Do People Understand Section 230?

#26
#26
This is interesting. In Johnson vs. Twitter the courts found that in the constitutional right to free speech is also the protection to not speak, so Twitter can censor and ban. This is a case that did not rely on section 230 and still Twitter won. Twitter can fight this battle over and over again because they have the resources. If they can censor and ban because of the 1st amendment, then what would removing section 230 even do to them? They can get the case dismissed one way or another.

Here is a list of suits, and I believe big tech won all of them, and only half were with section 230. Social media bias lawsuits keep failing in court
 
#27
#27
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...
That's not what Section 230 is about, or was intended to address.
n_huffhines said:
It's a super-complicated issue but removing the protection does not address the issue.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's particularly complicated. You hit what 230 is about in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the OP--website owners getting sued (or criminal liability) for what other people post on them.
n_huffhines said:
This is a case that did not rely on section 230 and still Twitter won.
Click to expand...
This is a related point. Most of the problems people are erroneously attributing to section 230 (e.g., Big Tech "bias") would still be fully legal if 230 vanished, because they are First Amendment issues.
 
#28
#28
Velo Vol said:
I don't think it's particularly complicated. You hit what 230 is about in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the OP--website owners getting sued (or criminal liability) for what other people post on them.
Click to expand...

230 isn't that complicated, that's not what I meant to be saying...I'm saying that a fix for the underlying issue (big tech bias) is what's complicated.
 
#29
#29
n_huffhines said:
230 isn't that complicated, that's not what I meant to be saying...I'm saying that a fix for the underlying issue (big tech bias) is what's complicated.
Click to expand...
The real problem is how big/powerful a small number of companies have become in distributing information. It's the price we've paid for low-cost networks.
 
#30
#30
Velo Vol said:
The real problem is how big/powerful a small number of companies have become in distributing information. It's the price we've paid for low-cost networks.
Click to expand...

The problem with viewing the problem (heh) that way is Facebook is appealing because everybody's on it and people don't want to be on 2 facebooks (it's why myspace and google+ lost). Everybody is on twitter and nobody wants to be on 2 twitters. They're big because that's how we want them. So how do we get them to let us put inconvenient NY Post articles in our news feed?
 
#32
#32
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...

Reverse question. Is it acceptable to force a privately owned company to publish content which it has every reason to believe is false and believes that in fact the source is a threat to national security, just because some part of the political spectrum really wishes it were true?
 
#34
#34
n_huffhines said:
The problem with viewing the problem (heh) that way is Facebook is appealing because everybody's on it and people don't want to be on 2 facebooks (it's why myspace and google+ lost). Everybody is on twitter and nobody wants to be on 2 twitters. They're big because that's how we want them. So how do we get them to let us put inconvenient NY Post articles in our news feed?
Click to expand...

I will disagree on why Myspace "lost" to Facebook. I believe Zuckerberg basically saw everything Myspace wasn't doing and created his site from there. Myspace never evolved or changed their content until it was too late in the game. That and the News Corporation treated it like a cash cow instead of an adaptable social media platform.

Regardless, Myspace could have buried FB long before it got popular just by being adaptable. They couldn't (or didn't) adapt to the changing times and lost everything.

Let's face facts, Huff, Google+ never really took off, so I can't agree with them "losing" anything to Facebook. They came to the party too late to even challenge.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
Reverse question. Is it acceptable to force a privately owned company to publish content which it has every reason to believe is false and believes that in fact the source is a threat to national security, just because some part of the political spectrum really wishes it were true?
Click to expand...

This is why it's so complicated. It's hard to find justification for force whether you're censoring this hypothetical story or legitimate stories about Hunter Biden.

I'm not saying I like any solutions and I'm definitely not ready to justify force, but the justification would have to center around all the benefits that Facebook gets from government.

And of course, even if see merit to their justification, I don't trust the government to execute a solution that works.
 
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
Reverse question. Is it acceptable to force a privately owned company to publish content which it has every reason to believe is false and believes that in fact the source is a threat to national security, just because some part of the political spectrum really wishes it were true?
Click to expand...

What leads them to believe such content isn't true?

Furthermore, why did they allow information which was proven to be disinformation and downright lies without taking it down because some "sources" said it was true?
 
#37
#37
n_huffhines said:
This is why it's so complicated. It's hard to find justification for force whether you're censoring this hypothetical story or legitimate stories about Hunter Biden.

I'm not saying I like any solutions and I'm definitely not ready to justify force, but the justification would have to center around all the benefits that Facebook gets from government.

And of course, even if see merit to their justification, I don't trust the government to execute a solution that works.
Click to expand...

I think it transcends Hunter Biden though and that's what I was more or less getting at. That was just an example I used. But Twitter tends to make sure nothing trends that could have been damaging to Democrats before the election. I literally watched as #BidenCrimeFamily went up and back off the trending list in a space of less than five minutes. Over 100K Tweets in an hour and it wasn't trending.

You can't tell me that's not intentional.

But I do agree we should never rely on the government to come up with the "solution." However, I'm of the mind, again, there's antitrust issues at stake here.
 
#38
#38
Grand Vol said:
What leads them to believe such content isn't true?

Furthermore, why did they allow information which was proven to be disinformation and downright lies without taking it down because some "sources" said it was true?
Click to expand...


You are dodging the issue. If they have a subjective belief the info is false then how can you force them to publish it?
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
You are dodging the issue. If they have a subjective belief the info is false then how can you force them to publish it?
Click to expand...

I chuckle at a lawyer accusing someone of "dodging" an issue.

Anyway, they aren't "publishers" so your question is completely off the mark. They are a conduit of information only that's decided to take it upon themselves to determine what's good and bad for us.

And I go back to my original question on the matter of what methods they are using to determine what is "questionable" as compared to just being an outlet for the village idiots to make a global presence?
 
#40
#40
Grand Vol said:
I chuckle at a lawyer accusing someone of "dodging" an issue.

Anyway, they aren't "publishers" so your question is completely off the mark. They are a conduit of information only that's decided to take it upon themselves to determine what's good and bad for us.

And I go back to my original question on the matter of what methods they are using to determine what is "questionable" as compared to just being an outlet for the village idiots to make a global presence?
Click to expand...


Thats even worse. Now you want to regulate how they think about these issues, not just the conclusions.

Very un-American.
 
#42
#42
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...

This.

Well done, sir.

If you support free speech, you support Section 230.

Donnie doesn't like the fact that he's been fact-checked by these guys, but hey, either we operate on the basis or facts or "feels".

What you see at this point is I "feel" like Donald won the election and got screwed. Reality and facts say otherwise.
 
#43
#43
FB and Twitter need to resist the urge to insert themselves into the discussion. That’s all. I’m not interested in their fact checkers. If I see something that I think is BS I’ll fact check it myself. I’m not interested in their opinion frankly. And they are clearly doing it from a biased political stance. It’s obvious.

The discussion that happens in this forum every day would be a model for FB or Twitter to mimic and put a muzzle on their activism.
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
You are dodging the issue. If they have a subjective belief the info is false then how can you force them to publish it?
Click to expand...
Why is it any of their damn business. Why must they carry the heavy burden of proof reading all content. Frankly I’d like them to butt out.
 
#46
#46
n_huffhines said:
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.
Click to expand...
Isn’t there a tax consequence involved here with regard to how FB and Twitter are currently classified?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top