Comment by HeroOfAges
5 years ago
How is appending not editing. If I append a statement to the end of your comment that contradicts your earlier point without your permission, how is that not editorial?
5 years ago
How is appending not editing. If I append a statement to the end of your comment that contradicts your earlier point without your permission, how is that not editorial?
> How is appending not editing. If I append a statement to the end of your comment that contradicts your earlier point without your permission, how is that not editorial?
Hi, I think you're wrong. Here's the proof: I haven't edited your comment, but by replying I have just appended a statement to it without your permission.
Replying is different than officially annotating though. You can already reply on Twitter.
A reply is a reply, regardless of mechanism. Twitter didn't change a single character of Trump's wording, so they didn't "edit" his tweet.
4 replies →
Lets take an other example.
There is an original painting of a pipe. Under it I append the comment: "This is not a pipe".
Have I edited the painting and created a new painting? Is it a single art, or a separate painting and a comment? Do I need additional copyright permissions to create a derivative work, or can I use a painting licensed under Creative Common no derivative in order to create my own version of the Treachery of Images? When I publish it, who is the information content provider as defined by section 230?
> There is an original painting of a pipe. Under it I append the comment: "This is not a pipe".
You're wondering off and getting lost in the weeds with your example.
Twitter replied on its platform using a new mechanism that it created. Trying to twist that reply into an "edit" (with the implication that it's some kind of illegitimate corruption of the work replied to) is drifting towards a denial of free speech and other nonsensical implications.
> When I publish it, who is the information content provider as defined by section 230?
On Section 230 more generally:
Correcting a Persistent Myth About the Law that Created the Internet (https://www.theregreview.org/2019/07/15/kosseff-correcting-p...):
> Understanding section 230’s history is essential to informing the current debate about the law. And that history tells us that one of the main reasons for enacting section 230 was to encourage online services to moderate content....
> Section 230’s “findings” states that the internet offers “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” Nothing in section 230’s history, however, suggests that this goal requires platforms to be “neutral.” Indeed, section 230 allows platforms to develop different content standards, and customers ultimately can determine whether those standards meet their expectations. [Emphasis mine.]
According to section 230, it is only relevant if it changes the meaning of the original content. If it's clearly different content, then it's clearly different content.