Ariel, you have my sympathy. Twitter's excuses are unacceptable and clearly not well thought out. I've switched to FriendFeed for now - as soon as FriendFeed hits the "tipping point" and more people I know are over there, I won't be on Twitter as much.Good luck getting this resolved. -Erica
I found an article that talks about libel in user-generated content.<a class="user" href="http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2007/cnet-libel-and-user-generated-content">http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2007/cnet-libel-an ...</a>Here's the relevant part, for those too lazy to click the link:Mr. Tobak's remarks entirely fail to take CDA 230 into consideration. "CDA 230" refers to a federal statute, 47 U.S.C. ? 230, which Congress enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" and preempts state law causes of action, like defamation claims, based on this kind of "publisher" liability. Courts and commentators widely agree that CDA 230 protects website operators and bloggers from liability based on the defamatory statements of commenters. The defense applies even if you edit comments (so long as your edits do not change the meaning) and/or exercise discretion in selecting which comments to post. So, there is no call for "turning comments off" out of fear of a defamation lawsuit.Here's the link to the federal statute:<a class="user" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/us ...</a>
Indeed, and it is those very same owners who have decided NOT to remove people for speaking their mind, therefore preserving their freedom of speech. Think it through before you reply.
What this means is that they'll make their best effort to prevent abuse. You agree to waive liability if they abuse continues after they take all reasonable and necessary steps to stop it, IE, their efforts fail. In this case, it appears that they're too timid to take those steps.
slashchickMay 22, 2008
Ariel, you have my sympathy. Twitter's excuses are unacceptable and clearly not well thought out. I've switched to FriendFeed for now - as soon as FriendFeed hits the "tipping point" and more people I know are over there, I won't be on Twitter as much.Good luck getting this resolved. -Erica
identitymatrixMay 23, 2008
simple solution: don't use Twitter.
mcrulesMay 23, 2008
If he becomes president, net neutrality will be the least of your problems!
colekiMay 23, 2008
I found an article that talks about libel in user-generated content.<a class="user" href="http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2007/cnet-libel-and-user-generated-content">http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2007/cnet-libel-an ...</a>Here's the relevant part, for those too lazy to click the link:Mr. Tobak's remarks entirely fail to take CDA 230 into consideration. "CDA 230" refers to a federal statute, 47 U.S.C. ? 230, which Congress enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" and preempts state law causes of action, like defamation claims, based on this kind of "publisher" liability. Courts and commentators widely agree that CDA 230 protects website operators and bloggers from liability based on the defamatory statements of commenters. The defense applies even if you edit comments (so long as your edits do not change the meaning) and/or exercise discretion in selecting which comments to post. So, there is no call for "turning comments off" out of fear of a defamation lawsuit.Here's the link to the federal statute:<a class="user" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/us ...</a>
godspeedyouJun 1, 2008
Indeed, and it is those very same owners who have decided NOT to remove people for speaking their mind, therefore preserving their freedom of speech. Think it through before you reply.
reddog_x2000Jun 10, 2008
What this means is that they'll make their best effort to prevent abuse. You agree to waive liability if they abuse continues after they take all reasonable and necessary steps to stop it, IE, their efforts fail. In this case, it appears that they're too timid to take those steps.