Section 230 discussion

[TwiceHorn 31283]

6 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Removing anonymity on the internet is all but impossible for those willing to avoid it. You may comply, but the assholes that want to cause trouble can circumvent almost everything you throw at them. 
 

I also think you are vastly underselling the amount of public assholery that goes on.  Think of the amount of Congress people that throw absolute shit bombs out on a daily basis.  We know who they are. We shout a lot about it. They keep doing it. 
 

edit:  the fairness doctrine applies to media/journalists. That’s the issue FB, Twitter, etc is trying to avoid being tied to with trying to avoid moderation in the first place. That’s why crazy has happened as much as it has on those platforms. If they get flipped to being media and not a content provider, they have to moderate everything, and those models break completely. Has anyone invoked slippery slope yet?  

Also, there's anonymity in the sense of being unable to connnect an online persona to a real person.

And then there's "anonymity," that is not really anonymity (in the sense that you may easily determine who someone is), but "impersonality."  I think it is the impersonality aspect that creates/adds to a lot of bad online behavior.

[wildcat09 29260]

It's interesting that so many people think that repealing 230 would help fight disinformation, given that the biggest pushers of disinformation (the GOP) has been the loudest about repealing 230.  It's actually the case that the GOP has been cynically using misinformation about what 230 even is to attack the tech platforms for deleting a tiny percentage of their misinformation and didn't actually want to repeal 230, but because we're living in some postmodern hell where they forget that they're lying they may actually now support its repeal. 

[TXSG8R 3360]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Sure. But isn't that technically ANY rule or law? Robbing banks is illegal, but folks still try it. 

Is remaining anonymous possible? Sure. Is it a roadblock that I think 80% of the people won't bother doing? I think this is more likely. So you're still cutting down on the problem, no?

Yes. Yes. they do. Because there aren't any consequences. 

That’s a pretty big simplification of the issue. Robbing banks is illegal, and requires some risk to the robber to pull off. Johnny internet sitting in Russia carries zero risk to join surly and stir up shit. Even if you could find him, who gets in trouble, surly, or Johnny internet for posting libel?  
 

Freedom of speech is a bitch, but we carry the good with the bad. This is a very similar problem. 
 

edit: mixed up providers in an example. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by TXSG8R

[SydneyCarton 47885]

3 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

That’s a pretty big simplification of the issue. Robbing banks is illegal, and requires some risk to the robber to pull off. Johnny internet sitting in Russia carries zero risk to join surly and stir up shit. Even if you could find him, who gets in trouble, surly, or Johnny internet for posting libel?  
 

Freedom of speech is a bitch, but we carry the good with the bad. This is a very similar problem. 
 

edit: mixed up providers in an example. 

Yes, it's a huge oversimplification. But that's a great question. I don't have an answer to it. 

Yes, but people used to be outraged at flag burning. And it upset many. But it didn't threaten to upend society as we know it, and it wasn't being monetized in a way that threatens democracy. I view this as an existential threat. I want solutions, any solutions. To wit:

 

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's interesting that so many people think that repealing 230 would help fight disinformation, given that the biggest pushers of disinformation (the GOP) has been the loudest about repealing 230.  It's actually the case that the GOP has been cynically using misinformation about what 230 even is to attack the tech platforms for deleting a tiny percentage of their misinformation and didn't actually want to repeal 230, but because we're living in some postmodern hell where they forget that they're lying they may actually now support its repeal. 

It's because they're fucking stupid. Period. They're that fucking stupid. Or cowardly. Now, I'm open to any ideas to fix this issue, I really am. The problem is that 230 exists in it's current form, and I view the probability to legally amending laws that pare down the power to allow disinformation while leaving the good parts of 230 is a political impossibility at this point. It won't happen. And that's even if it was at the top of Biden's stack of shit to do, and "fix media and disinformation" hasn't even shown up in any top 50 list I've seen. But if these idiots want to actually be stupid enough to repeal 230 because they're dumb...

I saw this seriously, but not without recognizing the irony...I'm just asking questions. 

