+and-then Posted July 17, 2020 #1 Share Posted July 17, 2020 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted July 17, 2020 #2 Share Posted July 17, 2020 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. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted July 17, 2020 #3 Share Posted July 17, 2020 Make your own platform, or promote the platform you agree with. Who wants government overreach? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotic Jew Posted July 17, 2020 #4 Share Posted July 17, 2020 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted July 17, 2020 #5 Share Posted July 17, 2020 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. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted July 17, 2020 #6 Share Posted July 17, 2020 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted July 17, 2020 #7 Share Posted July 17, 2020 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 ~ 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotic Jew Posted July 17, 2020 #8 Share Posted July 17, 2020 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... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jim Posted July 17, 2020 #9 Share Posted July 17, 2020 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? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted July 17, 2020 #10 Share Posted July 17, 2020 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] 2 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted July 17, 2020 #11 Share Posted July 17, 2020 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankenhunter Posted July 17, 2020 #12 Share Posted July 17, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now