Section 230

Matthew Hajicek · January 03, 2021, 02:17 PM

Quote from: John316 post_id=1591 time=1609609885 user_id=56There are other laws concerning child pornography and terrorism that can be used to keep the illegal stuff from being used.

Sure, but how would you like it if you had to go to court for every post you want to remove from your forum?

Quote from: John316 post_id=1591 time=1609609885 user_id=56If Facebook wants to be a liberal bastion and eliminate anything that doesn't follow their agenda so be it but have them admit that instead of advertising themselves as the protectors of truth.

There are "truth in advertising" laws. Perhaps someone with enough lawyer money could get something to stick.

Quote from: John316 post_id=1591 time=1609609885 user_id=56Maybe you prefer to have them cut off anything that doesn't match their political agenda so they can control our national politics like this article shows.

I prefer that private individuals and corporations maintain control of their private property, rather than socializing it under government control. If you don't like their product, don't use it! That's the beauty of capitalism. I've never liked Facebook, so I've never had an account. Put your money where your mouth is and cancel yours.

Bruce Caulley · January 03, 2021, 08:42 PM

QuoteSure, but how would you like it if you had to go to court for every post you want to remove from your forum?

I think it more likely that someone that disagreed with the removal would now have the ability to use the courts. The practical application being that the platform can remove what they like, it is a private company as you said, but the users now would have some weight behind them if needed. Can't imagine someone running to a lawyer complaining about their kiddie porn being removed lol
If you are a declared open platform, but interfere in one direction only, then you might have more luck declaring that you are no longer an open platform and seeing where the chips fall.

QuoteI've never liked Facebook, so I've never had an account. Put your money where your mouth is and cancel yours.

Deleted my account over the weekend. For a few reasons, one being that I'm not giving oxygen to facebook's ongoing tilt. Another being that it is a time soak.

Cheers
Bruce

John316 · January 03, 2021, 09:50 PM

[quote="Matthew Hajicek" post_id=1629 time=1609712234 user_id=57]
If you don't like their product, don't use it! That's the beauty of capitalism. I've never liked Facebook, so I've never had an account. Put your money where your mouth is and cancel yours.
[/quote]

If you had even the slightest clue where my money is you would know that I don't use Fakebook or Twatter.
So my money is where my mouth is and neither one of them are on those platforms.

neurosis · January 04, 2021, 02:25 AM

">

Jim at Gentex · January 04, 2021, 03:50 AM

[quote="Matthew Hajicek" post_id=1629 time=1609712234 user_id=57]
I prefer that private individuals and corporations maintain control of their private property, rather than socializing it under government control. If you don't like their product, don't use it! That's the beauty of capitalism.
[/quote]

I agree.
However, they are already under government control, so the question becomes which rules cover which media entities.
When social media platforms engage in editorial practices, they SHOULD be held to the same legal standard as any other media outlet, but Section 230 prevents that.

I do like your idea about designating them as common carriers rather than media outlets.

That seems like a common sense solution, but we all know that common sense and government are polar opposite terms.

Smit · January 04, 2021, 04:15 AM

Let's not forget the reason this is even being discussed is Trump is angry because Facebook and Twitter don't let him lie and misinform the public the way he wants to.

YoDoug · January 04, 2021, 06:20 AM

Quote from: Smit post_id=1663 time=1609762526 user_id=66Let's not forget the reason this is even being discussed is Trump is angry because Facebook and Twitter don't let him lie and misinform the public the way he wants to.

Not the olny reason. FB removed a "Biden is not my president" page after 48 hours this weekend. The "Trump is not my President" page has been up for almost 4 years. FB is clearly putting their editorial and political spin on what content they allow. FB is blocking more than just the president.

neurosis · January 04, 2021, 06:39 AM

Quote from: YoDoug post_id=1667 time=1609770021 user_id=58Not the olny reason. FB removed a "Biden is not my president" page after 48 hours this weekend. The "Trump is not my President" page has been up for almost 4 years. FB is clearly putting their editorial and political spin on what content they allow. FB is blocking more than just the president.

