The Big Tech March to Silence Free Speech

[McDad]

Tulsi Gabbard Pulls Back the Curtain On Why Congress Won't Act Against Big Tech

Conservatives have been calling for a reform of tech company power for some time, including the reformation of Section 230. Moreover, politicians talk a big game about coming down on these tech companies but never really seem to move on their threats or declarations.

Ever wonder why? Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard will tell you.

The clip picks up with Gabbard explaining that Google does indeed pick and choose what search results come up at the top of every search and she experienced that herself during her campaign for President. She then transitioned that to section 230.

“What this comes down to is, section 230 gives them this legal immunity because the idea is that they are just this neutral platform, kind of like a town square,” said Gabbard.

“This is distinct and different from somebody like the New York Times, for example, or any major media platform that does not have legal immunity because they are publishers, and they do pick and choose what news stories they publish, what letters do the editor’s ar printed, what kind of op-eds are put on their platform, and they make those decisions knowing they are legally liable.”

Gabbard noted that these platforms are now acting as publishers as they are now making editorial decisions while maintaining a legal immunity under section 230.

Gabbard then discussed her recent legislation that would reform section 230, which would remove the broad protections provided by the law and make things a bit more precise in what Silicon Valley giants can get away with.

It seems like a pretty obvious move so why hasn’t it been done yet? Gabbard lets us in on a little Capitol Hill secret.

“The real question we should all be asking is ‘why hasn’t it been fixed yet?'” said Gabbard.

Gabbard notes that despite all the committee hearings and big talk, nothing has been done. So why?

“It goes to money,” said Gabbard.

“I’ve seen it happen,” she continued. “Google will have a bit reception and members of congress will go and pick up their checks. Facebook will have a big reception and they’ll go and ‘hey, where’s my check?'”

Tulsi Gabbard Pulls Back the Curtain On Why Congress Won't Act Against Big Tech

Tulsi seems like a gem compared to other politicians. If what she is asserting is accurate, then tech platforms are become much more like news platforms (she mentioned NYTs) and less like a neutral host of content. It means the tech platforms should be held to the same standards as news publishers.

 

[n_huffhines]

See, you're just not understanding that your championing of cancel culture is going to place you in the same category as the prior ones in due time. Its funny and sad at the same time. The short sightedness is the funny part.

I'll be sure to come to you for tips to cope with being canceled when it happens.

 

[hog88]

That's what great great great Grandpa hog said when then next generation started taking photos.

I could track my daughter, daughter in law and both sisters in law daily movements by their facebook (wife says instagram also) posts. Then one of the SIL and my DIL gets pissed when they don't get enough likes or a particular person doesn't like them. It's not healthy or smart.

Hey, look at me I'm out of the house and no ones home.

 

[RikidyBones]

Huff and the homophobe in 20 years :

 

[hog88]

Tulsi seems like a gem compared to other politicians. If what she is asserting is accurate, then tech platforms are become much more like news platforms (she mentioned NYTs) and less like a neutral host of content. It means the tech platforms should be held to the same standards as news publishers.

She's probably not long for political office.

 

[n_huffhines]

Tulsi seems like a gem compared to other politicians. If what she is asserting is accurate, then tech platforms are become much more like news platforms (she mentioned NYTs) and less like a neutral host of content. It means the tech platforms should be held to the same standards as news publishers.

She's pretty great but this would ruin the internet and there is no reasonable way to even go about this. It would lead to more censorship, not less.

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.

 

[McDad]

I think it's wrong to cancel people because of their religion, sexuality, race, heritage, party affiliation, etc. I think canceling people because of hatefulness is acceptable. Please tell me you can see the difference.

I think I understand where you are.

I have a different thought. I would like to see hatefulness encouraged. I want the hateful and the hated out on full display. If they don't feel comfortable expressing their views, we will never know who to invalidate.

 

[n_huffhines]

I could track my daughter, daughter in law and both sisters in law daily movements by their facebook (wife says instagram also) posts. Then one of the SIL and my DIL gets pissed when they don't get enough likes or a particular person doesn't like them. It's not healthy or smart.

Hey, look at me I'm out of the house and no ones home.

Sounds like they are the problem, not the tech.

 

[hog88]

Sounds like they are the problem, not the tech.

I didn't say the tech was the problem now did I.

 

[n_huffhines]

I think I understand where you are.

I have a different thought. I would like to see hatefulness encouraged. I want the hateful and the hated out on full display. If they don't feel comfortable expressing their views, we will never know who to invalidate.

OK, but to get that, you're going to have to infringe on the freedom of others and what they do with their web properties.

 

[McDad]

She's pretty great but this would ruin the internet and there is no reasonable way to even go about this. It would lead to more censorship, not less.

Tulsi is claiming the tech platforms are choosing content just as the news publishers. Therefore, they should be treated the same.

Wouldn't tech platforms (some platforms) simply revert back to a neutral approach to content if they were treated as news publishers because of choosing content?

