Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

F0sh t1_iy8b68c wrote

The actual proposals are remarkably sensible: it amounts to a legal duty to uphold your own terms of service, no bans except as set out in the TOS, and right of appeal against bans. If you want to allow offensive speech on your platform then I think you should be allowed to, but if you say you aren't going to and then people sign up thinking they won't be exposed to it but actually are, that's an issue.

36

yem_slave t1_iyaskbe wrote

I want to know about a single person who read the TOS then logged into Twitter and got the vapors from seeing something offensive.

3

F0sh t1_iyf1qy2 wrote

Even for the majority of people who don't read the TOS, the existence of that in the TOS becomes known because people talk about it.

1

yem_slave t1_iyf3895 wrote

At that point it's too late you've already been exposed.

−1

RawrRRitchie t1_iy9mpl7 wrote

You say that like people read the entirety of a TOS most people ignore that shit then act shocked when they break the rules

−4

onyxengine t1_iy9vcff wrote

Of the millions of users some have read the TOS, and there are reasonable expectations, even if someone hasn’t read it. Not reading the contract doesn’t make it invalid, and a government enforcing a corp’s TOS on behalf of its users is actually a step in a positive direction.

8

zanven42 t1_iyad135 wrote

You can usually ignore it if you just follow a personal rule of "don't be a dickhead"

4

Mikeavelli t1_iyasrah wrote

The real beneficiaries are content creators who depend on social media to earn an income. Most have read the ToS, and creators are often banned or demonetized for frivolous reasons that dont actually violate the ToS. Every once in a while a story about this happening makes it to r/technology.

3