Current Affairs Elon Musk

[Martin Alvito]

Unless I've read it wrong and without wanting to defend Twitter or Musk, it does mention being the sole purpose of promoting another platform.

Alas, putting a link to another platform as part of a genuine discussion or if it's in a users bio etc. shouldn't mean they get banned.

Emphasis on should, 'cos you never know with Emperor Ming.

What the clause after the 'other social platforms and' actually means is open to debate. I would read it as a user getting banned for posting any links to content on any of those platforms. It is possible that they meant that they will only ban pure self-promotion accounts, if said account is solely promoting a social platform and/or content on the banned site list.

This is the kind of linguistic ambiguity that an editor or an attorney should have caught before it went live, unless the ambiguity was entirely intentional to gauge public reaction and respond accordingly. It could be a way of subtly saying, "People, come on. We are not that stupid. Please quit treating us like we are."

 

[LinekersLegs]

“Don’t talk back to my Mum” might be the next rule

 

[Martin Alvito]

“Don’t talk back to my Mum” might be the next rule

Maybe if enough people who aren't porn stars buy whatever the next checkmark is, he'll let them have Facebook and Instagram back the way he seems to have ignored OnlyFans and its ilk on this one? Might be worth paying the EU fines, to shake down everyone.

 

[LinekersLegs]

@Martin Alvito doesn’t “publisher” have some pretty strict rules around it, even in US?

 

[Martin Alvito]

@Martin Alvito doesn’t “publisher” have some pretty strict rules around it, even in US?

That's a big rabbit hole even if we're just talking US Code, and ignoring the existence of modifications and clarifications via case law. I'm not an attorney, and I would decline to give you a definitive answer unless that were my area of expertise if I were. Then there's fifty states, their respective sets of case law, the EU and a whole bunch of other governmental entities.

The "definition" of publisher is often spelled out in the text of whatever statute was intended to apply to the situation. AFAIK there isn't a statute that clarifies that definition in any way across all media. Somebody that works with this stuff could tell you a lot more about the specifics than I can.

I can confirm for you that 47 USC 230 would seem to explicitly state that Twitter cannot be considered a publisher, but I haven't the faintest idea what case law may have come down the pipe with respect to that one. The purpose of that legislation was to keep ISPs, forums and platforms from being held legally liable for what people say when using them. Obviously, the courts (and Congress) have decided that they bear some responsibility with respect to hate speech and what not.

He might have some inside information on how courts would likely rule with respect to this one in the US, but the political climate in the EU is very different.

 

[tommye]

@Martin Alvito doesn’t “publisher” have some pretty strict rules around it, even in US?

Every time he opens his mouth his legal bill goes up.
His lawyers will be having a good Christmas this year.

 

[LinekersLegs]

That's a big rabbit hole even if we're just talking US Code, and ignoring the existence of modifications and clarifications via case law. I'm not an attorney, and I would decline to give you a definitive answer unless that were my area of expertise if I were. Then there's fifty states, their respective sets of case law, the EU and a whole bunch of other governmental entities.

The "definition" of publisher is often spelled out in the text of whatever statute was intended to apply to the situation. AFAIK there isn't a statute that clarifies that definition in any way across all media. Somebody that works with this stuff could tell you a lot more about the specifics than I can.

I can confirm for you that 47 USC 230 would seem to explicitly state that Twitter cannot be considered a publisher, but I haven't the faintest idea what case law may have come down the pipe with respect to that one. The purpose of that legislation was to keep ISPs, forums and platforms from being held legally liable for what people say when using them. Obviously, the courts (and Congress) have decided that they bear some responsibility with respect to hate speech and what not.

He might have some inside information on how courts would likely rule with respect to this one in the US, but the political climate in the EU is very different.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Every time he opens his mouth his legal bill goes up.
His lawyers will be having a good Christmas this year.

I hope they didn’t want to see their families over any of the holidays!

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[Martin Alvito]

The interesting thing is how wrong he turned out to be, despite having worked in startups as well as the technical side with respect to computer programming.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[tommye]

I hope they didn’t want to see their families over any of the holidays!

They're lawyers.
Like they care lol

 

[carlos21]

They're lawyers.
Like they care lol

Yo Tommy what was you best old sweets my friend.

 

[Amw79]