[G650 14108]

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

Sorry guys, but I'd sacrifice The Surl if it meant fb and twitter and parler dies as well.

 

Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

 

Amen

[bad_teammate 13132]

The world would be significantly better if all social media died.

[Tuco 5076]

25 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

FWIW, Seth Rich's parents did sue Fox, and the case just settled--not sure of the amount Fox paid out.

Cool.  I had not seen that.  It was initially dismissed, but was reversed on appeal. Just settled a couple of weeks ago, but terms not disclosed.  

[TXSG8R 3360]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, there's anonymity in the sense of being unable to connnect an online persona to a real person.

And then there's "anonymity," that is not really anonymity (in the sense that you may easily determine who someone is), but "impersonality."  I think it is the impersonality aspect that creates/adds to a lot of bad online behavior.

Absolutely, but the former is the biggest problem with most solutions being advocated.  

Lets just get it out in the open.  Any solution requiring lack of anonymity isn't a solution.  Its all but impossible to implement with the way the internet is structured in our country (IE, open).  Robocalls are a great example.  Universally loathed, all but impossible to stop.  Why?  Because its easy to spoof packets to change who the sender is.  You cant restrict sending to localities because people don't stay in one place with their phones.  If we restricted all 512 calls to towers in the 512 area code, Twicehorn wouldn't be able to call home when he is traveling to New York.  Same issues with any packets on the internet.  We cant truly nail down people to IP addresses.  The lazy and uninformed can be corralled that way (Sydney's 80% example), but the worst actors wouldnt, and the worst actors are the problem.  

[Biff Tannen 45499]

Kasich was just talking about 230 on CNN and basically said the president is a moron, but this is something that social media sites need to know is coming.  Not the abolition of 230, necessarily, but regulation overall.

[elfenix 34172]

2 hours ago, immamac said:

shared liability my friend. You would also be liable unless you are forgetting that fact. 

he's already liable.  surly is the one with the protection, not us individual users. 

 

2 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Every one of us is judgment proof. Surly is fucked. 

well, i guess that's true. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by elfenix

[elfenix 34172]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

It's interesting that so many people think that repealing 230 would help fight disinformation, given that the biggest pushers of disinformation (the GOP) has been the loudest about repealing 230.  It's actually the case that the GOP has been cynically using misinformation about what 230 even is to attack the tech platforms for deleting a tiny percentage of their misinformation and didn't actually want to repeal 230, but because we're living in some postmodern hell where they forget that they're lying they may actually now support its repeal. 

further: the GOP's* marsha blackburn's "online freedom and viewpoint diversity act" would make it impossible to moderate political misinformation.  instead it would be must-publish. 

note that facebook goes furthest in what it says it would be willing to do (and what, therefore, others would have to do as well).  and of course it does.  it's the 800 lb gorilla in this, with the money to do the moderating if it wanted.  not many other networks would be able to afford it, and almost certainly no startups that might challenge facebook. 

 

 

*there's like 10 bills out there

Edited December 2, 2020 by elfenix

[TXSG8R 3360]

22 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Kasich was just talking about 230 on CNN and basically said the president is a moron, but this is something that social media sites need to know is coming.  Not the abolition of 230, necessarily, but regulation overall.

Providers are stuck in a no-win situation. By moderating content and removing dangerous bullshit, they run afoul of the right screaming they are censoring and should be held to media/journalism standards. If they take a hands off approach to stay within the rails of 230, the left screams they aren’t doing enough to prevent dangerous bullshit from being posted. A solution is needed, but I think it will be more politically slanted which won’t be helpful to the public. 

[immamac 42521]

27 minutes ago, elfenix said:

he's already liable.  surly is the one with the protection, not us individual users. 

thats what I was pointing out. 

