I think repealing 230 suits big tech just fine, because they have developed the tech to censor at the rate required by our level of connection. There is just too much content to keep on top of without the automation and AI that they have developed in large part with military industrial complex. Repeal 230 and now TD is responsible for posts calling for jack'n'berg to face a firing squad. Take away 230 and maybe .wins are gone too?
Big tech are (currently) private companies. But they have come to serve the purpose of what should be a publicly available platform. That in and of itself isnt really the problem though... the problem is at the same time as wielding all that power, collectively they've become ideologically hypnotized and basically mass hysteria rules the day. Actually... I guess the real problem is that big tech is being used by military industrial complex tech to instill the mass hysteria... fuck.
I agree with you dude, repealing 230 doesn't seem to do anything but cause harm from my perspective. Even amending 230 to exclude dishonest platforms like Twitter doesn't really cut it. I've always assumed the social giants are prepped to go into full audit mode. The moment 230 goes away Twitter/Facebook etc go full communism and purges the posting capabilities of regular people from the platforms, or atleast anyone Google analytics even hints has conservative leanings. Purging 230 would begin a new draconian Era in the info wars. We need direct targeted action against those that claim to be unbiased but create automated, enforced, biased, information bubbles.
Here's what Dan Bongino had said back in September. Remember he is part owner in Parler and Rumble and I'm sure has great legal advice. He basically said removing 230 would actually lead to more silencing of conservative voices, because platforms would simply not allow any comments or discussion on any posts to avoid being sued. So social media would basically turn into digital newspapers with no discussion
Applies to companies owning platforms with more than 10M active users per month
Sounds like a great way to have certain sites like Twitter reducing "active membership" to blue checkmarks while the rest of us become mere viewers unable to submit content.
The companies you're attempting to work against have legions of lawyers whose job it is to make sure their company never has to follow the law as intended by exploiting the law as written. There won't be an easy solution.
I'm not sure whether paying 250 per post is actually different from ideological censorship.
Maybe the difference is whether your organization portrays itself as a public utility or a topic specific social club. Perhaps if the tos specifies the limits to speech (which the Donald does) that is sufficient... So if twitter can explain their policy they can keep 230 protections but they would be held to it. I like the ability to pay to dispute, but there should be a penalty for being found in violation, at a minimum you get your fee refunded.
Big tech has the capacity to scan and remove vast quantities of content. The tech is proprietary and likely expensive to license. Sites like this would be limited by the capacity to remove content fast enough and to litigate to keep posts it wants. Likely to run out of funding eventually. Or have to change so much it basically isnt .win anymore.
why?
Sec 230 protects site owners from what their users post. Without it, all posts are considered the owners, making them liable.
It only gives them those protections when they act as a neutral platform. Which they don't and arguably never have.
Yeah but TDW is not neutral. We have a deport button.
Everyone does.
This is about editing content.
I think repealing 230 suits big tech just fine, because they have developed the tech to censor at the rate required by our level of connection. There is just too much content to keep on top of without the automation and AI that they have developed in large part with military industrial complex. Repeal 230 and now TD is responsible for posts calling for jack'n'berg to face a firing squad. Take away 230 and maybe .wins are gone too?
Big tech are (currently) private companies. But they have come to serve the purpose of what should be a publicly available platform. That in and of itself isnt really the problem though... the problem is at the same time as wielding all that power, collectively they've become ideologically hypnotized and basically mass hysteria rules the day. Actually... I guess the real problem is that big tech is being used by military industrial complex tech to instill the mass hysteria... fuck.
Who knows. I'm just a canadian in canada.
I agree with you dude, repealing 230 doesn't seem to do anything but cause harm from my perspective. Even amending 230 to exclude dishonest platforms like Twitter doesn't really cut it. I've always assumed the social giants are prepped to go into full audit mode. The moment 230 goes away Twitter/Facebook etc go full communism and purges the posting capabilities of regular people from the platforms, or atleast anyone Google analytics even hints has conservative leanings. Purging 230 would begin a new draconian Era in the info wars. We need direct targeted action against those that claim to be unbiased but create automated, enforced, biased, information bubbles.
Hmm would maybe objectionable should be more clearly defined? That might be affective and alot less catastrophic than an outright liquidation of 230.
Here's what Dan Bongino had said back in September. Remember he is part owner in Parler and Rumble and I'm sure has great legal advice. He basically said removing 230 would actually lead to more silencing of conservative voices, because platforms would simply not allow any comments or discussion on any posts to avoid being sued. So social media would basically turn into digital newspapers with no discussion
Exactly, FB and Google lawyers would destroy smaller companies before anyone else.
Anyone deplatformed can sue them for the wages they lost from being deplatformed.
That's like 1000 suits instantly.
Web site owners will become liable for anything posted here
Sounds like a great way to have certain sites like Twitter reducing "active membership" to blue checkmarks while the rest of us become mere viewers unable to submit content.
The companies you're attempting to work against have legions of lawyers whose job it is to make sure their company never has to follow the law as intended by exploiting the law as written. There won't be an easy solution.
But then the sites like gab that actually don't censor ideologically will take on all Twitter's users who want to participate.
I'm not sure whether paying 250 per post is actually different from ideological censorship.
Maybe the difference is whether your organization portrays itself as a public utility or a topic specific social club. Perhaps if the tos specifies the limits to speech (which the Donald does) that is sufficient... So if twitter can explain their policy they can keep 230 protections but they would be held to it. I like the ability to pay to dispute, but there should be a penalty for being found in violation, at a minimum you get your fee refunded.
Why not just make ‘political affiliation’ a protected class?
If we have protected classes, yes. But do we want them?
Big tech has the capacity to scan and remove vast quantities of content. The tech is proprietary and likely expensive to license. Sites like this would be limited by the capacity to remove content fast enough and to litigate to keep posts it wants. Likely to run out of funding eventually. Or have to change so much it basically isnt .win anymore.