Is there precedent for the government requiring traditional newspapers to submit reports like this explaining their editorial processes and priorities?
I think this is a case of "it's different because computers", and this wouldn't fly if it were a traditional publisher putting ink on paper.
Either you're failing to understand the question, or you're trying to be disingenuous about it.
Newspapers editorialize their content. Elon Musk's Twitter is not, and is claiming to have no control over what content third parties publish throught their service.
However, Elon Musk's Twitter is also manipulating the contents that third parties publish through their service by means of moderation/censorship and boosting.
Given they claim they hold no editorial control over what goes through their pipes but still manipulate the content, they have a responsibility to demonstrate that they are not liable for that content by specifying exactly which rules they enforce and how they enforce them.
Do you understand the difference between assuming responsibility over the content, and claiming that they are not liable for the content they distribute because they don't pick and choose what goes through their pipes?
are they rewording or rephrasing tweets? If users can still see original tweet content, why do you call it "manipulate its contents" ?
I just posted "hello world" and my tweet appeared as-is. Did not experience manipulating by Twitter at all
It was already well established that they can't. For example, when Elon Musk's Twitter was already caught shadow-banning people posting pro-Ukraine content, and when Elon Musk open-sourced some of the original Twitter's code, people found out that it hardcoded settings to ban discussions on Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Past HN discussion on Musk's censorship of the invasion of Ukraine:
because you cannot fit all trillions of tweets into everyone's timeline - by definition some tweets will have to be chosen over the overs.
if a user posted something about Ukraine, his tweet would still show up in his follower's timeline for "Following", just not Featured (For You) and not always. Mind you I follow this topic and my feed (For You) is like 50% of tweets covering Ukr-Rus war updates. So I never feel any censorship for the war from titter.
it is not censorship, because if you follow a user you would still see tweets in its original content without any altering
Not really. Twitter was hardcoded to downrank discussions on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and is now shadow-banning pro-Ukraine users but strangely not pro-Russia.
Nevertheless, the whole point is that Elon Musk's Twitter needs to specify how it's censoring tweets, as they cannot claim they don't editorialize while actively suppressing and censoring discussions that contrasts with their personal preferences. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a mere example on the broad editorial reach of Elon Musk's Twitter, and one where Elon Musk himself was already caught red-handed supporting the invaders.
This is why the book PGP Source Code and Internals was published; because ink on paper makes the matter clear cut.
This sort of pointless truism means nothing at all. The crux of the matter boils down to the common carrier status, and whether companies can be held liable for the content being handled through their service. If a social media company editorializes the content it distributes, it's liable for each and any consequence of distributing it. Simple as that.
My apologies if I am misinterpreting your statement here, but this feels like a misunderstanding of section 230.
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
If you want to tilt at 'because computers' windmills, Section 230 is the real target.
Newspapers enforce editorial policy over their opinion columns and things like which letters to publish. This law sounds like, if it actually applied to them, which is doesn't, they would need to submit a report about why they didn't allow "Letter from Aunt Ethel" to be published. What criteria did they use in not allowing it to be published, etc.
Why did they publish "Letter from Uncle Frank" instead.
Simply, they need to enumerate their internal editorial policies.
And I can see it argued that editorial policies are political speech. We all know magazines or publications and websites that represent a political philosophy, what articles they publish, how the articles are worded, etc. That's everywhere. "Why didn't you allow XXX to be published? Because we don't like the point of view of XXX!"
And part of having a political philosophy and the speech rights around it is that you should be allowed, should be "free" that is, to not say anything at all! When you start getting "have you stopped beating your wife" questions, you should be allowed to say "no comment". Compelled speech is not freedom of speech. Publishing in detail your moderation policies and activities is arguably compelled release of a political philosophy. Now, does a Corporation have such a right? Today, it's hard to say. If a Corporation apparently has the right to impact elections (economically) that implies it has a political position and perhaps that the detailing of that position (or not) should be a protected. IANAL.
The big problem here is this shouldn't be an issue. How many websites have a privacy policy of "We're going to gather everything we can from you, and sell it to the highest bidder. If we could get your DNA, we'd sell that too."
That should be a perfectly viable "privacy policy". If X has to publish "yes, the exact details" of how they moderate extreme speech, maybe they'll just publish "we don't" and leave it at that. Which, of course, brings even more, indirect, scrutiny.
In the end, there's no good answer to this question. Every answer any service would publish, is the "wrong answer".
>Simply, they need to enumerate their internal editorial policies.
I think you are confused, Twitter already publishes it's moderation policies, this is a report on to what extent they stay true to that. Your argument would maybe make more sense in a context where a newspaper had to provide a report on its editorial decisions (which obviously go well beyond the letters to the editor section). But that really only actually serves to the emphasize the huge difference between editing and moderating.
>In the end, there's no good answer to this question. Every answer any service would publish, is the "wrong answer".
I don't think you are engaging in this topic with any honest, especially if this is the conclusion you are coming to. As far as I can tell the only wrong answer to the report would be if it was not accurate about the information it stated or was incomplete. There seems to be nothing as regards to judging whether or not a moderation system is good or bad, or "does the right thing". Let alone something so politically pointed as what you suggested.
Lol at the aggressive partisan downvoting. Sorry you feel compelled to such anti-Musk right-think, either sock accounts or a display of hackery. Either way, very stoopid.