[elfenix 34172]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

I've actually kicked around the idea of removing anonymity from the internet for awhile now. I'm sure there's hundreds of reasons I haven't considered on why that is horrible, but I can't help come back to the idea that removing anonymity in some fashion would help prevent people from spouting hate speech and shit.

facebook isn't particularly anonymous afaik and is breaking democracy. 

if you want to address anonymity, particularly in the political context, you need to eliminate super pacs.  good luck doing that with this supreme court. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by elfenix

[hpslugga 4044]

3 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Social media would be forced to moderate the comments and content for fear of suit. It would basically eliminate the spread of misinformation and lies on every major internet platform. No more QAnon bullshit easily attainable by stupids, olds, and stupid olds. That seems like a benefit. 

Would be a better idea if people like you could spend the time to properly educate those people. You take their bullshit away via government action and they’re just going to resent you even more than they already do. Their baseline is a distrust in the government, so let’s not feed that.

It’s kinda like the recent phenomena of right wingers being invited to speak at colleges only to have their invites rescinded when popular pressure forced it. It’s fucking stupid. Keep the invites, let them speak and inform them “you’re going to have to defend your views in a Q&A forum. This is not a monologue; this is a dialogue.”

I promise you, the Ann Coulters, Ben Shapiros and Milos of the world cannot hold their own in such forum. They whither and die like a bad fart in the wind when their incredibly ignorant views get put under a microscope and exposed as the massive intellectual frauds that they are. Now, you may not change Ann Coulter’s mind, but you’ll damn sure take the shine off her to the point where she’s less likely to infect people with her prepubescent nonsense. 

The same is true with this social media garbage. Just expose it. In fact that’s even easier because you’re doing it on a device with the internet. Just keep posting the real facts of the issue and their audience shrinks to the point where it’s easy to just label the very few people remaining as cult members, quacks, nut bags, et al. Again, you won’t change everyone’s mind but if you’re good at persuasive engagement, you’ll at least get the good swimmers out of the pool and only the weaklings will be left to drown while no one gives a shit.

[elfenix 34172]

3 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Just keep posting the real facts of the issue and their audience shrinks

[Neonmoon 38127]

 

[Biff Tannen 45499]

19 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Would be a better idea if people like you could spend the time to properly educate those people. You take their bullshit away via government action and they’re just going to resent you even more than they already do. Their baseline is a distrust in the government, so let’s not feed that.

It’s kinda like the recent phenomena of right wingers being invited to speak at colleges only to have their invites rescinded when popular pressure forced it. It’s fucking stupid. Keep the invites, let them speak and inform them “you’re going to have to defend your views in a Q&A forum. This is not a monologue; this is a dialogue.”

I promise you, the Ann Coulters, Ben Shapiros and Milos of the world cannot hold their own in such forum. They whither and die like a bad fart in the wind when their incredibly ignorant views get put under a microscope and exposed as the massive intellectual frauds that they are. Now, you may not change Ann Coulter’s mind, but you’ll damn sure take the shine off her to the point where she’s less likely to infect people with her prepubescent nonsense. 

The same is true with this social media garbage. Just expose it. In fact that’s even easier because you’re doing it on a device with the internet. Just keep posting the real facts of the issue and their audience shrinks to the point where it’s easy to just label the very few people remaining as cult members, quacks, nut bags, et al. Again, you won’t change everyone’s mind but if you’re good at persuasive engagement, you’ll at least get the good swimmers out of the pool and only the weaklings will be left to drown while no one gives a shit.

You had me until the last paragraph. That’s the whole point. Social media isn’t real life. People are much less likely to keep spouting their bullshit if they have to get out from behind a screen. 

[elfenix 34172]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

if there's one thing this congress can definitely pass over a presidential veto, it's a trillion dollar defense bill.  🤮

[SydneyCarton 47885]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

Would be a better idea if people like you could spend the time to properly educate those people. You take their bullshit away via government action and they’re just going to resent you even more than they already do. Their baseline is a distrust in the government, so let’s not feed that.

It’s kinda like the recent phenomena of right wingers being invited to speak at colleges only to have their invites rescinded when popular pressure forced it. It’s fucking stupid. Keep the invites, let them speak and inform them “you’re going to have to defend your views in a Q&A forum. This is not a monologue; this is a dialogue.”

I promise you, the Ann Coulters, Ben Shapiros and Milos of the world cannot hold their own in such forum. They whither and die like a bad fart in the wind when their incredibly ignorant views get put under a microscope and exposed as the massive intellectual frauds that they are. Now, you may not change Ann Coulter’s mind, but you’ll damn sure take the shine off her to the point where she’s less likely to infect people with her prepubescent nonsense. 

The same is true with this social media garbage. Just expose it. In fact that’s even easier because you’re doing it on a device with the internet. Just keep posting the real facts of the issue and their audience shrinks to the point where it’s easy to just label the very few people remaining as cult members, quacks, nut bags, et al. Again, you won’t change everyone’s mind but if you’re good at persuasive engagement, you’ll at least get the good swimmers out of the pool and only the weaklings will be left to drown while no one gives a shit.

This is a good post, but I just don't agree, particularly the last part. 

You don't educate people with facts anymore. They dismiss you, say alternate facts, fake news, media bias...and then they fucking block you on social media so they never have to see and hear from you again. Then they return to their safe spaces. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

Trump found a comrade in this fight

 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

On 12/2/2020 at 11:36 AM, hpslugga said:

Would be a better idea if people like you could spend the time to properly educate those people. You take their bullshit away via government action and they’re just going to resent you even more than they already do. Their baseline is a distrust in the government, so let’s not feed that.

It’s kinda like the recent phenomena of right wingers being invited to speak at colleges only to have their invites rescinded when popular pressure forced it. It’s fucking stupid. Keep the invites, let them speak and inform them “you’re going to have to defend your views in a Q&A forum. This is not a monologue; this is a dialogue.”

I promise you, the Ann Coulters, Ben Shapiros and Milos of the world cannot hold their own in such forum. They whither and die like a bad fart in the wind when their incredibly ignorant views get put under a microscope and exposed as the massive intellectual frauds that they are. Now, you may not change Ann Coulter’s mind, but you’ll damn sure take the shine off her to the point where she’s less likely to infect people with her prepubescent nonsense. 

The same is true with this social media garbage. Just expose it. In fact that’s even easier because you’re doing it on a device with the internet. Just keep posting the real facts of the issue and their audience shrinks to the point where it’s easy to just label the very few people remaining as cult members, quacks, nut bags, et al. Again, you won’t change everyone’s mind but if you’re good at persuasive engagement, you’ll at least get the good swimmers out of the pool and only the weaklings will be left to drown while no one gives a shit.

Completely agree.

However, the counterparties to the shit speech need to meet the shit speech with valid speech, not just blockades, impenetrable protests, and braying like asses and titty babies.

 

[DanRydell 799]

On 12/2/2020 at 9:35 AM, immamac said:

230 would hold me liable for refusing to remove the content not for letting it be posted in the first place. 

Repealing 230 would absolutely eliminate the protections you presently have for letting it be posted in the first place, not matter how quickly you removed it.

[DanRydell 799]

On 12/2/2020 at 11:27 AM, immamac said:

thats what I was pointing out. 

The difference is 99.9% of individual posters on any sort of message board or social media site are judgment proof and nobody cares to go after them.

[Biff Tannen 45499]

42 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Trump found a comrade in this fight

 

God she sucks so bad.

[immamac 42521]

1 hour ago, DanRydell said:

The difference is 99.9% of individual posters on any sort of message board or social media site are judgment proof and nobody cares to go after them.

so is an LLC with the only asset being the website. If you aren't a dummy unless it's 247 sports you can get pretty fucking judgement proof with stuff. 

[workswithseed 2037]

On 12/2/2020 at 6:11 AM, immamac said:

 

Twitter and FB need to be destroyed, they aren't productive to society at all and they are not responsible as platform providers at all because they are trying to maximize revenue not social utility. 

Wait, a business is for making? What social utility do you want from them other than posting stuff on a public forum? 

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

I pretty much follow the philosophy if dotard is for something then I am against it.  It works every time.

