on their platform, and reviews the previous similar situations.

Clearly terrorism is against federal law, but it is the terrorist that is subject to the law.

If you look to the side of the blog he covers a lot of other cases by category. And the story links to a number of related section 230 cases.

This is not a one-off case. Notice his linked discussion of failed cases alleging material support of terrorists.

* Eleventh Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Materially Supporting Terrorists” Fails–Palmucci v. Twitter
* Another Appellate Court Rejects “Material Support for Terrorist” Claims Against Social Media Platforms–Crosby v. Twitter
* Tenth Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Materially Supporting Terrorists” Fails–Sinclair v. Twitter
* Ninth Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Materially Supporting Terrorists” Fails–Clayborn v. Twitter
* Eighth Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Materially Supporting Terrorists” Fails–Copeland v. Twitter
* Seventh Different Lawsuit Against Social Media Providers for “Material Support to Terrorists” Fails–Taamneh v. Twitter
* Another Social Media “Material Support to Terrorists” Lawsuit Fails–Cain v. Twitter
* “Material Support for Terrorists” Lawsuit Against YouTube Fails Again–Gonzalez v. Google
* Fifth Court Rejects ‘Material Support for Terrorism’ Claims Against Social Media Sites–Crosby v. Twitter
* Twitter Didn’t Cause ISIS-Inspired Terrorism–Fields v. Twitter
* Section 230 Again Preempts Suit Against Facebook for Supporting Terrorists–Force v. Facebook
* Fourth Judge Says Social Media Sites Aren’t Liable for Supporting Terrorists–Pennie v. Twitter
* Another Court Rejects ‘Material Support To Terrorists’ Claims Against Social Media Sites–Gonzalez v. Google
* Facebook Defeats Lawsuit Over Material Support for Terrorists–Cohen v. Facebook
* Twitter Defeats ISIS “Material Support” Lawsuit Again–Fields v. Twitter
* Section 230 Immunizes Twitter From Liability For ISIS’s Terrorist Activities–Fields v. Twitter

Well, I got already (it was the original most interesting aspect to me in the thread) that of course there is shielding for sites that moderate if they are doing a good faith effort -- section (c)(2) -- regardless of whether they catch instances. Right?

Did you already agree with that c2 shielding requiring a good faith effort?

Do these cases you are listing involve what is "good faith", any of them? -- that would be interesting! -- and if you know which may, if you could single some out, I'd surely want to read on their interpretation of good faith, even if it's not quite the same situation as in Twitter/Parler/Facebook. I don't feel much interest in only reviewing instances of (c)(1) past a limited amount (though a really salient instance that is very much similar to Parler would be quite interesting even in a (c) (1) way), but my main interest was in sites that moderate, as aren't we really talking about Twitter here a lot, in this thread?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, I got already (it was the original most interesting aspect to me in the thread) that of course there is shielding for sites that moderate if they are doing a good faith effort -- section (c)(2) -- regardless of whether they catch instances. Right?

Did you already agree with that c2 shielding requiring a good faith effort?

Do these cases you are listing involve what is "good faith", any of them? -- that would be interesting! -- and if you know which may, if you could single some out, I'd surely want to read on their interpretation of good faith, even if it's not quite the same situation as in Twitter/Parler/Facebook. I don't feel much interest in only reviewing instances of (c)(1) past a limited amount (though a really salient instance that is very much similar to Parler would be quite interesting even in a (c) (1) way), but my main interest was in sites that moderate, as aren't we really talking about Twitter here a lot, in this thread?


That is one of the reasons that the Trump administration wanted clarity on what is meant by good faith, because in effect that has been usually interpreted as almost limitless ability to moderate as well.

Here is a similar list that speak about ability to moderate. If I see a notable exception I will let you know:

I had to do a little good faith moderating on one of the titles for CF!

 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Tall73, since the relevant part of 230 for sites like Twitter, Facebook, (or even a future incarnation of Parler it would seem) is section (c)(2), with its "good faith" requirement, it's what I'm focused on.

The heart of the issue for moderated sites, most of the time, is whether they moderate in good faith.

I just began to search up on c2 good faith in some new ways, and here's one. But I'll be looking to see more than just 1 or 2 instances on "good faith".

"Good faith means that the ISP did not make the decision with the intent to defraud or otherwise facilitate illegal activity."
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – Minc Law

Here the idea is intent. For instance, what was the intent of Parler, what is the intent of Facebook?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Tall73, since the relevant part of 230 for sites like Twitter, Facebook, (or even a future incarnation of Parler it would seem) is section (c)(2), with its "good faith" requirement, it's what I'm focused on.

The heart of the issue for moderated sites, most of the time, is whether they moderate in good faith.

I just began to search up on c2 good faith in some new ways, and here's one. But I'll be looking to see more than just 1 or 2 instances on "good faith".

"Good faith means that the ISP did not make the decision with the intent to defraud or otherwise facilitate illegal activity."
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – Minc Law

Here the idea is intent. For instance, what was the intent of Parler, what is the intent of Facebook?

If you keep reading they get more to the point:

To defend against a claim based on a content removal decision, an ISP needs to show they made the content-related decision in good faith. Good faith means that the ISP did not make the decision with the intent to defraud or otherwise facilitate illegal activity. Defendants can use this defense even if they do not qualify for immunity under Section 230(c)(1) because they developed the content at issue. Defendants may rely on this defense so long as it was a decision to restrict access to content because the ISP considered it obscene or otherwise objectionable.

The list of decided cases shows that the courts have extended protection based on the platform's defense that thy removed it because it was objectionable.

Objectionable could be many things. On CF for instance it can even be theological assertions.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Think of it this way. What they wanted was to allow sites that could be for various audiences to not be sued out of existence. And they also wanted to enable them to make moderation standards that works for their intended audience.

So Christian Forums would have different rules, catered to their audience, than say BladeHQ which focuses on knives, swords, etc.

The reason to interpret it broadly is to protect the site's ability to remove content users wouldn't like, while still retaining liability protection.

Part of the difficulty with large sites like Twitter is they have a very diverse group of users who may not agree one what is objectionable, so they have to cater to the largest group or what they see as accepted standards in society.
 
Upvote 0