There is a "biden is not my president" page that has been there since November.

I suspect that there are a few variations of that page and I can't help but wonder if there is a story behind a particular page being removed.

Matthew Hajicek · January 04, 2021, 06:44 AM

[quote="Jim at gentex" post_id=1661 time=1609761029 user_id=83]
When social media platforms engage in editorial practices, they SHOULD be held to the same legal standard as any other media outlet, but Section 230 prevents that.[/quote]

Let's think about that a moment. Would that solve the problem you're talking about, and would it allow a free and open internet to continue? Print media vets every word they print; if someone sends in an opinion piece and the publisher doesn't want to print it, they are under zero obligation to do so. They can pick and choose which letters, articles, or comments they want to publish, for any reason or no reason. So no, that wouldn't force them to publish opinions they don't like. They would have to read and approve or disapprove of every single comment that a user wanted to post, no more open forums or comment sections. If they're the slightest bit unsure, they will disapprove out of caution. This would exacerbate the problem you're trying to solve.

Jim at Gentex · January 04, 2021, 07:02 AM

Print media is also subject to lawsuits when they defame someone, like Nick Sandmann for instance.
Both CNN and NYT paid an undisclosed settlement to that young man, and rightly so, for smearing his name and accusing him of instigating a confrontation when the video evidence showed he did nothing of the kind.
You really think they vet every word they print? They should, but they obviously don't.

I'm not saying removing 230 protection from social media would force them to publish opinions they don't like.
I am saying that when they make editorial decisions like CNN and NYT did in the Nick Sandmann case, they SHOULD be held accountable to the same standard as those media outlets.

YoDoug · January 04, 2021, 07:19 AM

[quote="Matthew Hajicek" post_id=1674 time=1609771442 user_id=57]
[quote="Jim at gentex" post_id=1661 time=1609761029 user_id=83]
When social media platforms engage in editorial practices, they SHOULD be held to the same legal standard as any other media outlet, but Section 230 prevents that.[/quote]

Let's think about that a moment. Would that solve the problem you're talking about, and would it allow a free and open internet to continue? Print media vets every word they print; if someone sends in an opinion piece and the publisher doesn't want to print it, they are under zero obligation to do so. They can pick and choose which letters, articles, or comments they want to publish, for any reason or no reason. So no, that wouldn't force them to publish opinions they don't like. They would have to read and approve or disapprove of every single comment that a user wanted to post, no more open forums or comment sections. If they're the slightest bit unsure, they will disapprove out of caution. This would exacerbate the problem you're trying to solve.
[/quote]

I disagree. In your scenario they would go out of business. If they had to choose between reading and approving/censoring every comment which in the end would lead to them losing huge amounts of users/money, or allowing free open discussion and keeping their users and profits, I would be willing to bet which they would pick.

Matthew Hajicek · January 04, 2021, 07:30 AM

Quote from: YoDoug post_id=1683 time=1609773594 user_id=58I disagree. In your scenario they would go out of business.

That is the most likely scenario, and what Trump wants to happen, which is why he wants 230 repealed.

Quote from: YoDoug post_id=1683 time=1609773594 user_id=58If they had to choose between reading and approving/censoring every comment which in the end would lead to them losing huge amounts of users/money, or allowing free open discussion and keeping their users and profits, I would be willing to bet which they would pick.

Some would try one, some would try the other. So you'd have some sites totally locked down, and others with no moderation whatsoever. The thing is, without 230 protections, if you moderate enough to remove the kiddy porn and obvious pirate links, you're proving that you moderate. If you moderate, you become legally responsible for every word and image on your site, because you can no longer claim ignorance. But if you fail to moderate that much, you'll get taken down for assisting to distribute kiddy porn and piracy. So going the non-moderation rout is nonviable unless you can get classified as a common carrier like the phone companies.