[HRSchenker 2259]

I asked a friend of a friend (copyright attorney) about this and got a different answer than some of the ones posted here. If Section 230 was repealed then services like Twitter and Facebook have two choices: moderate what is posted on a larger and broader scale than what is being done right now OR cease all moderation in every form. Distributors are only responsible for defamatory content if they have reason to believe it's defamatory. Publishers are responsible for user content because moderating posts would mean that removed content is bad and allowed content is good. If this allowed content is defamatory then the publisher is responsibly for damages.

Wouldn't this do the opposite of what some Twitter conservatives are crying about? If Twitter wants to shield itself from liability then it has an obligation to ban users from its platform who would pose a risk of legal action. I doubt they want their site to become 4chan 2.0

[elfenix 34172]

On 12/3/2020 at 5:36 PM, workswithseed said:

Wait, a business is for making? What social utility do you want from them other than posting stuff on a public forum? 

look at milton friedman over here

[elfenix 34172]

4 hours ago, HRSchenker said:

Wouldn't this do the opposite of what some Twitter conservatives are crying about?

which is why congresscritters like the one in the article i linked don't want section 230 eliminated, they want it modified so that political lies can't be moderated. 

 

trump, as usual, doesn't know shit.

Edited December 5, 2020 by elfenix

[workswithseed 2037]

22 minutes ago, elfenix said:

look at milton friedman over here

[Dahobbs 17449]

5 hours ago, HRSchenker said:

I asked a friend of a friend (copyright attorney) about this and got a different answer than some of the ones posted here. If Section 230 was repealed then services like Twitter and Facebook have two choices: moderate what is posted on a larger and broader scale than what is being done right now OR cease all moderation in every form. Distributors are only responsible for defamatory content if they have reason to believe it's defamatory. Publishers are responsible for user content because moderating posts would mean that removed content is bad and allowed content is good. If this allowed content is defamatory then the publisher is responsibly for damages.

Wouldn't this do the opposite of what some Twitter conservatives are crying about? If Twitter wants to shield itself from liability then it has an obligation to ban users from its platform who would pose a risk of legal action. I doubt they want their site to become 4chan 2.0

That's exactly what has been posted here. You must be confusing threads. 

[JBJ 3649]

 

On 12/4/2020 at 5:47 PM, HRSchenker said:

Distributors are only responsible for defamatory content if they have reason to believe it's defamatory. Publishers are responsible for user content because moderating posts would mean that removed content is bad and allowed content is good. If this allowed content is defamatory then the publisher is responsibly for damages.

In the context of fake news, publishers have qualified immunity as well.

[wildcat09 29260]

On 12/4/2020 at 9:57 PM, Dahobbs said:

That's exactly what has been posted here. You must be confusing threads. 

You gotta love the schtick.

[JimmyJames 12271]

If Donald dipshit trump wants to repeal it then it must be a good law that needs defending. 

[The Royal We 3066]

I don't know how to best handle the spread of disinformation over the internet, but I'm pretty sure repealing section 230 would have such significant knock-on effects that would alter the internet as we know it today.  It would also make it so hard for new alternatives to FB and Twitter to get off the ground that it would strengthen their market share, not "break them up."

There's also a huge disinfo campaign going on about what section 230 even does.  I've seen a lot of people spouting BS about publisher vs. platform that in no way reflects the actual wording of the law.  People can fairly debate the impacts of the law, but the wording of it plainly says that there is no distinction and there is no "line crossed" by a site choosing to moderate content.

 

[JBJ 3649]

 

1 hour ago, The Royal We said:

There's also a huge disinfo campaign going on about what section 230 even does.  I've seen a lot of people spouting BS about publisher vs. platform that in no way reflects the actual wording of the law.  People can fairly debate the impacts of the law, but the wording of it plainly says that there is no distinction and there is no "line crossed" by a site choosing to moderate content.

Section 230 effectively eliminated that line. 

