Do People Understand Section 230?

#1
n_huffhines

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
87,304
Likes
52,499
#1
I know big tech = bad, need punishment but do people understand what section 230 is and what it does? It's basically existed since the inception of the internet (1996) as we know it and it protects websites from being held liable for things that users do and say on their platforms. Removing section 230 protections will do nothing to solve the problem of big tech censorship.

If section 230 protection is removed, @Freak could be held liable for anything any of the 62k Volnation users post. He doesn't even have to lose a lawsuit in order to get wrecked by this. He could just get drowned in frivolous suits with no merit. Section 230 prevents all of this. Facebook has a legal team with endless resources. Google has a legal team. Good luck drowning them in frivolous suits. Removing section 230 would help to eliminate smaller platforms as competition. This is why Zuckerburg has asked for more regulation. He's not an idiot. We're the idiots if we push for this.

Removing section 230 inevitably will increase censorship. If FB, or whomever, is liable for things I say, why would they ever let me post something that immediately publishes? They'll probably make everything await moderation. Why would they ever let me post anything controversial? They're definitely going to clamp down on that.

Be careful what you ask for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh, lukeneyland, WBO and 7 others
#3
#3
n_huffhines said:
I know big tech = bad, need punishment but do people understand what section 230 is and what it does? It's basically existed since the inception of the internet (1996) as we know it and it protects websites from being held liable for things that users do and say on their platforms. Removing section 230 protections will do nothing to solve the problem of big tech censorship.

If section 230 protection is removed, @Freak could be held liable for anything any of the 62k Volnation users post. He doesn't even have to lose a lawsuit in order to get wrecked by this. He could just get drowned in frivolous suits with no merit. Section 230 prevents all of this. Facebook has a legal team with endless resources. Google has a legal team. Good luck drowning them in frivolous suits. Removing section 230 would help to eliminate smaller platforms as competition. This is why Zuckerburg has asked for more regulation. He's not an idiot. We're the idiots if we push for this.

Removing section 230 inevitably will increase censorship. If FB, or whomever, is liable for things I say, why would they ever let me post something that immediately publishes? They'll probably make everything await moderation. Why would they ever let me post anything controversial? They're definitely going to clamp down on that.

Be careful what you ask for.
Click to expand...
Yeah, for some reason Sidney Powell and Lin Wood were pushing to get rid of it.
 
#5
#5
n_huffhines said:
I know big tech = bad, need punishment but do people understand what section 230 is and what it does? It's basically existed since the inception of the internet (1996) as we know it and it protects websites from being held liable for things that users do and say on their platforms. Removing section 230 protections will do nothing to solve the problem of big tech censorship.

If section 230 protection is removed, @Freak could be held liable for anything any of the 62k Volnation users post. He doesn't even have to lose a lawsuit in order to get wrecked by this. He could just get drowned in frivolous suits with no merit. Section 230 prevents all of this. Facebook has a legal team with endless resources. Google has a legal team. Good luck drowning them in frivolous suits. Removing section 230 would help to eliminate smaller platforms as competition. This is why Zuckerburg has asked for more regulation. He's not an idiot. We're the idiots if we push for this.

Removing section 230 inevitably will increase censorship. If FB, or whomever, is liable for things I say, why would they ever let me post something that immediately publishes? They'll probably make everything await moderation. Why would they ever let me post anything controversial? They're definitely going to clamp down on that.

Be careful what you ask for.
Click to expand...

You seem surprised that Republican leadership would do something without thinking things through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volsonyourface and zeppelin128
#9
#9
To me the issue is a lot more complex than just saying "get rid of it."

The thing is, who decides if said content is "questionable" per the definition of the law? And furthermore, when should said company disclose their intentions especially if they are leaning towards a particular political side? You and I both know the blatant censorship prior to the election was what tripped this off. Now, I will say Facebook, Twitter, etc are no better or worse than the "news" agencies that completely ignored the Hunter Biden situation. The main difference is the way the "big tech" went about it and whether or not they can (or should) be held liable for outright censorship of the news for a political reason. Section 230 doesn't cover that except for the vague "other objectionable content" portion.

