100%
Posted on 10/20/2020 9:33:25 AM PDT by HKMk23
...
In short, Section 230 – and political bias – has allowed Big Tech to deplatform us from practically every single major resource required to operate our business.
We have every reason to hate Section 230.
But we want you to keep Section 230 exactly the way it is.
Section 230 helps the little guy. We seek to protect free speech on the Internet, and Section 230 is the only thing that stands between us and an avalanche of lawsuits from activist groups and foreign governments who don’t like what our millions of users and readers have to say. Without Section 230, we couldn’t stand up to these oppressive forces that want to eliminate free speech online. With Section 230, we can.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.gab.com ...
I have always kinda wondered why Section 230 is bing vilified when it is not what is causing the issues we are presently experiencing with big tech.
Lack of competition and the present monopoly environment is what needs to be addressed with anti-trust action.
I’m sympathetic and I understand why they feel this way.
However, if it doesn’t get removed, it definitely needs to be amended, appended, or modified (however this gets done... I’m not a legislator).
These corporations need to be FORCED TO DECLARE their status. Are they are neutral conduit (platform/service provider) OR are they a publisher that is responsible for their content?????!!!!?!?!
They should only get civil protection if they are a neutral platform, but that does not mean they should get protection from oversight on their neutrality!!!
100%
“I have always kinda wondered why Section 230 is bing vilified...”
There is suspicion that the big players are ginning up opposition to Section 230 as a means of rubbing out upstart competitors. They could fight some of the legal battles that would eradicate small companies.
Idiot
Because Section 230 is violated by Big Social Media
the violators need to be punished
Seems like that would be the solution. They must decide whether they are PLATFORM or PUBLISHER. I’d extend that to other media as well. Make NPR and PBS decide too.
“...the violators need to be punished”
I completely agree.
The entirety of this thread, however, emanates out of a growing chorus calling for Section 230 to be eradicated; a wrong-headed approach to the platform/publisher quandary.
This author takes the position that there are only 2 possibilities: all websites are protected by section 230 or no websites are protected by section 230. That’s a false dichotomy.
The much more reasonable and likely approach would be to change the way the law is applied so that all websites are protected by section 230 UNLESS they are shown to be breaking the rules and exerting editorial control over comments and posts by users.
So if you ran a social media website and didn’t censor your users based on your political biases, then you would be protected. If you did censor your users based on your political biases, then you lose that protection.
Of course that would put certain websites out of business. Including quite probably this one.
I doubt that. No social media company has the resources to withstand the legal liability that suddenly losing 230 protection would bring them. The bigger they are, the more liability they have, so their size is not helping them in this case.
NPR and PBS are classic examples of publishers. For the most part, they generate their own content. The closest they get to being a platform is when they actually take a random phone call. Because of that, they have the right to editorialize. They can choose what to publish and what not too, and it’s not even censorship when they choose not to publish on a certain topic, because they are not technically stiffing someone else’s voice.
The NYT, MSNBC, Fox, and CNN are all also very much publishers and assuredly would select that classification if they they were forced too.
The problem comes with these services on the internet like twitter or facebook. 98% or greater of everything that is published on their platforms is user generated. They are not internally responsible for the generation of content. They are a conduit. This makes them a service provider just like your electrical energy provider or your cell phone provider. The services that they provide are not controlled or censored, and they are obligated to provide those services for the public good to anyone who is within good financial standing with them. You can say anything you want on your cell phone to anyone you want to and for that reason, your cell phone company should not be held civilly liable for what people say on their service.
Service providers should be protected from civil liability of what their users communicate but required not to discriminate about who uses their service.
Publishers should be protected from accusations of censorship but not protected from the consequences of what they publish.
If corporations were forced to declare whether their services is Platform or Publication, both would be in the public interest. Platforms would not be permitted to censor people, and publishers would be liable for their actions.
There’s nothing wrong with Section 230. It simply doesn’t apply to Facebook, Google, or Twitter since they edit other people’s content. Remove those companies from coverage and treat them as publishers, not platforms.
Let the lawsuits begin!
I don’t know about you, but I sure as hell don’t want to see Rachel Maddow posting here.
If section 230 is repealed, lawsuits would be filed against Free Republic by Soros funded activists within hours.
“...doesn’t apply to Facebook, Google, or Twitter since they edit other people’s content.”
“Edit”
I haven’t seen them altering anyone’s posts.
I have seen people banned or put in “Facebook Jail” over a post.
But, then, FR has The Zot, and there were the extensive purges of Romneyites from these pages...
My point being; we had better know well what our own relationship to Section 230 is, before advocating too vociferously for changes. For the moment, whatever its ills, it shields us all.
Yeah, I think, though, that — more than size — the leftism of FB and Twitter would mean that they would get a pass from the most virulent quarters, whereas a Parler or a Gab — or even an FR — would in no way be granted such partisan immunity.
“I haven’t seen them altering anyone’s posts.
I have seen people banned or put in “Facebook Jail” over a post.”
Yes, banning is part of it. The issue is, are they a platform, a utility, or a publisher? 230 treats them like a platform and protects them from lawsuits.
But if they ban people politically and censor posts, they’re being a publisher and are liable for lawsuits.
Let everyone post—or be sued for the content you allow, like any newspaper.
“Is FR a platform or a publisher?
I don’t know about you, but I sure as hell don’t want to see Rachel Maddow posting here.”
In my opinion, FR is a publisher. We have a well-advertised editorial policy. 230 doesn’t apply here.
L8r
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.