Is there a constitutional and legally permissable way to work towards the shutdown of Twitter?

submitted by Alienhunter from self.politics

I've recently become convinced that Twitter poses a potentially existential threat to American democratic discourse and the state of public opinion within the United States as it allows for fringe and otherwise unpopular ideas to bypass the normal social vetting processes and become major talking points and that process is easily controlled by a small minority of people who have the time necessary to engage on there. Regulation as a utility may pose serious 1st ammendment issues so I do not believe that is a valid path. Would a popular movement to simply shame and demonize Twitter users as drug addicts work neutralize Twitters negative effects on society or would that merely backfire like DARE did.

all 31 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Anman 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

Turn off your computer. Jam your dick in a car door. Problem solved.

[–]Alienhunter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Turned off the computer and jammed dick in car door as instructed but Twitter still exists. Please advise.

[–]Anman 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You are not jamming your dick in the car door hard enough. Maybe try it a few more times.

[–]Alienhunter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The car door hasn't let given me verbal consent for a second round.

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Perhaps you shouldn't have bought a tesla. Now you will never be free from the horrors of the internet.

[–]Drewski 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You could try to buy it like Musk and then dissolve it.

[–]Alienhunter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'll start a go-fund-me. It'll totally work, the board of Twitter will totally approve a buyout offer that seeks to dismantle the company completely and totally won't get voted out by the stock holders.

Because of that you can totally trust that I won't just belt with the money once I get the 50 billion or whatever it is I need.

[–]HPFL 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You’ll just spend it on booze and hookers and then escape to Rio de Janeiro.

[–]TarBaby 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Buy out Twitter, shut it down, and take a loss as a tax write-off.

[–]danjl 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Democracy is fake and gay.

[–]Alienhunter[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Mob-rule is alternatively-factual and LGBYQIA2S+

Your comment has been edited by the Ministry of Truth to better reflect the 2022 newspeak reality guidelines to make for a more Equitable world. Please follow all DEI guidelines. Divide et imperia! Gloria Oceana in Perpetum

[–]HPFL 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Our comment has been enhanced by the Mosque of Truthiness to plusgood practice the 2022 newspeak unfake guidelines to make for a more Equitable bluesphere. You are required to follow all DEI guidelines. Uck-fay ou-ay, Eurasia-ay!

[–]HPFL 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And it has been used to cause more war crimes than any other form of government put together.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What if you ruled that private companies, like the government, cannot infringe on constitutional rights (in this case the 1st amendment)

I think there is some precedent for this, we don't let private companies do racial discrimination for example

[–]Alienhunter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think that's a viable solution. Private companies can and do have a legitamate interest in restricting speech on their platforms depending on the circumstances. For example I may wish to set up a discussion forum on my companies website for my products but choose to ban discussion of anything that isn't directly related to my products or company. For example, US politics in general.

This is clearly a different situation than an outfit like twitter which I see as more akin to a publisher at this point. But even publishing companies have the ability to decide what they do and do not want to publish.

I think the biggest problem with Twitter is it has more or less established a kind of monopoly on the internet along with other large companies such as alphabet. But beyond that the viral nature by which content spreads and the lack of transparency do to the internet's anonymous nature or who is making the content and who how and why the algorithms are picking what is being chosen for spread are not at all well known.

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It's trivial, just repeal Section 230. But America has become a cesspool and will never again do anything that makes sense.

[–]Alienhunter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That may work but I fear it might only lead to more heavy handed censorship. Although perhaps the litigation and destruction of the normal internet platforms business models would lead to positive outcomes for society at large.

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't understand. How would it lead to more heavy handed censorship? And how would cause the destruction of the normal internet platforms business models? All repealing Section 230 would do would be to eliminate censorship on large platforms.

[–]Alienhunter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

From my understanding what section 230 does is twofold.

One, it protects websites from being liable for what 3rd parties post on them. Provided they take some effort to remove illegal material when it is posted.

Two, it gives immunities to websites from civil penalties for material removed in good faith regardless of whether or not the material actually is illegal or not.

While removing the second part might help somewhat to deal with the YouTube type demonization instances, since websites are basically able to remove or promote whatever they want anyway it's not particularly relevant to the average user in my opinion.

If the first part is removed that would open up websites to be prosecuted for what people post there. Meaning that if someone posts a large amount of copywrited material, illegal pornography, threats or other such material the website could be sued or prosecuted for publishing the material. Naturally no one will want to open themselves up to such liability so it will mean websites with user submitted content will essentially be forced to pre-approve any and all submissions before they are published which would fundamentally break the way most social media companies operate. Perhaps in the long run, that would be a good thing. But it would hurt their profitability immensely and would greatly increase censorial tendencies imho. The consequences of repeal are not so simple.

[–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You don't understand Section 230. I tried to find an article on the internet that explains it, but couldn't find anything good, just garbage. So I guess I will explain it.

Before Section 230, companies had to choose between being publishers or platforms. An example of a publisher is a magazine. They control their content but they are liable for their content. An example of a platform is a phone company. They enable communication but don't control their content, so they aren't liable for what is said on their phone system. Before Section 230, social media companies had to choose between being a publisher or being a platform. So in order to avoid liability for content, they were not allowed to censor that content. This made them a platform like a phone company.

Section 230 is pure evil (which is why all modern scum defend it). Without Section 230, Twitter would be forced to choose between the above options. If they wanted to practice censorship, they would have to become small and check all content before it is published. This would make them just another small Leftist site. To be big and uncurated, they would have to give up censorship.

[–]Alienhunter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That's a fair explanation. But that's not my understanding from reading it. I'd definitely appreciate an article source or even a legal dissertation on it.

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I haven't seen you before on SaidIt, so you may not know my views. I consider modern culture to be pure evil and I favor the complete extermination of all modern scum (members of modern culture). So of course I don't expect to find any sensible commentary on any subject that is only of interest to modern scum, like Section 230. All modern scum like Section 230 because all modern scum love everything that is bad or evil. I looked briefly for a legal explanation and found this and this, both pro- Section 230, of course, but at least gives some legal explanation.

Anyway, this topic is pointless. Just reject evil modern culture and become a decent person.

[–]Alienhunter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So of course I don't expect to find any sensible commentary on any subject that is only of interest to modern scum, like Section 230.

So you would say your commentary on Section 230 is not sensible then because it is not of interest to you?

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, it was of interest to me when it was passed in the 1990s, so my understanding comes from that time. That was before modern culture had become pure scum, so political issues still interested me.

[–]Alienhunter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I see interesting. So you do not consider engagement in online discussion forums to be participating in modern society then?

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People are too caught up on arguing which motivations are behind repealing (or modifying) section 230, since both sides want to do it, just for different reasons. It can't be done without the proper gaslighting.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wait a few years for them to swear to the feds and all their advertisers that bots are only 5% of the user base. Then offer to buy it and back out of the deal because you claim their data says otherwise. Then have your lawyers sue them and get discovery of the numbers in court. (you are here) Then encourage current and historical clients to sue them for fraud, and have the feds chase them down like coons in the pine forest.

[–]jamesK_3rd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why...

Twitter isn't the problem the people are.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE

[–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes the people are the problem. So what is your solution to that?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not just Twitter, it's big tech in general and they are very wealthy and pretty powerful. Look at Wikipedia, the disinformation site that comes up first in every Google search made. Look at Chines3 owned Tik Tok and the degeneracy and stupidity they endorse. We all know about Preddit.