[canada2020]

Twitter sits at the very top of a stack of technologies. Clearly the internet providers shouldn’t ban specific content, AWS should not either. Since Twitter is the most user facing, does that give it more responsibility to regulate the actual content on its platform? If not Twitter, who (if anyone) has the right to regulate content on the internet?

[BlueTemplar]

There could be an intermediary status between hoster and editor : a "displayer" would not be liable for what its users do. It would (unlike a hoster) be liable for the moderating choices that he decides to do.

There might be additional requirements to benefit from the hosting status : of size, power, economic model, &c.

https://www.laquadrature.net/2018/10/16/un-tiers-mediaire/ (fr)

(Some of this has now been implemented in the EU.)

[undersuit]

>Clearly

Why?

[splaytreemap]

Twitter censoring content is only a problem because they have a near monopoly in their domain and present themselves as a platform for everybody. There's no national discussion about HN moderation because it's a much smaller website with relatively few users.

Just in general, if Twitter really believes their platform has the power to induce violence and alter elections, then why are we allowing a small number of unelected Twitter execs complete control to determine how that power is used?

Jack Dorsey's vote shouldn't be worth orders of magnitude more than yours and mine just because he's the CEO of a communications platform.