tw.tter

[dyqik]

Reverse ferret!

As one commenter says, "Up to Four Seasons Total Cat Lawyer level now".

And the fake accounts that had already paid for "verification" blue ticks are now showing up as properly verified users, verified because they are notable people.

Including one pretending to be my senator.

https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/15 ... m6anw&s=19

By the way, this game seems to have tanked the stocks of insulin manufacturers, knocking $10bn or so off of Eli Lilly's market cap.

[plodder]

Don't know what the media law is in the US but presumably Fox can be forced to publish retractions, apologies, sued for slander/libel etc. AFAIK twitter / facebook etc would just pass any legal jeopardy onto the individual users. This would be like a Fox journalist being sued, rather than Fox itself.

Media law as applies to Cable TV in the US is the First Amendment, and a much harder to prove defamation law.

Section 230 protects common carrier publishers from liability for defamatory user posts, in the same way that the cable company is protected from defamatory broadcasts by Fox News.

Fox News journalists are employees of Fox News, and so acting within the scope of their employment on behalf of the company. Twitter users are not employees of Twitter.

Thanks but as users generate income for e.g. twitter I’d argue that they be seen (in a narrow sense) as similar to employees in this regard.

[plodder]

More thought provoking and insightful analysis:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Athenae/stat ... 3201186817

[dyqik]

Don't know what the media law is in the US but presumably Fox can be forced to publish retractions, apologies, sued for slander/libel etc. AFAIK twitter / facebook etc would just pass any legal jeopardy onto the individual users. This would be like a Fox journalist being sued, rather than Fox itself.

Media law as applies to Cable TV in the US is the First Amendment, and a much harder to prove defamation law.

Section 230 protects common carrier publishers from liability for defamatory user posts, in the same way that the cable company is protected from defamatory broadcasts by Fox News.

Fox News journalists are employees of Fox News, and so acting within the scope of their employment on behalf of the company. Twitter users are not employees of Twitter.

Thanks but as users generate income for e.g. twitter I’d argue that they be seen (in a narrow sense) as similar to employees in this regard.

Not in any kind of legal liability sense. If they aren't being paid or instructed what to write by Twitter, they aren't employees.

ETA: in the same way, the supermarket I was just in is not liable for the National Enquirer front page stories about Charles sending Camilla to rehab and Kanye being in a psych ward, even though they have copies on display next to the checkouts.

[plodder]

I’m talking about “should be” rather than “is”.

The only product social media companies have to sell is their users’ content. Some users (you tube etc) make a living directly from a cut of ad revenue.

[dyqik]

I’m talking about “should be” rather than “is”.

The only product social media companies have to sell is their users’ content. Some users (you tube etc) make a living directly from a cut of ad revenue.

That's just not true.

Twitter, YouTube and Facebook makes their money by selling advertising space and some amount of subscriptions. They do not sell user content. They do sell targeted advertising based on user behavior records. What they sell to advertisers is users' attention, which is driven by other users content, but they do not commission or edit user content.

Mastodon doesn't sell anything, and is not a business.

This place doesn't sell anything either, and we are also a social media entity.

[EACLucifer]

Reverse ferret!

As one commenter says, "Up to Four Seasons Total Cat Lawyer level now".

And the fake accounts that had already paid for "verification" blue ticks are now showing up as properly verified users, verified because they are notable people.

Including one pretending to be my senator.

https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/15 ... m6anw&s=19

By the way, this game seems to have tanked the stocks of insulin manufacturers, knocking $10bn or so off of Eli Lilly's market cap.

An unscrupulous short seller - and let's face it that's probably most of them - could have a field day with this. As could someone wanting to buy the entirely artificial dip.

[plodder]

I’m talking about “should be” rather than “is”.

The only product social media companies have to sell is their users’ content. Some users (you tube etc) make a living directly from a cut of ad revenue.

That's just not true.

Twitter, YouTube and Facebook makes their money by selling advertising space and some amount of subscriptions. They do not sell user content. They do sell targeted advertising based on user behavior records. What they sell to advertisers is users' attention, which is driven by other users content, but they do not commission or edit user content.

