Posted on 12/10/2020 1:10:15 PM PST by xomething
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) have introduced a bipartisan bill that would strip legal immunities from tech companies that censor users without their consent.
The Break Up Big Tech Act would remove Section 230 protections — critical to the business model of the Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe — from platforms that “moderate or censor content without an opt-in from users.”
According to a press release on Rep. Gabbard’s website, the bill would also remove 230 immunities from companies that engage in the following practices:
“Big Tech monopolies continue to censor and manipulate users without consent or liability. The Break Up Big Tech Act revokes liability protections for bad Samaritans and instead empowers users,” said Rep. Gosar. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
bookmark
>> have introduced a bipartisan bill that would strip legal immunities from tech companies that censor users without their consent.
Want to use Facebook, agree to the terms and conditions when you sign up, and buried in there will be a new little phrase that you agree to let facebook censor you (won’t be worded that way of course).
So ‘without users consent’ will have no practical meaning; nothing will change, facebook will remain an arm of the democratic party.
How does one control a platform in such a manner as to avoid a cesspool, and yet refrain from censorship? I maintain that the free market should govern content. No one compels people to sign up for Facebook or use Google.
>>No one compels people to sign up for Facebook or use Google.
I agree in principal with that, however, in the social media space, FB is essentially a monopoly - want to be involved in social media, you pretty much have to use facebook.
As a monopoly they should be allowed to abuse that power by restricting free speech.
Should read:
As a monopoly they should NOT be allowed to abuse that power by restricting free speech.
What is there not to like about this bill?
WOOT!
1. The check is in the mail.
2. Black is beautiful.
3. I promise I won't c*m in your mouth
4. If you take it, you will not get sick.
Excuse the post...wrong thread.
Exactly right. In fact, I haven't bothered to wade through any of social's TOSs but I'd bet users are opting into a lot of that stuff already.
The internet oligarchs are treated as service providers. Like the phone company or computer manufacturers et.
People can negotiate murder on phone and the phone company is immune because they just provide service. It would be a mess if the phone company would be hold liable for any crime committed using the phone!
If the interned oligarchs behaved like the phone company, just providing service without any interference they would qualify for the immunity.
However they do not. They censor and check the postings. Now they actively participate in the exchange of the information, so they are not just providing connection. They now should be treated like TV, which could be sued if they e.g. slander somebody or transmit classified info.
Since Facebook controls and censors the info, it should be hold liable if somebody uses it to prepare a murder!
I doubt this bill will go anywhere. These are Dem allies & Biden would never sign off reducing their power.
Another reason why Tulsi is disliked by her own party.
I’m certainly no fan of hers, but this woman as President would be stomach-able, whereas with Harris it would be pure hell.
I’m certainly no fan of hers, but this woman as President would be stomach-able, whereas with Harris it would be pure hell.
Tulsi supports basic universal income, abortion, free college, medicare for all.....and yet people on here think she is ok. She is no different from the rest. I dont understand.
I beg to differ insofar as other social media entities have arisen. Not that they are as slick or dialed in, but there is no reason an entrepenuer could not improve, while censoring leftists. Take Free Republic, for example. Beats FB and manstream media hands down. OTOH, a slightly wider latitude of opinion might help.
If I were to establish a social media platform it would be a no-brainer to censor vulgarity for starters. The only reason Big Tech has so much influence is because we’ve allowed it to.
There are much bigger issues at hand. Like public gullibility. Are we to be so gullible ourselves as to think, for example, that just because ABC reports it, everyone believes it to be true?
Facebook, Google, Twitter, Wikipedia, Snopes...all are positioning for a seat at the Ministry of Truth elite’s table.
If it’s not a MaBell type of breakup, then its utter BS.
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.