We do allow access to anyone but there are privileges to post. Anyone can view any of the content but to publish content you need to follow rules. It is important that the rules are clear and stated and apply to everyone equally. No one on fb can post pornography. Clear rule. On Twitter tho some people get banned for mentioning an ever evolving list of things and others can mention it and be fine. They are not stated as being forums for one side. Those kind of differences can and should be defined as subtleties in law. I’m fine w social media deciding and stating it is for the left upfront and then others wouldn’t join, we’d have our own. It should be clear though and not pretend to be neutral. That is the key. People think it’s neutral and so believe their news there’s is neutral. We don’t feign neutrality.
I agree this is how 230 should be handled as written. I do wonder tho, as helpful as the Donald has been, the destruction caused by echo chamber like Twitter and reddit is considerable. Are the echo chambers worth it? Would it be better to dissalow political censorship across the board? It is atleast worth considering.
Interesting point. Another way to continue to exist is a membership club. Not have it as a public platform. Could be nominal fee of a dollar to join but content would then be private but since we almost entirely link to other sites we could still share things outside of the site. But I think it would be great if the law were clearer. Really, it seems like if there was a thebiden website no one would expect it to be unbiased so censorship would be expected. But far be it for any common sense to enter the equation.
We do allow access to anyone but there are privileges to post. Anyone can view any of the content but to publish content you need to follow rules. It is important that the rules are clear and stated and apply to everyone equally. No one on fb can post pornography. Clear rule. On Twitter tho some people get banned for mentioning an ever evolving list of things and others can mention it and be fine. They are not stated as being forums for one side. Those kind of differences can and should be defined as subtleties in law. I’m fine w social media deciding and stating it is for the left upfront and then others wouldn’t join, we’d have our own. It should be clear though and not pretend to be neutral. That is the key. People think it’s neutral and so believe their news there’s is neutral. We don’t feign neutrality.
I agree this is how 230 should be handled as written. I do wonder tho, as helpful as the Donald has been, the destruction caused by echo chamber like Twitter and reddit is considerable. Are the echo chambers worth it? Would it be better to dissalow political censorship across the board? It is atleast worth considering.
Interesting point. Another way to continue to exist is a membership club. Not have it as a public platform. Could be nominal fee of a dollar to join but content would then be private but since we almost entirely link to other sites we could still share things outside of the site. But I think it would be great if the law were clearer. Really, it seems like if there was a thebiden website no one would expect it to be unbiased so censorship would be expected. But far be it for any common sense to enter the equation.
Right. The problem is that when you start having laws you very quickly trip over 1a issues. Also lawyers will find loopholes.
I don’t know. I don’t have an answer mind you. I just say it’s problematic.
I agree it’s definitely all problematic and complex! We can do better than what we have now though. Strong username ;)