[alex_sf]

This isn't that complicated. Twitter can just take down content in response to court orders, unless their review team decides to fight it on whatever grounds.

This is not only simpler for Twitter to implement, but provides a better level of due process and accountability. How many times has someone been 'abused' on social media and claimed XYZ company did nothing about it?

[notreallyserio]

This is peak modern Silicon Valley: privatize the revenue for the product, socialize[0] the costs (by clogging up courts, in this case). It's not remotely scalable.

0: I don't agree with this vernacular, it's just what the kids say.

[alex_sf]

Good. I don't want suppressing speech to be scalable.

[ChainReaktion]

Sure, but that relies on someone’s ability to secure the court order. That takes days at minimum, possibly much longer. It costs money, possibly thousands of dollars or more. And what about cases that cross borders? Is someone from from South Africa supposed to seek injunctive relief from a U.S. court? Maybe this is better than the status quo ante, but it’s not obvious to me that that’s the case and it doesn’t seem like anyone is asking the hard questions.

[alex_sf]

I mean, that's fine. If you're being 'cyberbullied', it's not an emergency, you can wait a few days.