Re:Updating our approach to misleading information
by jart on Tuesday May 12, 2020 @06:59AM
(#23152668)
Thank you Nick Pickles and Yoel Roth for helping Twitter join the scientific research process. Where will your findings on what is/isn't true be published?
Re:Updating our approach to misleading information
by tal8d on Monday May 11, 2020 @05:10PM
(#23147114)
This gets funnier everyday, the hamfisted editorializing. If you want to capitalize on user generated content, while also being shielded from the legal consequences of user generated content, you can't insert editor's notes.
Re:Updating our approach to misleading information
by tal8d on Tuesday May 12, 2020 @12:15AM
(#23150542)
> ..exact intended function of Section 230.
Interesting, the deferral to the intent of the law's author - it kind of makes the whole argument about the second amendment seem silly. That would be a dangerous game to play in this case though, given the fact that 230 is a small part of the much larger product of the mid 90's moral panic - the Communications Decency Act. Courts have ruled pretty narrowly on the issue of editorializing and 230 protections, but in cases of defamation they've made it clear that so long as the edits don't alter the meaning - they're protected. At the same time, courts have made it clear that simply changing the context on another's work can be enough to constitute fair-use and effectively create a new work. Those aren't compatible ideas.
The purpose of these tags is to alter the underlying message, they even admit it - they wouldn't function as intended otherwise. I think the funniest example I've seen of this was a 1970s documentary about our imminent destruction by way of global cooling, narrated by Leonard Nimoy. Youtube's little wrong-thought tag helpfully informed me of our imminent destruction by way of global warming.
Interesting, the deferral to the intent of the law's author - it kind of makes the whole argument about the second amendment seem silly. That would be a dangerous game to play in this case though, given the fact that 230 is a small part of the much larger product of the mid 90's moral panic - the Communications Decency Act. Courts have ruled pretty narrowly on the issue of editorializing and 230 protections, but in cases of defamation they've made it clear that so long as the edits don't alter the meaning - they're protected. At the same time, courts have made it clear that simply changing the context on another's work can be enough to constitute fair-use and effectively create a new work. Those aren't compatible ideas.
The purpose of these tags is to alter the underlying message, they even admit it - they wouldn't function as intended otherwise. I think the funniest example I've seen of this was a 1970s documentary about our imminent destruction by way of global cooling, narrated by Leonard Nimoy. Youtube's little wrong-thought tag helpfully informed me of our imminent destruction by way of global warming.