Mastodon doesn't sell anything, and is not a business.

This place doesn't sell anything either, and we are also a social media entity.

They absolutely sell user content. All the targeted stuff is by the by. Without the user content they don’t have engagement and without engagement they don’t have a platform for advertisers. The big difference between eg youtube and fox is that fox can get into trouble for scam ads, libellous content etc whereas youtube just shrugs its shoulders.

[plodder]

This forum has chosen not to monetise.

[lpm]

https://twitter.com/SpaceXOfficiall/sta ... 3265098752

SpaceX announces it's ceasing operations.

[dyqik]

This forum has chosen not to monetise.

That doesn't change defamation law and similar.

[dyqik]

I’m talking about “should be” rather than “is”.

The only product social media companies have to sell is their users’ content. Some users (you tube etc) make a living directly from a cut of ad revenue.

That's just not true.

Twitter, YouTube and Facebook makes their money by selling advertising space and some amount of subscriptions. They do not sell user content. They do sell targeted advertising based on user behavior records. What they sell to advertisers is users' attention, which is driven by other users content, but they do not commission or edit user content.

Mastodon doesn't sell anything, and is not a business.

This place doesn't sell anything either, and we are also a social media entity.

They absolutely sell user content. All the targeted stuff is by the by. Without the user content they don’t have engagement and without engagement they don’t have a platform for advertisers. The big difference between eg youtube and fox is that fox can get into trouble for scam ads, libellous content etc whereas youtube just shrugs its shoulders.

Fox is a publisher that commissions content. It can get in trouble for that content. It doesn't have (much) liability for the content of ads, which are third party published content.

User posts on Twitter are published by the user. They are not commissioned by Twitter, and Twitter does not sell that content.

[EACLucifer]

That's just not true.

Twitter, YouTube and Facebook makes their money by selling advertising space and some amount of subscriptions. They do not sell user content. They do sell targeted advertising based on user behavior records. What they sell to advertisers is users' attention, which is driven by other users content, but they do not commission or edit user content.

Mastodon doesn't sell anything, and is not a business.

This place doesn't sell anything either, and we are also a social media entity.

They absolutely sell user content. All the targeted stuff is by the by. Without the user content they don’t have engagement and without engagement they don’t have a platform for advertisers. The big difference between eg youtube and fox is that fox can get into trouble for scam ads, libellous content etc whereas youtube just shrugs its shoulders.

Fox is a publisher that commissions content. It can get in trouble for that content. It doesn't have (much) liability for the content of ads, which are third party published content.

User posts on Twitter are published by the user. They are not commissioned by Twitter, and Twitter does not sell that content.

Dyqik, you are doing your best, but if there's any law of social media, it's that stupid people have stupid takes about section 230, and just try to chinny reckon their way around them when they are shown they are wrong.

Meanwhile, to put things in context, the amount of money Musk has sunk into Twitter, not all of it his own, would have bought more than four hundred F-35s of any variant.

[Bird on a Fire]

No idea how long it’ll take but it looks like this may end with Apple, Google or Facebook agreeing to buy what’s left of Twitter at a steep discount.

Which will of course further ruin the internet. What’s needed to save it is the big companies being broken up.

This is what I like about Mastodon as a concept (still finding my feet as a user) - it's decentralised, with a bunch of servers that can talk to each other but also have some control over what's posted and who's in your feed. It can even interface with other software, have different front ends, etc.

If a significant user base went to Mastodon, twitter could even find it's nice as a premium federated instance.

[Brightonian]

After laying off a key information security team, Musk's personal lawyer emailed Twitter employees to say they won't go to jail if they follow Musk's commands.

https://twitter.com/maxberger/status/15 ... 7901058048

I'm sure staff feel reassured now.

[dyqik]

After laying off a key information security team, Musk's personal lawyer emailed Twitter employees to say they won't go to jail if they follow Musk's commands.

https://twitter.com/maxberger/status/15 ... 7901058048

I'm sure staff feel reassured now.

