Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

SECTION 230 REFORM


and-then

Recommended Posts

https://nypost.com/2020/05/29/what-is-section-230-and-why-was-it-created/

The Communications Decency Act was created in the 90s and has been chiefly responsible for the wealth generated by these platforms.  They were given a blanket shield against liability by those who post content on their platform.  

It has become glaringly apparent that Social Media platforms online are using various mechanisms from demonetizing, shadow banning and open banning of those who lean Conservative.  Their rationale is that they are private companies and can "moderate" as they see fit.  

Trump's recent Executive Order designed to remove part of that "shield" in defense of free speech was designed as a shot across the bow against social media monopolies using their sites to suppress free speech.  

So, for those who think this should not be allowed, please explain why such ubiquitous platforms, monopolies, should be able to suppress the speech of millions of Americans in the context of access to their platforms.  When the law was originally passed, the internet was still in its infancy.  Today, a staggering amount of opinion, exchange of political speech and advertising for or against candidates is provided by these monopolies.  I think section 230 needs to be revamped to include protections for ALL AMERICANS to be able to put their views out there just like the Dems do now.  If the owners refuse then I hope anti-trust laws are applied to them.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you take the shield away and let them be sued for the content of their users, they will merely ban everyone from posting.  That would be a far greater hit to the first amendment.  Not that I am expecting anything to happen.  Trump did his executive order and Twitter, Facebook, and the like promptly ignored him. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make your own platform, or promote the platform you agree with. Who wants government overreach?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Make your own platform, or promote the platform you agree with. Who wants government overreach?

Republicans do. As long as it's not a Democrat doing the overreaching. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

Republicans do. As long as it's not a Democrat doing the overreaching. 

You: D overreach good. R overreach bad.

Me: Any overreach is bad.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there is a bias when it comes to these platforms banning and censorship.

But I don't see how this helps. I feel like if a platform can be sued for the content on it's platform then that just encourages the platform to ban even more content to avoid lawsuits?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just label it for what it is which is  propaganda and everything will be fine...

Quote

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which was contained within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (section 1078 (a)) amended the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, allowing for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be available within the United States.[1][2

...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith–Mundt_Act

~

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

You: D overreach good. R overreach bad.

Me: Any overreach is bad.

I never said D overreach was good...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phone companies are private, yet they do not censor what you say over their networks.  Why is printed speech allowed to be censored while spoken speech is not?  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that Trump isn't trying to revoke Section 230 (that would make social media sites/forums etc. impossible to run), the executive order is a bit more specific than that and doesn't really hold much merit in practice:

Quote

The EO asserts that media companies that edit content apart from restricting posts that are violent, obscene or harassing, as outlined in the "Good Samaritan" clause §230(c)(2), are then "engaged in editorial conduct" and may forfeit any safe-harbor protection granted in §230(c)(1).[89] From that, the EO specifically targets the "Good Samaritan" clause for media companies in their decisions to remove offensive material "in good faith"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#Executive_Order_on_Preventing_Online_Censorship

Ultimately this is more of a political stunt on Trump's part than something that is likely to ever actually happen.

Quote

By June 2, 2020, the Center for Democracy & Technology filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking preliminary and permanent injunction from the EO from being enforced, asserting that the EO created a chilling effect on free speech since it puts all hosts of third-party content "on notice that content moderation decisions with which the government disagrees could produce penalties and retributive actions, including stripping them of Section 230s protections".[97]

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Make your own platform, or promote the platform you agree with. Who wants government overreach?

Yes, the irony of the people who scream about the government getting involved in their private lives now screaming to get the government involved in their private lives is rather strong with this one. 
 

The First Amendment means the government cannot silence you, not private companies.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, and then said:

https://nypost.com/2020/05/29/what-is-section-230-and-why-was-it-created/

The Communications Decency Act was created in the 90s and has been chiefly responsible for the wealth generated by these platforms.  They were given a blanket shield against liability by those who post content on their platform.  

It has become glaringly apparent that Social Media platforms online are using various mechanisms from demonetizing, shadow banning and open banning of those who lean Conservative.  Their rationale is that they are private companies and can "moderate" as they see fit.  

Trump's recent Executive Order designed to remove part of that "shield" in defense of free speech was designed as a shot across the bow against social media monopolies using their sites to suppress free speech.  

So, for those who think this should not be allowed, please explain why such ubiquitous platforms, monopolies, should be able to suppress the speech of millions of Americans in the context of access to their platforms.  When the law was originally passed, the internet was still in its infancy.  Today, a staggering amount of opinion, exchange of political speech and advertising for or against candidates is provided by these monopolies.  I think section 230 needs to be revamped to include protections for ALL AMERICANS to be able to put their views out there just like the Dems do now.  If the owners refuse then I hope anti-trust laws are applied to them.

Your hero is having people in Portland kidnapped, and disappeared. All else is b.s until this is stopped. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.