A YouTube video from CNN has attorney’s discussing the likely success of Trump’s lawsuit against Twitter and other publishing platforms.
Clearly the respective platform should have the ability to limit what is shared on their platform but, at the same time, they are claiming legal protection under Section 230 of the government’s law.
Why even have Section 230 if the platforms feel their censorship is constitutional? If the platforms are indeed monitoring conversations and shutting down accounts, they are censoring or controlling content in the same way an editor of a newspaper might review content prior to publication. Therefore, they should have no more or less protection than a newspaper might have.
Now, in the case of a newspaper editorial, a disclaimer that the publisher does not necessarily agree with the views of the author would seem appropriate. Considering the technology involved, hiding sensitive or disputed content behind clickable disclaimers seems more appropriate than giving an algorithm the orders to suspend or delete accounts because someone expressed an opinion that some people disagree with or just don’t like.
If content is if fact legally actionable, the content poster should be the first point of action but the platform owner should do what they can to provide protection from content within the law. I agree that censorship is wrong and deleting or suspending an account seems wrong but disclaimers seem o.k. to me. Thanks for reading.