Micheal42 t1_ja3kmuo wrote
Reply to comment by HaikuKnives in Twitter argues before Supreme Court that letting ISIS use platform not the same as aiding and abetting terror by do-you-know-the-way9
Aren't we then treating Twitter more as a technology than as a company. And aren't we considering ourselves at war with Isis? Either way we enact sanctions against anyone working with Russia, who aren't directly at war with, why should someone who works with ISIS be treated any differently?
For me the line isn't about individuals, it's about groups. ISIS shouldn't get better treatment or exceptions in places we wouldn't make them for Russia.
HaikuKnives t1_ja3l93x wrote
Twitter (the platform) is a technology though. We also have not sanctioned Twitter for hosting Russian sympathizers so this comparison falls apart from the get-go.
Micheal42 t1_ja3rf0s wrote
Not if you believe that they shouldn't be hosting actual russian government agents. Russian sympathizers is so broad a term as to be useless. The comparison I'd draw would be to actual government agents. Those are the people from ISIS I'd want to stop, people who actually work for them. Not just some dickhead in his basement living in the west going "oh I love ISIS".
In this comparison you could take the people suffering under Isis rule and twitter the technology as analogous. That being they're being used against their will to prop up something that they shouldn't be used to prop up. Putin, ISIS members power and the spreading of ISIS propaganda.
To that end if the people who own Twitter, the platform, aren't able or willing to stop them being used then they shouldn't benefit from any of the things that come from being housed in the west, just the same as people who break the embargo against Russia should face consequences too.
GeerJonezzz t1_ja60olt wrote
This reads like somebody who doesn’t know how the internet works.
Micheal42 t1_ja61isz wrote
That's one way to dismiss what I just said I suppose.
GeerJonezzz t1_ja62ref wrote
I stopped reading at the “Those are the people from ISIS I’d want to stop, people who actually work for them”.
My brother in Christ have you ever heard of a VPN?
How can you tell the difference between some random ISIS shitter from Iowa vs. random Muslim villagers with IPhone 11’s on untraceable networks? They’re not gonna be hosting livestreams and giving out their IP’s…
You don’t actually think places like Twitter and Facebook allow ISIS or terrorists to post if actually verified and reported, do you?
Micheal42 t1_ja6550n wrote
Then how does the supreme court know it's Isis posting?
GeerJonezzz t1_ja7ru18 wrote
They don’t know if these people are actually ISIS members or just ISIS affiliates/supporters. The argument is that people who promote terrorist shit are effectively terrorists themselves. So it doesn’t automatically mean they would be any general or officer on the ground within the organization and not would it matter because the message being spread is all the same…
Micheal42 t1_ja7sivr wrote
So you'd say an even harder line than me? As in that the platform benefits from being used and owned by the west or America and so should walk the line everyone else in that situation has to, i.e not supporting Russia and no spreading of ISIS messages?
For me that's a harder line to reach because then you're saying they can't be publicly discussed and I think it's important to do so because if they have any value at all we want to separate the value from their behaviours and if they don't we want to be able to show that in a way that demonstrates confidence.
If I've misunderstood you or if you have another take I'd be happy to hear it though.
GeerJonezzz t1_ja7y4ur wrote
No, actually, my only suggestion would be better moderation with improved AI and algorithms, and changing aspects or features of these platforms to make work easier for moderation teams. And of course, much more transparency. All in all, it’s a big ask but more reasonable as it flows with the natural optimization and improvement of automatic features.
Trying to get rid of bad actors online is no different than trying to eliminate all crime. Twitter, FB, Instagram, has more people than any city in the world many times over.
The fact is, unwanted people and content will always exist. As people, in a social and cultural sense, our focus should be to educate people on how to navigate the internet and social media. How to protect ourselves and how to interact with extreme content either illicit or ideological instead of wanting to limit and control everything that goes on.
There are arguments for having the government be more responsible in alleviating moderation duties from these companies on these websites- which I’m not opposed to but I’m not familiar with the pro’s and con’s of it to discuss it.
Micheal42 t1_ja8c0qp wrote
Interesting, thanks for sharing your view
GeerJonezzz t1_ja8ct07 wrote
Well, sure, thanks for reading and engaging.
I just don’t want to come off like some laissez faire government, free speech absolutist kind of guy. It’s just the internet is a hard place to secure so I think people are quick to assume you can just sort of lockdown these spaces and there would be no problems or drawbacks.
SpiritJuice t1_ja680el wrote
Legal Eagle has a great video covering this subject that I recommend watching. It covers Section 230, how it applies to this lawsuit, and how the plaintiffs winning would really hurt the internet and use generated content sites. Link below.
Micheal42 t1_ja687u1 wrote
I like legal eagle, (I just realised both words use the same letters haha) so I'll definitely watch this later. Thanks for the link
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments