Section 230 was passed specifically to allow internet companies to delete, obscure, or moderate content posted by users without exposing themselves to civil liability as a result of Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy.

Anyone using this "editorial" argument is uninformed or lying https://twitter.com/JimHansonDC/status/1266381924760723456
This is entirely false. the law does the exact opposite of this. only someone deeply illiterate could read the statute and walk away with this understanding. it's also common knowledge the section was added explicitly to allow editing. https://twitter.com/JimHansonDC/status/1266383538074550274?s=20
I haven't seen Twitter edit a single tweet. I've seen them ad warnings. That's not editing. And Section 230 specifically prevents companies from being sued for restricting access to content if they find it "objectionable," which means basically anything. https://twitter.com/JimHansonDC/status/1266384714409148419
Nope. That's not changing a single word. Making users click an extra button to read a tweet isn't editing, but even if it were, they'd still be covered.

(c)(2)(A): https://law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://twitter.com/JimHansonDC/status/1266385636799533057
I'm showing this guy like fucking DNA evidence that the exact opposite of what he's saying is true and he's just like, NOPE DERRRR.... https://twitter.com/JimHansonDC/status/1266387209277657100
This is a totally nonsensical distinction since the argument Jim is making is that "editing" doesn't require Twitter to change any of the words the user wrote.

By this definition, I'm editing Jim's tweet right now. https://twitter.com/JimHansonDC/status/1266388383254839296
I'm editing Jim's tweet right now. This is me, editing Jim. I'm editing Jim and he can't stop me. https://twitter.com/JimHansonDC/status/1266388898634174465
Okay, that was fun, back to real things
You can follow @dellcam.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: