Twitter should be held legally accountable for Carlos Maza’s incitement of violence

Social media companies like twitter and YouTube have traditionally been viewed as platforms when it comes to legal interpretations

This means that they are not held legally responsible for what users post on these sites

However, I have been arguing for a while that if these sites want to remove material because they deem it dangerous in some way, then they are in fact for the material they leave up and are in fact acting as a publisher not a platform

Now of course all of these sites have the right to remove blatantly illegal material without being a publisher, but when they selectively enforce the rules based in their preference (using things like political ideology) on things are aren’t clear cut illegal, now they are acting as a publisher

The difference is the following

Your local billboard outside the post office can’t be held legally accountable for what someone post on it

But your local newspaper could be held accountable for what they chose to publish

These social media companies like YouTube and twitter are acting more like the latter

Now of course of something slips through that twitter or YouTube were unaware of, they have a reasonable excuse

However, let’s look at the most recent example of twitters bias and allowing incitement to violence on their site

Twitter caved in to Vox news journalist Carlos Maza and censored people through removal or punished with demonetization that he demanded

While this was occurring, many people, including myself and far more prominent people pointed out that Maza had a tweet put up almost the same week as the calls for censorship where he instructed people to through milkshakes at conservatives so they were afraid to organize in public

Predictably, it only took a few weeks for people to take his advice, throw milkshakes (possibly with chemicals in them) and beat a conservative journalist and put him the hospital with a brain bleed

Because Twitter now acts as a publisher removing content they don’t like, and they were aware of Maza’s call to violence and let it stand, they should be able to be sued for the damages occurred by people assaulted as a result for the call to violence

If big tech wants to be partisans and try to help one political side, that’s fine. But they should be held accountable as a publisher then



(Sorry for the vertical filming, I’m a meathead)

a reply to: Grambler

I do not think social media should be held accountable at all for anything anyone does or says on there platform. I'm 100% against censorship. I'm 100% for free speech. I would be more willing to hold the FBI accountable for not doing anything about social media posts.

a reply to: Grambler

They'll never hold Twitter responsible for these Reeeeeple. Social media was the worst idea our "smart" people could have ever thought of.

originally posted by: cognizant420
a reply to: Grambler

I do not think social media should be held accountable at all for anything anyone does or says on there platform. I'm 100% against censorship. I'm 100% for free speech. I would be more willing to hold the FBI accountable for not doing anything about social media posts.

I also don’t think any social media should be held accountable, IF they are acting as a platform

They are not, they are acting as a publisher

I also want publishers like say the New York Times to be able to say what they want.

But as a publisher they are legally responsible for their material and could be sued for libel or incitement

The same should be true of social media platforms that chose to not be a platform for all, but to selectively remove people based on political ideology, and thus act as publishers

a reply to: Grambler

I'm leaning towards the government and these companies actually working closely together.

Many of these tech companies have been getting contracts for the governments cloud storage. There have also been stories that point to the tech companies providing data and services to the government such as Amazons facial recognition service. Everyone is getting Alexa's and Google smart speakers in their home, one would think there is a back door for "security" yea?

Twitter could be an absolute gold mine for the government to see and sway public opinion on subjects too.

These are all opinions of mine, and while I have seen stories that bolster my inclination, no red flags that I have seen yet.

a reply to: Grambler

I agree on the face of the matter. If they claim the right to censor what content gets to remain on their site, fine. But that standard should be plainly posted in clearly articulated non vague terms. Those standards should be applied to all channels equally. What they have been shown to do is suppress some very reasonable speakers with reasonable ideas, while supporting and promoting the side that is calling for violence, anarchy, or socialism.

It is clearly a biased campaign when channels from conservative or even liberal creators that do not align themselves properly with the current progressive talking points are removed or demonetized, while channels that are clearly calling for violence are left remaining and even promoted by the site. (Maza, and the young turks)

Maza should be brought to task for very clearly calling for violence by assaulting people with milkshakes. Why the law is ignoring this, i’m not sure. That is plainly covered by inciting of violence laws which are not protected by the 2nd.

Antifa as well. They are a domestic terrorist group. Constantly calling for violence and shown by the coverage of their protests, that they are willing to resort to violence, damage of private and public property,and suppression of speech to promote some ideal that most people find rediculous.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

I'm leaning towards the government and these companies actually working closely together.

