Are bans and content moderation the way to go on Twitter, or should we look at what’s fundamentally wrong – the native re-tweet?

[AutoModerator]

[Please keep in mind that all posts need to be of professional discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialmedia/comments/ft6ghx/all_new_posts_need_a_flair_going_forward/). This isn’t a help desk. [If this post doesn’t follow the rules report it to the mods](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialmedia/about/rules/).

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialmedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*

All new posts need a flair going forward
byu/JonODonovan insocialmedia

[the_timps]

It feels like your post is missing… 99% of it’s content.

Bans and content moderation vs “the native retweet is the issue”.

* Racist tweets and replies aren’t native retweets.
* Misogyny and antisemitism aren’t native retweets.
* Spam bots aren’t native retweets.
* Bullying and harassment aren’t native retweets.

​

Do you have some kind of point to be made? Because right now you’ve made a superbly empty one.

[RicketyTicketyTock]

The problem is Section 230 and whether Twitter, Google, or Facebook feel like being a platform or a publisher that day. As a platform they can get away with saying “We can’t control what our users say and do.” and they can hide behind Section 230, but then they turn around and act like a publisher and try to decide whose content it’s okay to keep, whose accounts are okay to have, and what they’re allowed to say.

The reason that they’re stepping into **huge** trouble right now is because of the Parler ban. Google hides behind Section 230 all the time when they get in trouble for something that someone says on one of their platforms, saying things like “Well we can’t control what individuals post on our platform.” but then they banned Parler from their Play Store by telling them “You need to have better control over what your users say on your platform.” so the question comes into play, if Parler is a platform, why are they not also protected under Section 230? Why is it only big tech? And furthermore, why is it okay to ban President Trump’s Twitter account because they didn’t like what he said, but a known terrorist who makes threats over Twitter, still has an active account?

Big tech is running around, acting like an oligarchy, with absolute immunity from being held accountable for their actions. They don’t believe that they should be held accountable for what people say on their platform, but then they’ll turn around, in the same breath, and ban people by stating that they’re trying to control what people say on their platform. Then they’ve made the argument that if people don’t like it, they should go make their own platform, and when somebody does, they do everything in their power to get it shut down.

Big tech needs a wake up call, and so do their users. People aren’t faced with it daily, because most people don’t post controversial content that gets them a ban if it doesn’t line up with what the platform likes. I think they should lose their Section 230 protections and be honest with people by letting them know that they are, in fact, a publisher and not a platform anymore. The way that they throw advertisements in people’s faces for the political candidates that they like suggests that they are, indeed, a publisher.