Posted on 12/09/2020 5:19:45 AM PST by Kaslin
With all the screaming about "Big Tech," "The Masters of the Universe," "Silicon Valley," and so on, it's time to sort out the signal from the noise. President Trump wants to get rid of Google's, Facebook's, and Twitter's immunity from prosecution for its blatant censorship of conservative voices. Democrats want the censoring strengthened. And some argue that there should be no changes, since without CDA 230, we would not have the internet as we know it.
CDA 230? What's so important that it has to be hidden behind this abbreviation? Communications Decency Act Section 230 says (emphasis added):
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.
The legislative history of the Communications Decency Act revolves around three things: the desire to have the internet expand freely without a pot full of regulators messing things up; user controls; and the ability to block unwanted pornography, stalking, and harassment through your computer screen. Yup. The word "decency" in the title of the act is there because of pornography.
The MOTU have morphed this statute into something completely unrecognizable by the legislators who passed the law. They are happy to "fact-check" any item they don't like. I got hit by this recently.
When I hit "See Why," I was told that this "lacked context. Speaking as a medical professional, that's nonsense. The CDC's own publication found that there was an 86% probability that any mask/no mask difference was pure chance. Put simply, the CDC said masks are not useful. I posted what the CDC published, and I got dinged. This is typical for how egregious the MOTU are getting in censorship. And I have a fairly small audience.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Declare that Facebook, Twitter, Google, et al. have violated the terms of Section 230 and have forfeited its protections.
>>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.
Does their protection hinge on any actions taken AS a publisher?
Make them put in there sure they are a platform for democrats. And someone needs to make a FB and twit and instagram for conservatives. Or have the ones now allow no politics. Which they may do after this election.
Adding undefined acronyms, loses readers. Take the extra few seconds to follow the first use of an acronym with the definition in parentheses. Not everybody you are trying to reach are as "hip" as you.
Off to the next post...
Here are two simple searches for one of the US Senate Races in Georgia. The first one is for the Republican (Perdue) and the second is for the Democrat (Ossoff). Most people who type these in are looking for their campaign websites.
Try clicking on them. See what happens. This is a CLEAR VIOLATION of US Election Law (in-kind contributions are illegal). This needs to END, and I don’t give a crap as to how. If it means ending Section 230, fine, if it the FEC could enforce equal treatment, then fine too. But it needs to END.
https://www.google.com/search?q=perdue+for+senate
https://www.google.com/search?q=ossoff+for+senate
It should establish that the 1st Amendment ‘pierces the corporate veil’ as it were.
A company that provides a platform doesn’t have the write to curtail free expression. They, like everybody else, has a duty to report criminal expression (child pornography, credible threats of violence, etc) to the appropriate law enforcement authorities and it’s their responsibility to apprehend suspects and gather evidence and bring the suspects in for trial.
A platform owner can make reasonable accommodations to allow members of a forum to self-govern their content from the standpoint of suggesting that inappropriate or off topic post go to the appropriate forum on the platform.
However, they don’t have the right to censor speech.
Now, if you charge a fee, and people pay it, and they don’t abide by the rules of membership, then you can be cast out into the outer darkness.
At least that’s how I see it. You should not, as a platform owner, be prosecuted for someone posting something illegal. If you make active accommodations to further facilitate that activity, then you’ve crossed the line.
But it needs to END
How it is ends is we get an opposition party to the progressive-corportist alliance. Sadly, the GOP has proven in the Age of Trump that they will never be that.
The Federal government is given the ability to “regulate interstate commerce”.
Public or private, it doesn’t matter, it is interstate commerce.
Correct. The government is given that ability. Not the platform owner.
Leave it in place with modifications.
No. They’re full liable for any of their own created content.
When they approve of some legal content and not other, they are already exercising a publisher’s editorialship.
Same when they post snarky “fact checks” or “disputed” graphics underneath your posts.
They are liable for anything they permit and don’t rebuke or delete.
If they don’t weigh in on people’s posts, then there is no liability.
Remove Section 230 protection. Design smarter free speech protection. This is not hard.
1. All important: How would repealing section 230 affect Free Republic as it is now?
2. If the affect would be adverse, maybe the better remedy would be to apply antitrust law to behemoths like Twitter.
President Harris will amend the Constitution to protect Twitter and Facebook, have no fear.
Said it since day 1 after PDJT won election. The Big Tech are scared of it, and I know people at FB who can confirm it. I believe IF, that’s IF Biden gets his term, PDJT will make it an EO. It’s going to happen.
Sure we will get right on it.
Enough conservative brain-power probably within the Freeper community to pull it off. But nothing is free...
Simple, Invoke RULE 308.😊
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.