Twitter isn't obligated to allow anyone to use their platform, but as a user, I don't want Twitter to curate what ideas and speakers I'm exposed to, in the same way that I don't want my local library to ban certain books or Google to delist websites that it decides are bad. Twitter is within its right to do whatever it wants, but I don't want it curating my feed anymore than I want my phone to decide who I can and can't text message. And while I'm resigned to the fact that there will be some moderation on Twitter, to remove a longstanding newspaper for publishing a dubious story is an absurd overreach. They can do it, but it's a silly, foolish way to run a social network.

Not to mention their rules are suspiciously narrowly enforced.

    I don't want Twitter to curate what ideas and speakers 
    I'm exposed to, in the same way that I don't want my 
    local library to ban certain books or Google to 
    delist websites that it decides are bad

Those analogies are flawed, so I'll just address the issue directly.

I do want Twitter to curate things, by filtering out news from biased sources with questionable alliances and borderline journalistic practices. I want them to be transparent about it, and if I don't like the way they do it I'll go elsewhere. To me, that is the free market -- not forcing Twitter to amplify all voices indiscriminately. If Twitter was the only game in town I'd feel differently, but that is far from the case.

I think most really do want some level of curation. Do you want child porn on your feed? Endless ads for fake Viagra? Animal abuse?

I cannot imagine a platform like Twitter being useful without some kind of curation. I realize that blocking the NYPost is an opinionated move in some ways.

They were transparent about the reason, and I agreed with their move. That's all I ask. There are plenty of other places with more relaxed standards, and they're still available to me when I really want to drink from the firehose.

    They can do it, but it's a silly, foolish way to run 
    a social network.

Should HN stop being "silly" and moderating submissions?

No, I don't want child porn on my feed, in my library, or in my Google results.

Illegal material aside, if someone posts something on Twitter that really disturbs me, I can block them. Twitter could create custom filters and let people opt in to them, too. But I want my technology to empower me, not infantalize me with paternalistic "protections."

I'm all for moderated communities. It's important for people to be able to create and define communities with their own rules and norms. But Twitter should be the value-neutral technology on which those communities are built. Empower us to create the world we want, don't force your vision on us.

Unfortunately, I think they feel responsible for the content now that they are actively picking what we see in our algorithmic feeds. The algorithmic feed was the first step in disempowering their users, and it logically leads to increasing censorship.

>I think most really do want some level of curation. Do you want child porn on your feed? Endless ads for fake Viagra? Animal abuse?

>I cannot imagine a platform like Twitter being useful without some kind of curation. I realize that blocking the NYPost is an opinionated move in some ways.

Blocking NYPost is not curating the extreme content you state. Your argument is an attempt to imply that wanting the NYPost is akin to wanting the other.

Wouldn´t it be better to have two options when you log in to Twitter? Safe space Twitter and wild west Twitter. Then all sensitive people can log into a pink bubble and the rest of us can enjoy uncensored reality. Most people should realize that very few would choose the pink bubble. The line should be drawn at illegal content in the wild west Twitter.

You should trust other people to have the same ability as yourself to evaluate information.

    Wouldn´t it be better to have two options when 
    you log in to Twitter? Safe space Twitter and 
    wild west Twitter.

    Then all sensitive people can log into a pink 
    bubble and the rest of us can enjoy uncensored 
    reality. Most people should realize that very 
    few would choose the pink bubble.

Even the name would be... problematic. I think they would be more accurately named "sane Twitter" and "ram malicious conspiracy disinformation from suspect sources and fake Viagra ad Twitter."

Ironically, Twitter is already like this with follows and likes allowing people to construct their own bubbles.

I've not heard any claims of dissenting opinions censored by the mods here, but im sure its possible.

>Twitter is a platform with a editorial slant

Except that Twitter claims to be a neutral platform in order to benefit from Section 230. I agree with you that it's just another media outlet with a slant, but the government needs to start treating them like it.

Edit: I'm not going to risk posting another comment in this thread because I'm getting negative votes. I keep seeing this more and more and I'm baffled. I haven't called names or even been combative. Is this place reddit now, where you just downvote anyone you disagree with?

Section 230 doesn't require a platform to be neutral. This is a common, but false, idea. Section 230 says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service, a platform, shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Verge has a good article that discusses this in more detail: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/22/20700099/section-230-comm...