Without it, a platform that chooses to moderate is a publisher and one that doesn't is not a publisher.  Without it, Surly could be sued for something we post if it isn't removed.  With it, Surly has immunity both from what we post and for what they do remove.

The former is the issue for Dems and the latter is the issue for Reps.

Edited December 9, 2020 by JBJ

[Dahobbs 17449]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

 

Section 230 effectively eliminated that line. 

Without it, a platform that chooses to moderate is a publisher and one that doesn't is not a publisher.  Without it, Surly could be sued for something we post if it isn't removed.  With it, Surly has immunity both from what we post and for what they do remove.

The former is the issue for Dems and the latter is the issue for Reps.

What is the theory of liability for the removal of content? Other than a potential breach of contract action, which isn't affected by 230 , I don't think any such cause of action exists. I don't see how 230's existence or repeal affects that one iota. 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Dahobbs

[elfenix 34172]

31 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What is the theory of liability for the removal of content? Other than a potential breach of contract action, which isn't affected by 230 , I don't think any such cause of action exists. I don't see how 230's existence or repeal affects that one iota. 

surly could be sued regardless, it's the american way. 

the issue was that there were two court cases in the early 90s that lead to perverse incentives.  in one, compuserve, did not moderate messages so was found not liable for libelous messages posted by users.  in the other, prodigy, which did moderate, was found to have taken an editorial role which made it liable for libelous messages posted by users. 

so congress amended section 230 of the depression-era telecom act to enable the service provider to moderate content.

note that section 230 isn't a fully blanket protection.  it never protected against copyright infringement, which has its own process (via DMCA).  it now does not protect against sex trafficking (though its pretty clear that if you're really concerned about sex trafficking and/or the safety of providers that the repeal of those protections was a mistake).  

here's the sharp part of what section 230 currently says:

Quote

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

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.

(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)

any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

i guess the grievance signalers out there think that if (2)(A) is removed then they can sue twitter for taking down their twits. 

Edited December 9, 2020 by elfenix

[Dahobbs 17449]

17 minutes ago, elfenix said:

surly could be sued regardless, it's the american way. 

the issue was that there were two court cases in the early 90s that lead to perverse incentives.  in one, compuserve, did not moderate messages so was found not liable for libelous messages posted by users.  in the other, prodigy, which did moderate, was found to have taken an editorial role which made it liable for libelous messages posted by users. 

so congress amended section 230 of the depression-era telecom act to enable the service provider to moderate content.

note that section 230 isn't a fully blanket protection.  it never protected against copyright infringement, which has its own process (via DMCA).  it now does not protect against sex trafficking (though its pretty clear that if you're really concerned about sex trafficking and/or the safety of providers that the repeal of those protections was a mistake).  

here's the sharp part of what section 230 currently says:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

i guess the grievance signalers out there think that if (2)(A) is removed then they can sue twitter for taking down their twits. 

Yeah, I know all that. But there is still no tort that I'm aware of that would make an entity liable for the removal of content as opposed to the posting of content. The only possible action I can think of is a breach of contract. But, as I said, I don't think section 230 affects contract claims at all. 

[JBJ 3649]

It applies more to the "notice" form of moderation than simple deletion.  If Facebook adds a label to your account warning visitors that you have ties to terrorism, Facebook is immune from a defamation suit because this falls under the broad umbrella of moderation.

[elfenix 34172]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, I know all that. But there is still no tort that I'm aware of that would make an entity liable for the removal of content as opposed to the posting of content. The only possible action I can think of is a breach of contract. But, as I said, I don't think section 230 affects contract claims at all. 

maybe one of those 30-something federal judges that have come from the grievance-signalling crew would invent one.  we are a common law country, after all. 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17449]

7 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It applies more to the "notice" form of moderation than simple deletion.  If Facebook adds a label to your account warning visitors that you have ties to terrorism, Facebook is immune from a defamation suit because this falls under the broad umbrella of moderation.

