Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act allows Twitter and Facebook to censor. They are classified as 'content providers' but they are acting like 'publishers'. By censoring, they are picking and choosing what gets published. If they were re-classified as 'publishers', they would be liable for all content on their websites.
Based on how things normally go in congress, Big Tech will write a new version of section 230 that will help them and screw all the smaller sites like us.
If you think that the big sites will sink without 230 at this point you're delusional. All that happens is every small website hosting user generated content, like this one or bitchute or video.maga.host or anything else gets brigaded by the cancel commies with CP or pirated movies and the next day every site but twitter and facebook is gone.
If for example, a user on this site wrote something that could be considered slander, a death threat, etc, the site owners could be sued for allowing slander to exist here. The site would be targeted by the left, and brought down quickly.
Also there is rampant misinformation about what 230 would lead to. It is quite literally the death of social media - no platforms could exist if they were liable for all content. It would be China levels of censorship to avoid lawsuits.
230 doesn't allow them to censor, it's supposed to discourage censorship because it protects them from liability for user content. The problem is it's not being interpreted in a way that large multi-billion dollar "platforms" lose their platform status if they don't allow free-speech content.
Without 230, it would make all community websites impossible. I've seen a lot of posts here which, if the hosts were liable, would easily drive them into bankruptcy or worse.
230 needs to be re-interpreted in the context of monopolies and anti-Trust and billion dollar companies. Just saying all companies are legally responsible for everything people post on their site would be another form of tyranny. To be clear, if you get to a certain size you should be required to observe free-speech protection and special oversight and transparency. That is a much better solution than nuking every small company who can't implement mass censorship and legal teams to insulate themselves from liability. If 230 goes away, every community driven company smaller than Google, Facebook, etc. would be immediately driven to bankruptcy.
Trumps NEGOTIATING. Why do you act as if the "deal" is finalized? Why do you imagine YOU know these basic things but that media/tech/communications.genius Trump doesn't? Lol.
Its a legal protection that absolves them from responsibility of posts to their site, ie threats of violence, copy right infringement, anything illegal. They are not supposed to be editorial though
How about no more Big Tech censoring and publishing fake news with inpunity. They can be sued to oblivion. Do you remember why this site was made in the first place? This is pay back.
Basically you can go on Twitter and post "Orange Man Good" and some triggered lefty can sue Twitter for promoting hate speech because you like literally raped their eyes. Basically, they are spending all their income on civil defense in court.
I still don’t know what 230 is or how it influences twitter. I’ve read about it but I guess I’m retarded
Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act allows Twitter and Facebook to censor. They are classified as 'content providers' but they are acting like 'publishers'. By censoring, they are picking and choosing what gets published. If they were re-classified as 'publishers', they would be liable for all content on their websites.
We lose our protection......
That is true but remember we know how to control our emotions and have generally a better sense of decency and fairness over the left.
Doesn’t the government just need to enforce the laws on the books vs destroy 230? Problem is the government is full of communist I guess.
Based on how things normally go in congress, Big Tech will write a new version of section 230 that will help them and screw all the smaller sites like us.
Fuck no it isn't.
If you think that the big sites will sink without 230 at this point you're delusional. All that happens is every small website hosting user generated content, like this one or bitchute or video.maga.host or anything else gets brigaded by the cancel commies with CP or pirated movies and the next day every site but twitter and facebook is gone.
Honest question. How so?
If for example, a user on this site wrote something that could be considered slander, a death threat, etc, the site owners could be sued for allowing slander to exist here. The site would be targeted by the left, and brought down quickly.
Also there is rampant misinformation about what 230 would lead to. It is quite literally the death of social media - no platforms could exist if they were liable for all content. It would be China levels of censorship to avoid lawsuits.
All companies operating on the internet in America would.
Which means it would force new legislation which could account for these new tech monopolies, not a bill written in '96 for a bulletin board.
No we wouldn't. We admit our bias.
230 doesn't allow them to censor, it's supposed to discourage censorship because it protects them from liability for user content. The problem is it's not being interpreted in a way that large multi-billion dollar "platforms" lose their platform status if they don't allow free-speech content.
Without 230, it would make all community websites impossible. I've seen a lot of posts here which, if the hosts were liable, would easily drive them into bankruptcy or worse.
230 needs to be re-interpreted in the context of monopolies and anti-Trust and billion dollar companies. Just saying all companies are legally responsible for everything people post on their site would be another form of tyranny. To be clear, if you get to a certain size you should be required to observe free-speech protection and special oversight and transparency. That is a much better solution than nuking every small company who can't implement mass censorship and legal teams to insulate themselves from liability. If 230 goes away, every community driven company smaller than Google, Facebook, etc. would be immediately driven to bankruptcy.
Trumps NEGOTIATING. Why do you act as if the "deal" is finalized? Why do you imagine YOU know these basic things but that media/tech/communications.genius Trump doesn't? Lol.
Its a legal protection that absolves them from responsibility of posts to their site, ie threats of violence, copy right infringement, anything illegal. They are not supposed to be editorial though
And what would be the benefit and consequence of repealing it?
How about no more Big Tech censoring and publishing fake news with inpunity. They can be sued to oblivion. Do you remember why this site was made in the first place? This is pay back.
Draw me a map of how repeal of section 230 gets the big tech sites sued into oblivion for censorship and fake news. I'll wait.
Basically you can go on Twitter and post "Orange Man Good" and some triggered lefty can sue Twitter for promoting hate speech because you like literally raped their eyes. Basically, they are spending all their income on civil defense in court.
They would be open to lawsuits
I am as well. lets take the short bus together
Basically immunity for the content on their site. However they censor, which would make them a publisher.