long story short, social media companies enjoy liability protections because they are a public square. They aren't held to editorial standards that could expose them to libel/slander/content suits because they can't control what users post therefore it is seen as a public good basically. Now that they are censoring and editing content, specifically conservatives, and most specifically the president, the protection should be lifted. This opens the door for libel, slander, child porn, and many other lawsuits due to the revocation of their protection which basically renders it a useless entity.
Yes we would have 3-6 months of shutdowns on website due to the fear of liability, including this very site.
But Congress would step up quickly to write new legislation that would make it crystal clear as to how you gain liability protection.
It can be done but right now social media giants get the best of both worlds, the edit and censor like publishers while getting the protection of a platform.
One tweak they would need to add is fan based or lets saw a site focused on hunting. The Hunting website could censor/delete posts regarding PETA and not be forced to become publishers.
What can't happen is a site claiming to be a public forum like twtter and allow them to ban conservatives. If twitter declared they were a SJW site then by all means they can ban who they want but even then they started as an open forum so they might be stuck as being open (they abused being 'open' to gain massive followings, had they been declared SJW from day one it would have never grown).
Twitter has declared themselves an SJW site. Read their terms of use.
If Twitter branded themselves as "only for communists" tomorrow do you think there would be a mass exodus? Nope, people are addicted to followers.
I think you're right about the "they'd be forced to make a new law" thing, but the plan could backfire. It could just force the US out as a place for innovation in the networking space. We could wind up having to use foreign sites just to publish our thoughts, subject to their laws. I don't know about you but I'd rather be able to talk about the Holocaust or criticize Islam and maybe have to go to a smaller website, I'd rather be subject to the rules of websites which I can switch between than the laws of foreign governments.
Or the government could decide to write some fucked up law that regulates what we say online, not just protecting us from censorship. Or the government could write a law firmly entrenching the big tech sites as institutions online even more. Or the government could write a law that opens you or I up to lawsuits if we decide to make a website and try to keep it topic specific. What happens with a "free speech" law online if we try to deport commies on this website?
I just don't see a real solution to this other than "if you make the website you decide what people can say on it" which is what we have now. And I'd definitely rather have to pick a different website to have conversations on than be able to say whatever on twitter but not be able to run my own website and risk lawsuits. I think the solution to this big tech censorship stuff is to just not use big tech, which is what I personally do.
Yes . But along with them every other site that allows user content. Including THIS. But what is even more likely to happen is the big sites will employ much stricter filters and A WHOLE LOT OF MODERATORS . and the smaller sites will be completely dead . Because who the fuck would want to start a site with such liabilities hanging over your head.
you say this as if there is anything to lose. let me remind you the president of the US and leader of the free world is being censored on every post and conservatives are banned and censored from all forms of social media every single day.. at least there would be legal recourse for their blatant partisanship
I'm saying whatever I want online right now. We have this site and others like it to lose. If the president made an account on this site right now he would never be censored on the internet again.
If section 230 gets repealed some commie is going to come on this site and spam it with CP or links to download the black panther movie and then the next day this site will be gone. Where will we have left? Why, the only websites with the money for legal teams, lobbyists and moderation capacity, twitter and Facebook.
Repeal of section 230 is a trojan horse. The solution is to not use websites that don't let you say what you want.
Social media wasnt a thing in the 90s. its a 2000s phenomenon.
We need to fix 230. How to fix? simple? Freedom of speech aside from blatantly illegal materials (Child pornography, Doxing offenders etc) and minor discretionary restrictions (Gore, porn, Doxes, etc) Its a platform. If you start trying to editorialize the words of elected officials? You are now a Publisher.
I personally think there should be a new category called "Private Bulletin Board (PBB - pronounced "pub")" which gives some protections for immediate infringements (like with the platform) but has more stringent specifications like a publisher. Basically an inbetween. Also make copyright takedowns harder on full Platforms and easier on PBBs and Publishers. There legal liabilities protected. you chose your class of service.
Thats the most fair to most companies I think.
-Also internet bill of rights NOW.
So then what happens when I click that deport button when some commie shill comes on this website and says bullshit? We have to give them free speech here? How does that work?
If you think about this topic for 5 minutes a little bit you'll see that you simply cannot tell websites what sort of content they have to host. There is no legal solution to this problem. The solution is social in nature, a personal choice: don't use censorious platforms or big tech. The solution to the problem on a larger scope is based in a free market: people will move to places where they can have real conversations. Big tech will die due to this censorship on their own. There is no need for a law, only for another account on another website.
Did you even read what I wrote or nahh? You just went off?
Under what I wrote TDW is a PBB (pub). A private user forum with strict rules.. In fact most highly specialized forums are PBBs.
But besides the point, nothing here is about "legality" it's about status as a publisher or a platform. Ok a website doesnt want to hose certain content? thats their prerogative, just don't go expecting specialized protections for it
So you want the government to draw, in crayon, exactly every type of content every type of site can and cannot moderate?
What if I want to host anything anyone on my website wants to say, except criticism of myself? Am I a platform or a publisher or a pbb or whatever? Am I allowed to moderate furry hentai?
Yeah but it opens us up to the same lawsuits. It opens every single interactive website anyone has made or anyone is thinking of making to potential lawsuits.
long story short, social media companies enjoy liability protections because they are a public square. They aren't held to editorial standards that could expose them to libel/slander/content suits because they can't control what users post therefore it is seen as a public good basically. Now that they are censoring and editing content, specifically conservatives, and most specifically the president, the protection should be lifted. This opens the door for libel, slander, child porn, and many other lawsuits due to the revocation of their protection which basically renders it a useless entity.
