Posted on 12/03/2020 5:42:17 AM PST by SeekAndFind
On Tuesday, President Trump announced that he intended to veto the National Defense Authorization Act if it doesn't include a provision deleting Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. Trump's purpose is to clip the tech tyrants' wings, something that badly needs doing. However, he's going about it the wrong way and should rethink his announced plan.
Once upon a time, the internet was a place of freedom and creativity. The early internet companies offered platforms on which people could publish unmediated content. The companies were the equivalent of giant bulletin boards. No one expected them to police the content that people around the world placed on these bulletin board–like platforms.
Some of the first people to recognize the internet's promise were pornographers. The federal government had long regulated pornography on radio and television to protect minors from being exposed to it. In February 1996, Congress passed, and Bill Clinton signed, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA). The CDA's entire purpose was to criminalize knowingly exposing minors to internet pornography.
The CDA had a carve-out, however, for companies that only hosted other people's content. Thus, the government could prosecute "XXX Pornography Company" for prohibited conduct, but it could not prosecute the company that provided the server on which XXX Pornography Co. operated. This carve-out is known as Section 230. Its primary clause states:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Section 230 means that YouTube can't be prosecuted if a third party puts up child pornography videos, and, if you have a WordPress blog, WordPress is not criminally liable if you try to have others join you in sedition.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Zuckencuck and his pals could not possibly any more destroyed free speech on the internet short of shutting it down completely
NO. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Get rid of Section 230, and let a thousand lawsuits bloom. This will go all the way to the Supreme Court.
In a perfect world this might work, but Big Tech companies like Google, FB and Twitter have largely monopolized the transmission of information and, rather than serving as a platform, actively “censor” facts and opinions they don’t like.
It’s been established that their outright censorship of the Hunter Biden story helped swing the election, with polls showing that if people had been able to read about it online, they would have voted for Trump.
Further, as the Nick Sandmann case demonstrated, a lie can spread around the world thousands of time in a second, remain online for eternity, while the truth gets buried at the bottom of search engines.
Conservatives are just going to have to accept that “muh free market” won’t do anything here but continue to had a larger and larger platform to the opposition.
There’s a difference between ending 230 altogether, and ending it for THEM. Think of it sort as how we would handle an errant nonprofit. We wouldn’t end all nonprofits, but the crooks would lose their status.
So now Andrea is falling for that bogus lie huh.
Indeed. Big tech is reaping the benefits of being labeled a platform when, in fact, they are active publishers at this point, curating, editing and even blocking content they don’t like.
Just mod 230 to say that if you editorialize users content (outside of government law) then you are a publisher and 230 doesn’t apply.
Problem solved.
The best approach is simply to say that, if the tech tyrants are going to act like publishers by editing content on their sites, they are no longer entitled to Section 230's protections. They can then be sued and criminally prosecuted.
This. Remove protection specifically for big tech acting as censors/publishers, not the little guys.
Equally as important is fighting financial censorship. "Go build your own" doesn't work when the banks, credit card companies and payment processors can shut you down for speech.
The article says getting rid of 230 would also hit sites like Parler - it says the evil Tech Titans support repeal because it would eliminate their smaller competitors. Section 230 is ok, it just shouldn’t apply to the Tech Titans since they are editors/publishers and not merely bulletin boards like Parler. I agree, and also think the Tech Titans should be hit with anti-trust actions, since they control far more of their markets than Rockefeller ever did.
There is nothing wrong with section 230 protection - as long as the tech giants being protected remain unbiased platforms - and do not stifle free speech.
I say, leave section 230 in place, but disqualify Google, FB, Twitter, etc., from section 230 protection as long as they engage in censorship.
These tech giant platforms have a choice: either be “bulletin boards” that allow free speech, do not filter content, and enjoy section 230 protection, or be politically correct advocacy platforms, filtering content, and forfeit section 230 protection.
Author is a GOPe...offers no viable alternatives.
Go a step further. Break them up. They are acting like a coordinating monopoly.
Bingo!
Repeal Section 230 NOW !!
In this age of government managing outcomes, we need a law that requires all media and technology companies hire bonafide/registered republicans from the board room to the janitor in the same proportion/percentage as republican registrations (/sarc).
I am good with that, especially since ‘free speech’ seems to involve suppressing other people’s speech and a massive and organized fashion.
Simple. You curate content other than stuff that is clearly illegal you are not entitled to section 230 protection. Big tech is curating. Parler is not. 230 for Parler but not for FB/Twitter/Goog/etc. 230 does not apply to curated platforms.
Agreed. Facebook, et al. have violated the terms of Section 230 protection and have thus forfeited said protection. A simple declaration to that effect by the FCC is all that is needed.
Get rid of section 230, of amend it to say that social media is not shielded by 230.
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.