Many of these tech companies have been getting contracts for the governments cloud storage. There have also been stories that point to the tech companies providing data and services to the government such as Amazons facial recognition service. Everyone is getting Alexa's and Google smart speakers in their home, one would think there is a back door for "security" yea?

Twitter could be an absolute gold mine for the government to see and sway public opinion on subjects too.

These are all opinions of mine, and while I have seen stories that bolster my inclination, no red flags that I have seen yet.

This is a great point. These companies are taking government money, which comes from the tax pool. These tools are being used on the populace for the purpose of spying and manipulation of public thought. Are they also enjoying tax subsidies?

I wouldn’t want these platforms nationalized, but it’s obvious that some type of authority needs to be overlooking these platforms/publishers, and some form of transparency needs to be instilled in all of their doings. They currently have and hold too much power over the populations individual information, which clashes with the 4th ammendment which protects our privacy.

An argument could be made that these companies are already too closely associated with government spy agencies and therefor need to be treated as government agencies and not private corporations.

originally posted by: cognizant420
a reply to: Grambler

I do not think social media should be held accountable at all for anything anyone does or says on there platform. I'm 100% against censorship. I'm 100% for free speech. I would be more willing to hold the FBI accountable for not doing anything about social media posts.

here's a thought, why do people even listen to these dumbass people?....blame the person that actually records this and chooses to post it

a reply to: Woodcarver

We have no one to blame but ourselves. People were either mostly silent or celebrating the Patriot Act and Citizens United (Edit: and the repealing of net neutrality) which were the foundations for where we're at today.

I just dont wanna hear no bitching when someone flips the tables on these dudes.

I mean youre an idiot to think that swinging pendulum isnt going to swing thru both sides.

have at it I say

just stay the # out my way cuz guess what bitch I am strapped.

a reply to: Lysergic

I just dont wanna hear no bitching when someone flips the tables on these dudes.

If this country was a meme, we would be the one of the bicycle rider putting a stick in there front tire while moving... And while laying on the ground asking why did ______ do this to me.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Seems the answer is because they feel they can.

Not everybody is into some gay ass LARPing, especially me.

The consent forms that they require that you sign, before you can use their products, is how they obtain the rights to all of the content and personal information about their “customers” that they can now sell, and potentially use against the entire population. The mere potential for abuse and corruption of that information should be enough for our government to justify stepping in to insure the protection the citizenry and the protection of national interest.

Google is an international business. They have no special obligation to protect our national security.

. But now that that base includes nearly every citizen of this country, and nearly the whole of the population of the world, the situation has changed drastically. Google itself is openly attempting to manipulate the thoughts of the people and censor what information is available to us.

Not to mention, manipulate our election process. Which our government is specifically tasked to protect with force if need be.

There will be a reckoning, before the next election I expect.

there are plenty of these cases going on every year against much much smaller companies. How they got away with so much for so long is any ones guess.

it will be interesting to see how the media spins it, or if they get caught in the purge.

they should.

a reply to: Grambler

Yes , TWITTER Needs to Ban Itself .

These huge websites and tech companies need to become public utilities without discrimination.

They should not be able to choose what they want to show or not show...that will slowly engineer the future generations.

Sculpling their minds to what they see fit though a electronic platform that reaches millions.

As we say in America no bueno

a reply to: Grambler

If they were actually held accountable we'd see a massive increase in censorship. In fact pretty much every conservative voice would be deleted because liberals view most conservative perspectives to be either violence or incitement of violence.

Our best bet is to get these companies more immunity, then they'd censor less in order to attract extra viewers and more ad clicks.

a reply to: Grambler

If maza had said what he said, but reversed political affiliations, he would have been removed. If you doubt this, find me one prominent, newsworthy conservative who has said something similar on twitter and not been removed.

This being the case, they are publishers, not platforms. They're endorsing violence against the right.

Maza should be sued for inciting violence as well. Even though you likely couldn't get a conviction, someone with the power and money needs to "flynn" him.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

You're operating under the assumption that these companies are pursuing a profit motive. They are not. They are quite happy to be propagandists, even if it means a few billion less $$ in their coffers.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
(Edit: and the repealing of net neutrality) which were the foundations for where we're at today.

Ummm, no, net neutrality had nothing to do with the evolution of the internet. It was only put into effect in 2015, and repealed 3 years later, and none of the gloom and doom fearmongering came to pass.