And uh, yeah, that's not how criminal liability works.

[dyqik]

I'm not seeing any ads at all on Twitter right now...

[Grumble]

https://twitter.com/SpaceXOfficiall/sta ... 3265098752

SpaceX announces it's ceasing operations.

Officiallly!

[jimbob]

Section 230 does protect Twitter from the defamatory contents of posts, but it may not protect them from saying that an impersonator posting defamatory content has been verified as the real person.

What about the potential for stock manipulation from that Eli Lilly tweet saying it's making Insulin free, which wiped $16Bn off its market valuation?

[Bird on a Fire]

Big lols all round

[Stranger Mouse]

After laying off a key information security team, Musk's personal lawyer emailed Twitter employees to say they won't go to jail if they follow Musk's commands.

https://twitter.com/maxberger/status/15 ... 7901058048

I'm sure staff feel reassured now.

And uh, yeah, that's not how criminal liability works.

Renato Mariotti agrees https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/sta ... gvUczJ7JJQ

[jimbob]

https://twitter.com/maxberger/status/15 ... 7901058048

I'm sure staff feel reassured now.

And uh, yeah, that's not how criminal liability works.

Renato Mariotti agrees https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/sta ... gvUczJ7JJQ

Yup it's really simple.

If you're my employee and I tell you to "take all the TVs from the local Dixon's without paying because it's legal and you won't be liable" and you did that, you'd still be liable.

[plodder]

That's just not true.

Twitter, YouTube and Facebook makes their money by selling advertising space and some amount of subscriptions. They do not sell user content. They do sell targeted advertising based on user behavior records. What they sell to advertisers is users' attention, which is driven by other users content, but they do not commission or edit user content.

Mastodon doesn't sell anything, and is not a business.

This place doesn't sell anything either, and we are also a social media entity.

They absolutely sell user content. All the targeted stuff is by the by. Without the user content they don’t have engagement and without engagement they don’t have a platform for advertisers. The big difference between eg youtube and fox is that fox can get into trouble for scam ads, libellous content etc whereas youtube just shrugs its shoulders.

Fox is a publisher that commissions content. It can get in trouble for that content. It doesn't have (much) liability for the content of ads, which are third party published content.

User posts on Twitter are published by the user. They are not commissioned by Twitter, and Twitter does not sell that content.

Right, but eg YouTube is a publisher that doesn’t have to bother commissioning content, yet still sells it, yet somehow completely evades liability even though many of the things it publishes for money would not be allowed to be published on eg Fox.

[plodder]

.

[dyqik]

They absolutely sell user content. All the targeted stuff is by the by. Without the user content they don’t have engagement and without engagement they don’t have a platform for advertisers. The big difference between eg youtube and fox is that fox can get into trouble for scam ads, libellous content etc whereas youtube just shrugs its shoulders.

Fox is a publisher that commissions content. It can get in trouble for that content. It doesn't have (much) liability for the content of ads, which are third party published content.

User posts on Twitter are published by the user. They are not commissioned by Twitter, and Twitter does not sell that content.

Right, but eg YouTube is a publisher that doesn’t have to bother commissioning content, yet still sells it, yet somehow completely evades liability even though many of the things it publishes for money would not be allowed to be published on eg Fox.

YouTube isn't a publisher and doesn't sell the content on its site. It does sell subscription to remove ads from its site. Because it does not commission or pay for the content or exercise much editorial control beyond moderation, it does not have liability for the content, because it is not the publisher.

Fox is liable for the content it broadcasts (over cable, it is not an over-the-air broadcaster, which have stricter regulation) that it has paid for and/or commissioned, but not so much the content that it is paid to carry, like ads, as long as it is not making editorial decisions about that content. It's liable for Carlson's show, but not for a political ad broadcast in the breaks.

Fox's liability for ads could possibly increase if it's exercising significant editorial control - e.g. if it took a billion dollars or refused payment specifically to play Alex Jones' Sandy Hook rants in a ad break, it'd be exercising editorial control by taking money at far above or below the market rate to displace regular commercials.