You are splitting hairs. NYT is responsible for what they put in print, written by staff or others.
And Twitter and Facebook ... have statutory immunity from that responsibility.
[/quote]First of all, it's not 'censorship.' But if you insist on calling it that, DP censors content, as does every outlet on the planet that moderates their comment sites and deletes porn, scams, trolls, bad words like the f word, bot armies, and more. If you don't moderate (i.e. censor) then your site will turn into a rat infested shithole. That's the advantage of "censorship" in this era.[/quote]
It's texbook censorship.
1
: a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as
a
: an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter
b: an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as; an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter; an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
And the rationale is Twitter isn't responsible for what someone else puts up on their site. They have millions or billions of comments a day, and holding them financially responsible for all billion of them is of course unreasonable. We don't even want to hold DP responsible for what our benevolent dictators decide to ban/delete or not, because they're just doing their job as best they can. It's their site, their rules, and we agree to them when we sign up. That's private property in a nutshell.
So twitter should be able to have their cake and eat it too? Is that your argument? It's impossible for us to monitor what everyone is doing - except if it's something that offends us politically.
OK, so if DP doesn't want to be responsible for "censorship" then the government should require them to allow porn, trolls, obvious racists, those who spend all day personally insulting other members - in short unless they want to be on the financial hook the owners need to agree to let this place turn into a shithole of trolls and cranks and scams!
Nope. They are allowed to have rules, otherwise, as you say the place would be a shithole. But they are not allowed to arbirarily enforce or make up those rules.
I don't agree! It's their playground and we play by their rules, and they can be fair or unfair, as much as they decide. If we don't like how they run this place, we can leave and they'll instruct us not to let the door hit us on the ass as we exit THEIR PLAYGROUND. Seems fair to me. What I suspect is some of us like this place BECAUSE THEY CENSOR CONTENT.
Bullshit. They have a rule against publishing personal information. If Jasper posts Rawley's home address and says - go **** him up, and DP knows about it, but allows it to stay up becasue they like Jasper and don't like Rawley, they are on the hook for damages, it doesn't matter if they are a private actor. .
They can be enforced arbitrarily if the owners decide to do that. You have no right to be treated "fairly" by DP. If they ban you for any reason, you have no right to sue them.
FWIW, I just checked and Twitter changed their rules on 'hacked' material. So the proper response to an action the public doesn't like is public pressure on a private company. For some reason you want to turn to Big Government to force policies on private businesses that you PREFER.
Again, you are missing the point, Big Government is now enforcing a policy. WE want Big Government out of it and stop protecting Big Tech.