Yes. Section 230 doesn't require a platform to be neutral. But Twitter insists it's neutral, so it MUST be neutral.

No, it doesn’t.

But the other problem is defining neutral - many people seem to have decided that removing objectively false information is somehow not neutral. Which it isn’t.

"No, it doesn’t."?

What?

I think Section 230 needs updating, badly.

I personally find value in entities like Hacker News, Twitter, StackOverflow, etc that curate their content. I of course do want transparency there.

I also value utterly unfiltered sources. But, I do not need or want every source to be unfiltered. Then everything becomes a firehose of utter garbage.

I think there is room for both. But it just makes zero sense to me to essentially force primarily user-driven platforms like Twitter to amplify/aggregate content from literally everybody. If they don't want to amplify the NYPost's stories, that should be their choice. And then I can choose not to read Twitter if I don't like that. I completely fail to see the problem.

    I agree with you that it's just another media outlet
    with a slant, but the government needs to start 
    treating them like it. 

What, specifically, do you want done here? Should it apply to Hacker News as well -- should HN no longer be able to curate its content?

Just to clear the air, I am not a fan of the Post or the particular content that earned it its recent block. I agree that it's Twitter's platform, and they should be able to curate it as they see fit.

Here's how I see it: if I wrote a letter to the editor to a popular US newspaper calling for an ethnic pogrom, they published it, and it incited riots or violence, that news paper would get tar sued out of it. They are responsible for the user-generated content that they chose to publish. If instead I used my phone to start a phone tree to rouse people to ethnic violence, only the phone call makers would be responsible. The phone company just lets me place calls to whoever will receive them and transmits my messages.

Where does Facebook fall? Currently, if they allow people to start groups and publish materials calling for ethnic genocide and it leads to violence, they bear no responsibility. Sure, there's a continuum between phone and newspaper, but currently they are having their cake and eating it too. What should the law look like?

Free speech doesn't mean you are not responsible for the things you say (or re-transmit). If they want to be a non-neutral media outlet, Facebook, Twitter, et al. should be liable for the damages caused when their platform is involved in incitement of violence. If you're attacked by White supremacist counter-protestors, and it turns out they organized or promoted their activities on the platform, it should be partially responsible and should be a co-defendant in court.

Personally, I would prefer them to remain neutral platforms and focus their efforts on providing stronger abuse prevention that makes it harder for extremists to "amplify" their message into the feeds of people that don't want it instead of trying to whack-a-mole offensive content. Tools that would allow users to filter and block more easily, or even better selectively subscribe to the content they do want. I guess that would probably mean reduced engagement, though.

> if I wrote a letter to the editor to a popular US newspaper calling for an ethnic pogrom, they published it, and it incited riots or violence, that news paper would get tar sued out of it.

This is simply not true.

I’d be very interested in learning more about this then. Is the only thing keeping full page ads calling for people to kill BLM protestors out of the papers the papers’ own sense of decency?

Section 230 does not require a platform to be neutral. It never has.

I'd say the NY Post is free to post on the Gab network or on Parler. Twitter, a private company, is under no obligation to provide them a platform.

Should they continue be exempt from lawsuits per section 230

Section 230 doesn't require neutrality.

Correct. It requires companies no not be treated as publishers.

However if the companies themselves behave as publishers, yet avoid that designation bybhiding behind a regulation intended to protect Non-Publishers...

Then clesrly they are going against the spirit of the law and the law should be updated so there are consequences, particularly if they enjoy network effect monopolies.

This is very simple to do. Any company using 230, that is publicly listed, has more than 1B in revenue or 100M of users should inmediately lose section 230 protection. Full stop.

Any infotech company of size becomes very attractive for political influence, and should be closely watched for potential violation of campaing finance laws among other things.

How is Twitter equivalent to a newspaper?

Twitter is a platform everyone gets to post stuff by default. You and many others make it sounds like Twitter has to deliberately to give permission to someone to make a post, so Twitter has no obligation to allow anyone to post. This is such a B.S. argument. Twitter doesn't deliberately allow someone to post. No. It deliberately bans someone from make a post. Banning is its action.

The question is why Twitter bans NY post and this action needs explanation.