They would get sued into bankruptcy overnight and would become a footnote in history books.
Yes we would have 3-6 months of shutdowns on website due to the fear of liability, including this very site.
But Congress would step up quickly to write new legislation that would make it crystal clear as to how you gain liability protection.
It can be done but right now social media giants get the best of both worlds, the edit and censor like publishers while getting the protection of a platform.
One tweak they would need to add is fan based or lets saw a site focused on hunting. The Hunting website could censor/delete posts regarding PETA and not be forced to become publishers.
What can't happen is a site claiming to be a public forum like twtter and allow them to ban conservatives. If twitter declared they were a SJW site then by all means they can ban who they want but even then they started as an open forum so they might be stuck as being open (they abused being 'open' to gain massive followings, had they been declared SJW from day one it would have never grown).
Twitter has declared themselves an SJW site. Read their terms of use.
If Twitter branded themselves as "only for communists" tomorrow do you think there would be a mass exodus? Nope, people are addicted to followers.
I think you're right about the "they'd be forced to make a new law" thing, but the plan could backfire. It could just force the US out as a place for innovation in the networking space. We could wind up having to use foreign sites just to publish our thoughts, subject to their laws. I don't know about you but I'd rather be able to talk about the Holocaust or criticize Islam and maybe have to go to a smaller website, I'd rather be subject to the rules of websites which I can switch between than the laws of foreign governments.
Or the government could decide to write some fucked up law that regulates what we say online, not just protecting us from censorship. Or the government could write a law firmly entrenching the big tech sites as institutions online even more. Or the government could write a law that opens you or I up to lawsuits if we decide to make a website and try to keep it topic specific. What happens with a "free speech" law online if we try to deport commies on this website?
I just don't see a real solution to this other than "if you make the website you decide what people can say on it" which is what we have now. And I'd definitely rather have to pick a different website to have conversations on than be able to say whatever on twitter but not be able to run my own website and risk lawsuits. I think the solution to this big tech censorship stuff is to just not use big tech, which is what I personally do.
Yes . But along with them every other site that allows user content. Including THIS. But what is even more likely to happen is the big sites will employ much stricter filters and A WHOLE LOT OF MODERATORS . and the smaller sites will be completely dead . Because who the fuck would want to start a site with such liabilities hanging over your head.
So, won’t this in theory just mean they would increase censorship across the board now? Since they would be liable for everything posted?
you say this as if there is anything to lose. let me remind you the president of the US and leader of the free world is being censored on every post and conservatives are banned and censored from all forms of social media every single day.. at least there would be legal recourse for their blatant partisanship
I'm saying whatever I want online right now. We have this site and others like it to lose. If the president made an account on this site right now he would never be censored on the internet again.
If section 230 gets repealed some commie is going to come on this site and spam it with CP or links to download the black panther movie and then the next day this site will be gone. Where will we have left? Why, the only websites with the money for legal teams, lobbyists and moderation capacity, twitter and Facebook.
Repeal of section 230 is a trojan horse. The solution is to not use websites that don't let you say what you want.
Or to modify section 230 so that when you censor legal content you loose protection.
I dont like this explanation.
Social media wasnt a thing in the 90s. its a 2000s phenomenon.
We need to fix 230. How to fix? simple? Freedom of speech aside from blatantly illegal materials (Child pornography, Doxing offenders etc) and minor discretionary restrictions (Gore, porn, Doxes, etc) Its a platform. If you start trying to editorialize the words of elected officials? You are now a Publisher.
I personally think there should be a new category called "Private Bulletin Board (PBB - pronounced "pub")" which gives some protections for immediate infringements (like with the platform) but has more stringent specifications like a publisher. Basically an inbetween. Also make copyright takedowns harder on full Platforms and easier on PBBs and Publishers. There legal liabilities protected. you chose your class of service.
Thats the most fair to most companies I think.
-Also internet bill of rights NOW.
Make Usenet Great Again
So then what happens when I click that deport button when some commie shill comes on this website and says bullshit? We have to give them free speech here? How does that work?
If you think about this topic for 5 minutes a little bit you'll see that you simply cannot tell websites what sort of content they have to host. There is no legal solution to this problem. The solution is social in nature, a personal choice: don't use censorious platforms or big tech. The solution to the problem on a larger scope is based in a free market: people will move to places where they can have real conversations. Big tech will die due to this censorship on their own. There is no need for a law, only for another account on another website.
Did you even read what I wrote or nahh? You just went off?
Under what I wrote TDW is a PBB (pub). A private user forum with strict rules.. In fact most highly specialized forums are PBBs.
But besides the point, nothing here is about "legality" it's about status as a publisher or a platform. Ok a website doesnt want to hose certain content? thats their prerogative, just don't go expecting specialized protections for it
So you want the government to draw, in crayon, exactly every type of content every type of site can and cannot moderate?
What if I want to host anything anyone on my website wants to say, except criticism of myself? Am I a platform or a publisher or a pbb or whatever? Am I allowed to moderate furry hentai?
Yeah but it opens us up to the same lawsuits. It opens every single interactive website anyone has made or anyone is thinking of making to potential lawsuits.
Thank you! Trying to research it back in the day had be confused. You summed it up!