So, the real question is "why was said content questionable" and is that standard being held fairly across the board? Furthermore, was the removal or outright blocking and suspension (in the case of the NY Post) done "in good faith"? And last, but certainly not least, are the algorithms biased towards a particular political side? I know from personal experience as soon as I might see something against the left trending on Twitter, it'd disappear quickly. So, who made the choice to suppress it?

Now, I do agree owners and whatnot need to have some protections. VN for example tends to allow all trains of thought and rarely does a post disappear because a mod or Freak didn't agree with the content. Normally, the Mods make their opinions known in the thread itself unless the post violates community standards. Can the same be said about Google, Facebook and Twitter?

When one acts as what could be perceived as a propaganda arm of a political party (don't take that out of context) and blatantly suppresses content against a certain political philosophy, especially when you pretty much control the market, questions can and should be raised about how much protections you really should have. I'm not sure 230 really covers what happened in the past couple of months. But one thing I know for certain, "big tech" brought this on themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
#10
#10
Velo Vol said:
Maybe they want to start suing websites the way they've been suing states?
Click to expand...

The question is whether Section 230 would protect them and answer the "objectionable content" question I posed above. What's the standard for what's "objectionable" and how fairly is it, again, placed across the board?
 
#11
#11
Grand Vol said:
The question is whether Section 230 would protect them and answer the "objectionable content" question I posed above. What's the standard for what's "objectionable" and how fairly is it, again, placed across the board?
Click to expand...
Right now it's very broad. Do you want an internet where people are suing Twitter because it won't post links to particular websites?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#12
#12
Velo Vol said:
Right now it's very broad. Do you want an internet where people are suing Twitter because it won't post links to particular websites?
Click to expand...

No, the real question is whether you want an internet that has the ability to censor and suppress the news you receive because of political motives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tdawgs and NurseGoodVol
#14
#14
Grand Vol said:
No, the real question is whether you want an internet that has the ability to censor and suppress the news you receive because of political motives.
Click to expand...

Private property has private rules. I post here knowing any content I share is subject to deletion along with my account. Same with Twitter, Facebook, etc. I knew the rules going on. I'm a guest on someone else's private property and have to abide by their rules.
 
#15
#15
Grand Vol said:
To me the issue is a lot more complex than just saying "get rid of it."

The thing is, who decides if said content is "questionable" per the definition of the law? And furthermore, when should said company disclose their intentions especially if they are leaning towards a particular political side? You and I both know the blatant censorship prior to the election was what tripped this off. Now, I will say Facebook, Twitter, etc are no better or worse than the "news" agencies that completely ignored the Hunter Biden situation. The main difference is the way the "big tech" went about it and whether or not they can (or should) be held liable for outright censorship of the news for a political reason. Section 230 doesn't cover that except for the vague "other objectionable content" portion.

So, the real question is "why was said content questionable" and is that standard being held fairly across the board? Furthermore, was the removal or outright blocking and suspension (in the case of the NY Post) done "in good faith"? And last, but certainly not least, are the algorithms biased towards a particular political side? I know from personal experience as soon as I might see something against the left trending on Twitter, it'd disappear quickly. So, who made the choice to suppress it?

Now, I do agree owners and whatnot need to have some protections. VN for example tends to allow all trains of thought and rarely does a post disappear because a mod or Freak didn't agree with the content. Normally, the Mods make their opinions known in the thread itself unless the post violates community standards. Can the same be said about Google, Facebook and Twitter?

When one acts as what could be perceived as a propaganda arm of a political party (don't take that out of context) and blatantly suppresses content against a certain political philosophy, especially when you pretty much control the market, questions can and should be raised about how much protections you really should have. I'm not sure 230 really covers what happened in the past couple of months. But one thing I know for certain, "big tech" brought this on themselves.
Click to expand...

It's a super-complicated issue but removing the protection does not address the issue. It will result in more censorship, not less.

So maybe you re-write 230 that specifies biased moderation isn't protected (it's not clear to me that it is protected, but let's say that it currently is)....OK...how do we even determine if there is bias? There is literally bias in every thought that exists, so we're not actually determining if there is bias, we are determining if there is too much bias. It becomes this ridiculously subjective thing.

I haven't heard the solution I like, but that's 100x better than removing section 230 altogether.
 
