I was thinking the full "Rhodes Scholar" for watchdog efforts on the DUmocrats vs. the helper pointing out anyone resembling a Republican.
Posted on 02/20/2020 6:07:39 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Attorney General William Barr recently raised questions about whether major technology companies should remain largely immune from litigation regarding its user-generated content, adding that the technological landscape has changed much in recent decades.
Barr stated his concerns during a Feb. 19 Justice Department workshop on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The act, which was passed in 1996, states that “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.”
Online companies such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter are protected by Section 230 as it largely exempts them from liability involving content posted by users of their platforms, although they can be held liable for content that violates criminal or intellectual property law.
“No longer are tech companies the underdog upstarts; they have become titans of U.S. industry,” Barr said. “Given this changing technological landscape, valid questions have been raised on whether Section 230’s broad immunity is still necessary, at least in its current form.”
Some of Barr’s concerns relate to the apparent stretching of the statute’s original purpose. He said the statute’s immunity has since been extended to conduct such as “selling illegal or faulty products to connecting terrorists to facilitating child exploitation.”
“Online services also have invoked immunity even where they solicited or encouraged unlawful conduct, shared in illegal proceeds, or helped perpetrators hide from law enforcement,” Barr said.
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
Dangerously Intolerant Liberals Destroying Our Society = DILDOS
But if we repeal the CDA, they'll do it yesterday.
I was thinking the full "Rhodes Scholar" for watchdog efforts on the DUmocrats vs. the helper pointing out anyone resembling a Republican.
Tell that to Jim.
Or do you assume FR will be immune for some reason?
How many lawsuits from liberals for the things we say about them before Jim just throws in the towel?
It would only apply to public companies.
Public companies are under that law—not private.
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
The liberal media has the muzzies back so ......
“ The biggest hammer to ensure political censorship doesn’t occur is the threat of withdrawing CDA protection.”
That’s not a hammer, it’s a noodle.
It’s really more akin to our intelligence agreements: we’ll do your dirty work and you’ll do ours.
It would be patently illegal for the government to censor speech; however, it’s perfectly legal for any “private” agency. The sheer scale of these companies makes their influence virtually incalculable. Safe in our tiny FR cocoon, most of us have no idea how few people in the nation have any notion of the truth.
Sure, we complain about being targeted or silenced in social media, but how many even bother to engage? What is the recourse for those who have lost their livelihoods, reputations, and even lives due to a million maggots feeding on their very souls?
The stakes are real, but the arena is not quicksand, but quicksilver. Saint George may have slain the dragon, but who can slay the quadrillions of bytes now arrayed against freedom and liberty?
So all Jack Dorsey has to do is get some investors and take Twitter private and he's beyond the law?
Conversely, if Jim decides to sell stock in FR to the public he can no longer zot people?
Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense.
There are plenty of occasions in which regulations do not apply to private companies when they do apply to public companies.
SOX, anything SEC, etc.
FR does not discriminate based on the opinion of a poster, the other members will explain / advise and handle the issue.
See humblegunner.
If someone breaks the very simple rules it will not matter if they are conservative or prog, the admin mods will handle the issue.
That is NOT No hiding behind "community guidelines" or "hate/harmful speech."
Posters here at FR post strong and sometimes harsh opinions all day long and exactly zero is said about it by the admin mods or Jim.
The back and forth leading up to the 2016 election was a slug-fest and the admin mods and Jim only enforced the rules.
They did not take sides and ban the Cruz supporters over the Trump supporters or the Ben Carson supporters over the Mike Huckabee supporters, etc.
That is what fakebook and twit do, hiding behind "community guidelines" and the disparity between FR is obvious due to the propensity of it’s occurrence.
To take a single sentence of my post out of context and compare it to to the flagrant abuse of Section 230 by fakebook/twit is disingenuous.
.
Sure, regulations regarding the sale of the companies' securities, but name a difference related to the companies' business.
Really? Companies with more than 50 employees, for one.
Not many public companies have 50 or fewer employees. All sorts of law changes start over that amount.
Does Jim have 50 employees?
The point is, FR is Jim's private property and he can make the rules as convoluted and arbitrary as he likes.
Are there instances where you think the federal government should keep him from banning someone or removing a post?
But they don't change because they're public companies. The regulations are the same for public and private companies.
Again, if Jack takes Twitter private can he ban whomever he wants?
An example from the article:
“In December 2019, the 9th Circuit held that the statute doesn’t protect a firm from antitrust liability if its decisions about “blocking and filtering” content “are driven by anticompetitive animus,” according to Barnett. He said in the future, he expects the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division to support rulings similar to the one made by the 9th Circuit, in light of Barr’s comments.”
These are issues with public companies.
Them wanting it both ways is as hypocritical as media producers who are always claiming you don’t own your copy of the music or even the media, you just bought a license to play it, so not like buying a book for example. Except when someone sues them because the media (tape, probably?) wears out and they sue the label to send them a new copy of the tape, because after all, they own the license and not the tape, THEN the labels actually argued in court that the buyer owns the media and has the liability if it wears out. D’oh!
Or people willing to do work on a hourly/T&M basis or on a fixed price basis, and the customer says they want to do T&M, but with a fixed price cap! (So they get the benefit if the costs end up low, but the seller assumes the risk if it goes high)
The anti-trust laws apply equally to public and private companies.
Koch Industries isn't immune.
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.