Section 230

[Matthew Hajicek]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/mcconnell-introduces-bill-tying-2k-stimulus-checks-to-section-230-repeal/">https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... 30-repeal/">https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/mcconnell-introduces-bill-tying-2k-stimulus-checks-to-section-230-repeal/

What do you think would happen to this forum if 230 were repealed?

[YoDoug]

That is the big opposition to just wholesale cancelling of 230. While it may keep the big guys (FB, Twitter, etc) a little more honest, it would also open smaller venues to costly lawsuits. I don't like that aspect, because you know how liberals love to censor speech and love to use the courts to get their way. However I still think something needs to be done about social media censorship.

[neurosis]

I think that this is going to become a double edge sward.   Too much of what we see on social media is bull shit.  We want the right to say what we want, but when it influences our elections its problematic.  

I could share hundreds of memes that are total b/s that I've seen on facebook or other platforms and people buy in to the crap.

[RobertELee]

I could share hundreds of memes that are total b/s that I've seen on facebook or other platforms and people buy in to the crap.

Like this picture I've seen posted multiple times?
https://imgbb.com/">

But yeah thats him.....

https://ibb.co/j6cGyq1">

[beej]

Can you imagine if the US post office decided they would no longer send copies of the NY Post through because of their content.  or if ATT or Verizon, started disconnecting calls because they believed something you said while talking on their platform was wrong?  that is what social media companies are doing.  
I say, take the safe guards away and let the chips fall where they may.

[neurosis]

I think that it's different when it comes to social media.
We need the postal service, phone service, etc.  
We don't need facebook, twitter, forums -

I think that this is a bad battle to choose to fight and we won't realize that until its too late.

[John316]

That is the big opposition to just wholesale cancelling of 230. While it may keep the big guys (FB, Twitter, etc) a little more honest, it would also open smaller venues to costly lawsuits. I don't like that aspect, because you know how liberals love to censor speech and love to use the courts to get their way. However I still think something needs to be done about social media censorship.

It's those protections that the big companies are using to get bigger and abuse the law to their advantage. Through that means the government is regulating the business instead letting it regulate itself.
Some safeguards may be needed but the blanket protections that are in place now are being taken advantage of by the companies with the money to block the competition out of the market. That in itself may be a different issue but as it is these companies that own the social media sites AND the news organizations are becoming the epitome of Big Brother and need to be stopped from their global monopoly.

[beej]

I think that it's different when it comes to social media.
We need the postal service, phone service, etc.  
We don't need facebook, twitter, forums -

I think that this is a bad battle to choose to fight and we won't realize that until its too late.

so then the question becomes, if we don't need them, why are they being protected by the federal government?

[neurosis]

Yikes.  Government regulated media.  What could possibly go wrong.

[neurosis]

so then the question becomes, if we don't need them, why are they being protected by the federal government?

I look at it like this.  

They are being protected from us.  

If you're running a media site and someone comes on and starts posting child porn, do you think that you should be held responsible?

That's were that double edge sward comes in.  

Using propaganda to influence our elections is dangerous to our country.   Taking away protections for sites that lend a platform to people who could use it nefariously could lead to those platforms disappearing or very heavily moderated.

[RobertELee]

Yikes.  Government regulated media.  What could possibly go wrong.

I believe there should be a middle ground somewhere. No I don't believe .gov should have their nose in any social media, however just having social media censoring/controlling social media isn't working either.

BTW- that first pic I posted above...with the Trump hat...I have yet to see Fuckbook post a "Fact Check" below it saying it was proven false. Does anyone believe if that pic would not have been fact checked if he had been wearing a Biden or Hillary hat?

[beej]

Yikes.  Government regulated media.  What could possibly go wrong.

Maybe I'm not following you, do you consider it government regulated, with section 230 intact, or is it regulated when 230 is gone?

[neurosis]

Maybe I'm not following you, do you consider it government regulated, with section 230 intact, or is it regulated when 230 is gone?

I was talking specifically about news outlets when I made that comment.  Not social media.

[Matthew Hajicek]

Maybe I'm not following you, do you consider it government regulated, with section 230 intact, or is it regulated when 230 is gone?

It would be government regulated with 230 gone.  230 says that a privately owned and operated website cannot be held legally responsible for content posted by their users, and may moderate that content as they see fit.  With 230 gone, if we had a thread about buying someone a plane ticket to settle a dispute, those running the site could be sued or prosecuted for the fallout.  They could also be sued for locking or deleting that same thread, and win or lose would be out a bunch of legal fees.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  The government, by way of the courts, would decide which cases have merit and may proceed, thereby holding the reigns, and picking the winners and losers.

If you want to prevent a site like Facebook from choosing what content they're willing to host, the answer has nothing to do with 230.  Classify them as a common carrier, like the phone companies.  Then they have to host everything that anyone posts on there, propaganda or kiddy porn or not.  That's not likely to happen though, it would be the same as saying the bakery legally must bake the cake for the gay wedding, regardless of their beliefs, or that the gun shop must sell to the guy in the Antifa shirt who's talking about causing trouble.  In this country, privately owned businesses can choose not to serve a given customer, for any reason or no reason, with few exceptions.  They want to trick us into demanding an end to that; they want us to demand that our freedoms be removed.

[John316]

[quote="Matthew Hajicek" post_id=1555 time=1609543005 user_id=57]

Maybe I'm not following you, do you consider it government regulated, with section 230 intact, or is it regulated when 230 is gone?

If you want to prevent a site like Facebook from choosing what content they're willing to host, the answer has nothing to do with 230.  Classify them as a common carrier, like the phone companies.  Then they have to host everything that anyone posts on there, propaganda or kiddy porn or not.
[/quote]

There are other laws concerning child pornography and terrorism that can be used to keep the illegal stuff from being used.
If 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.
Maybe 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.

Facebook Shuts Down Page for GOP Senate Campaigns Just Before Georgia Runoffs

https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/facebook-shuts-down-page-for-gop-senate-campaigns-just-before-georgia-runoffs_3640865.html">https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/ ... 40865.html">https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/facebook-shuts-down-page-for-gop-senate-campaigns-just-before-georgia-runoffs_3640865.html

The account was re-opened but not until after complaints from the authors.