#17
#17
AshG said:
Private property has private rules. I post here knowing any content I share is subject to deletion along with my account. Same with Twitter, Facebook, etc. I knew the rules going on. I'm a guest on someone else's private property and have to abide by their rules.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ultimately if you believe in freedom then you believe Facebook should be able to do whatever they want with their web property, as long as it's not causing direct harm to anybody. They should not be obligated to host information that they don't like.

I come to your bar and say "God hates f***s" and you kick me out and say you won't tolerate that.

Somebody else shows up and says "white straight males are the devil" and you don't respond. Maybe you don't even know anybody said it. Then you get sued by a patron for emotional distress and they cite your policy against homophobia and how unfair it is and that you didn't protect the white straight males.

99% of us agree the bar owner should not be held liable and should not have to face frivolous suits, and section 230 prevents exactly that for web properties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh, LouderVol and AshG
#18
#18
The real issue is that the way news is delivered has changed and our laws haven't. For centuries it was written words on paper and almost every family got a newspaper delivered in recent decades. As technology developed TV started playing a roll in news delivery and people tuned in to the 6 o'clock news for their daily update.
Now we have the internet and people have dropped newspapers and TV and the internet is all we have, but it has a problem in being biased. I don't know how to fix the problem, but censoring a group of people is only going to stir tension and cause an ultimate clash where no one will win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#19
#19
n_huffhines said:
It's a super-complicated issue but removing the protection does not address the issue. It will result in more censorship, not less.

So maybe you re-write 230 that specifies biased moderation isn't protected (it's not clear to me that it is protected, but let's say that it currently is)....OK...how do we even determine if there is bias? There is literally bias in every thought that exists, so we're not actually determining if there is bias, we are determining if there is too much bias. It becomes this ridiculously subjective thing.

I haven't heard the solution I like, but that's 100x better than removing section 230 altogether.
Click to expand...

Maybe the bigger question is whether or not antitrust comes into play with the "Big Three" in the tech industry.

I don't necessity see it as a 230 issue. I see it more as Ma Bell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf, tbh, UT_Dutchman and 1 other person
#20
#20
Grand Vol said:
I don't necessity see it as a 230 issue. I see it more as Ma Bell.
Click to expand...

The government has been in a pro-merger, pro-acquisition mood for a while. They put Ma Bell back together again, let Facebook, Google, and Amazon buy up all but the most expensive competition, and seemed loathe to say no to all but the most egregious of corporate excesses.

How do they 180 from that position and take a hammer to it all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#21
#21
AshG said:
The government has been in a pro-merger, pro-acquisition mood for a while. They put Ma Bell back together again, let Facebook, Google, and Amazon buy up all but the most expensive competition, and seemed loathe to say no to all but the most egregious of corporate excesses.

How do they 180 from that position and take a hammer to it all?
Click to expand...

Because the government is really good at keeping up with the times...
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and AshG
#22
#22
Grand Vol said:
Maybe the bigger question is whether or not antitrust comes into play with the "Big Three" in the tech industry.

I don't necessity see it as a 230 issue. I see it more as Ma Bell.
Click to expand...

Ma Bell needed to be broken up because it was a government-protected monopoly. They had sweetheart deals everywhere and it allowed them to gouge consumers. Facebook is a free service, so it's hard to make the same case, but I'm sure they have lots of government-enabled/protected market share that could be withdrawn.
 
#23
#23
n_huffhines said:
Ma Bell needed to be broken up because it was a government-protected monopoly. They had sweetheart deals everywhere and it allowed them to gouge consumers. Any aspect of these big tech companies' market share that is enabled by the government, take it away.
Click to expand...

Lord knows it's been attempted. Cable companies are the worst, but their lawyers are too damn good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO and n_huffhines
#24
#24
AshG said:
Private property has private rules. I post here knowing any content I share is subject to deletion along with my account. Same with Twitter, Facebook, etc. I knew the rules going on. I'm a guest on someone else's private property and have to abide by their rules.
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed this post. I was in shock @n_huffhines wasn't arguing for a change...

The main difference being is how much "private property" there is. Or how you can access said private property. Or what kinds of double standards there are on said property. Or who writes the rules with hidden motives on the property.

When over 70% of the country uses said "property" as a news source and information is suppressed, one has to ask how much control should be had from those sources to judge what information I receive without repercussions.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top