 

[McDad]

OK, but to get that, you're going to have to infringe on the freedom of others and what they do with their web properties.

encouraging the idiot to post gay slurs, racial epithets, etc infringes on freedom? You lost me. Can you help my understand?

 

[hog88]

Tulsi is claiming the tech platforms are choosing content just as the news publishers. Therefore, they should be treated the same.

Wouldn't tech platforms (some platforms) simply revert back to a neutral approach to content if they were treated as news publishers because of choosing content?

It seems reasonable to me that they would in order to keep their 230 protection.

 

[n_huffhines]

Tulsi is claiming the tech platforms are choosing content just as the news publishers. Therefore, they should be treated the same.

Wouldn't tech platforms (some platforms) simply revert back to a neutral approach to content if they were treated as news publishers because of choosing content?

For this to work, it has to be completely objective. The only way objectively say they are neutral is to allow absolutely no moderation and then FB becomes a cesspool of pornography, violence, FB live shootings, all that **** is on there now and they can't turn it off because if they choose content, they become a publisher.

If they are allowed to moderate, then it just becomes constant litigation about what is neutral and what is not, which is completely subjective.

These ideas don't work. Freedom works best.

 

[n_huffhines]

encouraging the idiot to post gay slurs, racial epithets, etc infringes on freedom? You lost me. Can you help my understand?

If you force Facebook to host that stuff on their platform, you are infringing on FB's freedom.

 

[McDad]

For this to work, it has to be completely objective. The only way objectively say they are neutral is to allow absolutely no moderation and then FB becomes a cesspool of pornography, violence, FB live shootings, all that **** is on there now and they can't turn it off because if they choose content, they become a publisher.

If they are allowed to moderate, then it just becomes constant litigation about what is neutral and what is not, which is completely subjective.

These ideas don't work. Freedom works best.

I see your position much better now. Thanks.

I wasn't thinking about porn, killings, etc. You have a point. FB isn't held to the FCC standards because they are not broadcast over the airwaves. It complicates and completely neutral approach.

 

[RikidyBones]

I think I understand where you are.

I have a different thought. I would like to see hatefulness encouraged. I want the hateful and the hated out on full display. If they don't feel comfortable expressing their views, we will never know who to invalidate.

I don't think it's about invalidating. It's about learning from one another. It's about having a culture that accepts and celebrates differences. Cancelling doesn't put the fire out. It's spreads it. Now the family thinks the cancellers are evil because they know the person day in and day out and they may be loving, generous, etc outside of that moment or of that one opinion.

Think about this Parler issue. We see the purging of people who believe in QAnon. We see a handful of people decide they will have less access to discuss than people who believe Russia hacked our election. Does that help? Absolutely not. I have no idea what QAnon is but I look at these actions and join their side in thinking the tech giants have massively overstepped. So that issue has now grown and expanded. Furthering a divide. We will regret this as a society one day if we let it happen.

 

[McDad]

If you force Facebook to host that stuff on their platform, you are infringing on FB's freedom.

No one would force them. They would choose neutrality or publishing.

We can drop this discussion because it is moot relative to your other point acknowledged earlier.

 

[hog88]

I see your position much better now. Thanks.

I wasn't thinking about porn, killings, etc. You have a point. FB isn't held to the FCC standards because they are not broadcast over the airwaves. It complicates and completely neutral approach.

I don't see why it would be so hard to identify and moderate blatantly violent or pornographic content.

 

[n_huffhines]

I see your position much better now. Thanks.

I wasn't thinking about porn, killings, etc. You have a point. FB isn't held to the FCC standards because they are not broadcast over the airwaves. It complicates and completely neutral approach.

I think that FB live shooting was pretty much the start of heavy-handed moderation. FB got crushed for that, as if they should have planned around the prospect of that happening. We want disruptive tech and we want it perfect without the chaos. We are hard to please.

 

[RikidyBones]

If you force Facebook to host that stuff on their platform, you are infringing on FB's freedom.

Disagree. They have a choice. If they want to moderate, they are liable like NYT. If they want the benefits of section 230, don't moderate. It's not infringing on freedom at all.

I would place hosting and server services as utilities at the very least. What Amazon did to Parler is outrageous.

 

[RikidyBones]

I think that FB live shooting was pretty much the start of heavy-handed moderation. FB got crushed for that, as if they should have planned around the prospect of that happening. We want disruptive tech and we want it perfect without the chaos. We are hard to please.

I think it's Sweden but one of the EU countries only allows the moderation of illegal activity. I think this provision fixes your problem.

 

[McDad]

I think that FB live shooting was pretty much the start of heavy-handed moderation. FB got crushed for that, as if they should have planned around the prospect of that happening. We want disruptive tech and we want it perfect without the chaos. We are hard to please.

There was a shooting on FB live???

Glad I'm not on that platform.

 

[Y9 Vol]

There was a shooting on FB live???

Glad I'm not on that platform.

Dang...I missed it!

 

[RikidyBones]

There was a shooting on FB live???

Glad I'm not on that platform.

It was of a mosque or something iirc