Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Justice Clarence Thomas: Section 230 Protections for Big Tech Are Too Broad..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3893895/posts

1 posted on 10/27/2020 2:57:50 PM PDT by george76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: george76

Justice Thomas stresses that NYT v. Sullivan must be reviewed by the court. Section 230 protection removal does not solve the issue

Without section 230 Google will just become another publisher allowed to defame people they don’t like.


2 posted on 10/27/2020 3:04:56 PM PDT by vg0va3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: george76

It means that since you dont control what is put out on your platform you are not liable for what is said. Big tech is controlling what is being put out on their platforms so they are liable. That is it in a nutshell. Means you can sue their ass off. They are no longer 230’able. Should be able to do it with an executive order. Classify them as publishers with all the liability baggage entailed in being a publisher.

Lin Wood is salivating.


3 posted on 10/27/2020 3:06:43 PM PDT by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: george76

Killl 230 and hold Big tech’s feet to the fire (law suits). Or just break ‘em up and put parts of ‘em out of business. “Social” media is killing our culture anyway, so why preserve it.


4 posted on 10/27/2020 3:07:30 PM PDT by LIConFem (I will no longer accept the things I cannot change. it's time to change the things I cannot acceptI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: george76

They are too broad. I can understand the difficulty in trying to moderate the comments of a billion users. But that is not what’s at issue anymore. The issues are manipulation of what users can see, limiting the free flow of information, censorship, banning free expression that is not of a criminal nature etc.


6 posted on 10/27/2020 3:10:31 PM PDT by monkeyshine (live and let live is dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: george76

Section 230 is just like regulations - they inherently favor larger and wealthier companies, which can devote huge resources to them while adding little to their per unit costs; smaller companies can’t do that, so it will drive them out of business. Better to break up Google into 10 or 20 competing companies.


7 posted on 10/27/2020 3:16:38 PM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt, The Weapons Shops of Isher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: george76
It needs to go away. It was originally intended to protect ISPs from whatever someone said on their servers (Usenet, need I say more?). All things considered, that was a good thing... for the time. Now? No. By selectively removing material (and, in their EULAs, often claiming it's their material anyway), they have entered the realm of publishing having never been in the area of an ISP.

230 Justice Thomas is correct, if understated.
10 posted on 10/27/2020 3:42:55 PM PDT by Retrofitted
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson