Posted on 09/15/2022 7:11:55 PM PDT by janetjanet998
President Joe Biden announced on Thursday that his administration would push to end the immunity Big Tech platforms enjoy for third-party content, an effort Republicans previously backed.
"I'm calling on Congress to get rid of special immunity for social media companies and impose much stronger transparency requirements on all of them," the president said, per the New York Post.
Specifically, he called for the repeal of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, echoing similar demands from Republicans in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, amid the outcry over tech company censorship of explosive allegations against Hunter Biden.
Biden's call, however, came in the context of curtailing online hate speech. With the repeal of Section 230, Biden aims to "hold social media companies accountable for spreading hate-fueled violence."
This is to stop Rumble Video and Truth Social
The Left is gonna be shocked when Christ returns....
“Your business is ours now” -Joe Biden.
So when Trump was for this it was good, now it was bad?
There were hundreds upon hundreds of posts on FR extolling the virtues of repealing Section 230.
So is it now bad because Xiden supports it?
So is it now bad because Xiden supports it?
Biden wants it repealed for a different reason
Censorship is never the answer.
Does the reason matter? Repealed is repealed.
Is it good or bad?
You have to pick one.
There is no such thing as hate speech when it comes to the law in the U.S.
Biden is telling Zuckerberg et al if you don’t completely silence the anti-vax etc crowd, we will start arresting you next. Social media is hurting them big time and therefore they want even greater censorship.
Does the reason matter? Repealed is repealed.
-
section 230 is very broad
ONE of the things it does is to shield tech companies and websites from being sued because of third party content
Sounds like you want FreeRepublic sued and shut down
There is no such thing as hate speech when it comes to the law in the U.S.
but being sued is Civil not criminal
It doesn’t affect privately owned sites.
Come on. You believe this? This is just blathering lies. He has no intention of following through with any such legislation in any meaningful way. Should be it be written into gobbledygook law, ultimately it will simply become an excuse to step up censorship of anything arbitrarily deemed MAGA. And any such “hate speech” will be found on the right in any case.
“It doesn’t affect privately owned sites.”
Yet...
It doesn’t affect privately owned sites.
are you sure? It come out in 1996 before twitter, facebook and youtube were a thing
Section 230 is complex with parts that both promote and restrain censorship so the general public and even some pols are a bit confused over what it actually does. Republicans want to change it to punish companies which censor and deplatform. Democrats want do the opposite and punish companies which don’t censor and deplatform proactively. Yeah, as banhappy and censorious as Sillycon Valley is. Its not enough for Dems. Trump ironically is sort of on both sides of the aisle wanting to protect his fans from being censored but is also for altering Section 230 to increase sites culpability for ‘libel’ for obvious reasons.
I agree. Let them take 230 away.
“There were hundreds upon hundreds of posts on FR extolling the virtues of repealing Section 230.”
Two years ago, I supported repealing Section 230. (people can check my posting history if it suits them.)
I still support repealing Section 230. I will always support repealing Section 230.
Section 230 is the real problem. Facebook(Twitter, etc) is just a symptom. We should fight colds, not coughs.
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.