This is the Facebook Is Evil ping list.
If you'd like to be on or off this list, please click Private Reply below and drop me a FReepmail.
Posted on 06/29/2019 7:31:27 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
A new bill in the U.S. Senate could cause the internet as we know it to cease to exist by holding major tech companies like Facebook or YouTube liable for anything posted on their platforms.
On Wednesday, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced controversial legislation that would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Known as the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, it has caused bipartisan backlash on how it would affect tech companies, content creators, and everyday users.
Tech companies like Twitter or YouTube currently have protection under Section 230 against being held liable for what users post on the site. That’s why you typically can’t sue Facebook for a hateful statement someone else posts on your timeline.
The bill focuses on limiting political bias, according to a press release from Hawley’s office. Companies could apply for immunity from liability by submitting external audits to prove that their algorithms and content removal policies were politically neutral, which would then have to be reviewed and approved by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In practice, companies would have to moderate their content either way — they would either be liable for user content and could get sued, or they’d have to ensure their content seemed politically neutral, a decision made by a government agency.
The bill would only affect the biggest companies, including Twitter, Facebook, and Google — those with more than 30 million U.S. users, 300 million global users, or $500 million in revenue.
“This bill forces platforms to make an impossible choice: Either host reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech, or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism,” said Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the tech lobbying group the Internet Association. “That shouldn’t be a tradeoff.”
(Excerpt) Read more at digitaltrends.com ...
PING!
They want it both ways.
They want to be a platform when it comes to liability.
They want to be a publisher so they can censor people they hate.
Can’t have it but ways.
Possible Nanny State PING!
Gab actually seems to identify itself as a publisher, and yet it respects free speech more than Twatter does.
Google are already EVIL.
Wow
Can you imagine ; you know a bill oops
A right ; that guarantees free speech
Almost like someone would put that up there as #1
This is the Facebook Is Evil ping list.
If you'd like to be on or off this list, please click Private Reply below and drop me a FReepmail.
This guy sounds more like a Democrat to me.
All this law would do is make a bad situation worse, and increase censorship.
Turn them into utilities.
Not responsbile for content, unable to do anything with content.
Let the users have and use censoring aps to strain it.
“This bill forces platforms to make an impossible choice: Either host reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech, or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism,” said Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the tech lobbying group the Internet Association.”
Reprehensible in whose opinion? To these libtards, saying Trump is a great guy would be considered reprehensible. Quoting the Holy Bible is reprehensible in their tiny minds. We don’t need a nanny, thanks just the same.
That does not follow.
All they would have to do would be to *be* politically neutral.
That is a much easier condition to meet.
They simply have to give up their goals of shaping the narrative and thinking of their customers.
They do not want to give up that power.
btt
No. Either stop the political censorship on your platforms OR get regulated as publishers since you are in fact controlling content. That should absolutely be the choice Big Tech is put to. What you should not be able to do is enjoy the benefits and protections of being regulated as mere platforms while exercising editorial control - ie exactly what you are doing now.
From what I have heard and seen he wears a white hat.
He is all for free speech, especially as the internet tech-titans have tried to limit conservative and libertarian content.
They want it both ways.
They want to be a platform when it comes to liability.
They want to be a publisher so they can censor people they hate.
Can’t have it but ways.
Exactly!
It seems that twitter, facebook, and youtube are already guilty of violating section Section 230 because they are censoring in a way that violates there immunity under it.
Removing that section would actually make it impossibly dangerous for anyone to speak out at all.
Idiots.
Well, you have it completely wrong, but so far at least, you’re free to say so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.