Uh, yeah, I'm going to need to see case law on that. That doesn't sound right at all. An affirmative statement by Facebook isn't moderation and is surely actionable if false. The plain text of the statute only applies to "any information provided by another information content provider" and actions taken to "restrict access to or availability of material." If Facebook makes an affirmative statement that "JBJ is a terrorist," it isn't a information provided by "another information content provider" or an action taken to "restrict access." 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Dahobbs

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 12/4/2020 at 5:47 PM, HRSchenker said:

I asked a friend of a friend (copyright attorney) about this and got a different answer than some of the ones posted here. If Section 230 was repealed then services like Twitter and Facebook have two choices: moderate what is posted on a larger and broader scale than what is being done right now OR cease all moderation in every form. Distributors are only responsible for defamatory content if they have reason to believe it's defamatory. Publishers are responsible for user content because moderating posts would mean that removed content is bad and allowed content is good. If this allowed content is defamatory then the publisher is responsibly for damages.

Wouldn't this do the opposite of what some Twitter conservatives are crying about? If Twitter wants to shield itself from liability then it has an obligation to ban users from its platform who would pose a risk of legal action. I doubt they want their site to become 4chan 2.0

 

On 12/4/2020 at 10:57 PM, Dahobbs said:

That's exactly what has been posted here. You must be confusing threads. 

Conservatives that I've spoken with expect that Facebook and Twitter will cease all moderation.  This is entirely because they don't want their fake news tagged as fake news or taken down.  What goes unnoticed is that Facebook and Twitter also take down videos of suicides and murders, child pornography, and all sorts of other things that conservatives and their grandmothers don't really want to see.  An unmoderated Facebook is going to be 90% legal porn, 5% cyber bullying, 2% conservative disinformation campaigns, 1% child porn, .9% videos of people dying and/or being killed, and .1% family/friends keeping in touch.  Eventually everyone will leave it.

So someone else will come along and set up the "original" Facebook offshore which is loosely moderated.  The gov't will bluff about blocking Americans from accessing it, and threaten to invade the country where its hosted, but won't do either of those things really.  Americans will bitch about how slow it is due to latency, but will use it anyway.

['stache 21777]

Maybe I don't really understand this issue and why Trump wants it repealed. Pro trumpers seem to be out their claiming it should be repealed because "First Amendment; Free Speech." Wouldn't repeal be the opposite? Wouldn't it require Facebook etc. to moderate and delete stuff that is questionable? And if so, wouldn't all the qanon trumpy stuff be the first to be deleted? Do they honestly believe that trump lies would survive and real news like Biden won the election and Hunter Biden is not a pedophile would go away?

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

trumpkins want whatever trump wants.  it doesn't matter if they understand it, were previously against it, goes against their self interests or is fascist and anti-democracy.  

If trump is for it; they're for it. 

[bolverk 29405]

4 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

trumpkins want whatever trump wants.  it doesn't matter if they understand it, were previously against it, goes against their self interests or is fascist and anti-democracy.  

If trump is for it; they're for it. 

Hence why the GOP no longer has a party platform.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

34 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Maybe I don't really understand this issue and why Trump wants it repealed. Pro trumpers seem to be out their claiming it should be repealed because "First Amendment; Free Speech." Wouldn't repeal be the opposite? Wouldn't it require Facebook etc. to moderate and delete stuff that is questionable? And if so, wouldn't all the qanon trumpy stuff be the first to be deleted? Do they honestly believe that trump lies would survive and real news like Biden won the election and Hunter Biden is not a pedophile would go away?

Trump is a bully. He thinks FB or other social media is against him, so he wants to use whatever leverage (Section 230)  he thinks will get them to back down. The issue itself doesn't matter.

[F250 28691]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Maybe I don't really understand this issue and why Trump wants it repealed. Pro trumpers seem to be out their claiming it should be repealed because "First Amendment; Free Speech." Wouldn't repeal be the opposite? Wouldn't it require Facebook etc. to moderate and delete stuff that is questionable? And if so, wouldn't all the qanon trumpy stuff be the first to be deleted? Do they honestly believe that trump lies would survive and real news like Biden won the election and Hunter Biden is not a pedophile would go away?