100 percent this there was and gab explains why here
The Big Tech giants want to be regulated.
Yes, you read that right.
Big Tech knows that if online speech is regulated by the federal government, either directly or indirectly via regulation of tech companies, they can and will weaponize it against The People and stifle competition.
Big Tech oligarchs have tried everything to destroy Gab.com and stop our industry-leading free speech software from reaching the masses.
They banned us from both app stores, yet we still continued to grow.
Then they banned us from hosting providers, so we built our own.
Then they banned us from Paypal, Stripe, Coinbase, Square, and more. So we educated our community on free speech money and the great people on Gab started mailing us physical checks to keep the site online.
Then they blacklisted my family from Visa in a Communist Chinese Party social credit score-style form of tyranny.
Despite being banned by 25+ service providers including domain registrars, hosting platforms, app stores, email services, ecommerce services, and more: Gab has survived and continues to thrive.
Gab exists outside of the establishment’s control. They don’t like this, at all. Their monopoly on the free flow of information is coming to an end because Gab is inevitable.
When all else has failed, Big Tech and the establishment have set their sights on using Big Government to crush Gab and other alternative technology startups by destroying Section 230 and lobbying for regulation of speech on the internet.
Regulation will solidify Big Tech’s already overpowered and abusive market monopolies.
What folks need to understand is that Section 230 does not protect the speech of Big Tech companies. When Big Tech “fact checks” user content they are acting as a publisher and Section 230 immunity does not apply. As such, they can be held accountable for that speech.
Section 230 doesn’t apply to Big Tech’s editorializing. The First Amendment does. Section 230 only applies to content that users post on their platforms. It provides no protections for Big Tech’s own speech. They can and should be punished for the false information they are giving the public by weaponizing this editorialization of user content
In the case of the Coronavirus, Big Tech has been using the WHO as an “authority” on health related matters instead of official health guidelines from the President of the United States. This is a matter of national security and public health.
The same goes for editorializing election-related content. By “fact checking” one candidate and not another Big Tech is giving an in-kind campaign contribution of enormous and immeasurable monetary value to the Biden campaign. Big Tech should be investigated by the FEC for these in-kind campaign contributions to the Biden campaign. The RNC has filed a report on it, so let’s hope the FEC takes action.
Big Tech had record stock market performance under the Trump administration and how are they repaying him?
By helping the Democrats spread the Russian hoax narrative.
By “fact checking” him and not Joe Biden.
By censoring links to news stories about Joe Biden.
The President can and should trust bust the Big Tech monopolies, in particular Apple and Google’s duopoly on mobile app distribution along with Facebook and Google’s duopoly on online advertising and search. The only big reason he hasn't is because Big Tech stocks make up a significant portion of the stock market growth he likes to tout.
If the market needs to take a hit in order to destroy a domestic threat to freedom and the flow of information online then so be it. We do not worship the stock market in America, we worship almighty God. Your 401k gains aren’t worth the future of the Republic, sorry.
My point is: don’t fall for the Section 230 narrative. It’s a distraction. There are plenty of other things that can be done to stop Big Tech tyranny.
The President vastly underestimates how much influence he has online. Trust busting, FEC investigations, and more aside: if the President were to promote free speech technology platforms like Gab the Big Tech panopticon would collapse on itself and fast.
I just hope the President realizes this before it’s too late.
Big Tech has been using the WHO as an “authority” on health related matters instead of official health guidelines from the President of the United States
was with you until here.
Either platforms editorialize and fact check at all (and become publishers)
or they remain a neutral platform and do zero editorials or fact checking (remaining a platform).
A sensible standard would be that platforms can moderate and delete content based on a set of standards as long as they are open about what they are, and they can also publish their own opinions separately, as long as they are clear which is which.
But if they "fact check" user content or otherwise editorialise about it, then they lose protection for the user content as it has become part of their own publication.
the only real solution to effective regulation is to go counter to logic. you must deliver what is least wanted by the biggest entities, counter to all of history's tax and economic policy here.
what is needed is a multi-tiered plan of exemptions by which only specific entities qualify for specific exemptions.
basically google and amazon should get nothing or the absolute minimum protection possible to provide by law. small entities, independent websites, and basically people with no money or backing or standing should get 100% protection at all times, and entities in the middle should get some limited protections but only that.
facebook, google, amazon should lose almost everything except the bare minimums required to do business reasonably.
large corporations should mostly lose 230 unless they specifically manage their website counter to the personal interests of the owners and allow/maintain free speech as a public square -- personally id be happier if these services were forced to register as nonprofit or something for it, but compromise could be obtained for medium to large size enterprises given certain concessions made over control.
independent websites should see no change whatsoever allowing lightly hand-moderated discussion forums and such with no copyright liability assuming fair and reasonable moderation. these people have little to no money often, are not businesses even (its uncommon today in the reddit world but still), and are run as hobbies.
people who arent violating free speech shouldnt be unfairly regulated out of the markets and out of the public square in favor of those capable of meeting excessive and specific unilateral regulations.
this is NOT FAIR to big business and every lobbyist in history would be after you since it actually SOLVES the problem without granting them their monopoly status.
I know this seems to go counter to logic but the point is to maintain both the library/archival and the digital public square while only regulating the individuals specifically causing an issue without bias towards anyone's individual socio-economic goals.
My perspective here is we SHOULD be listening to the nobodies and totally the ignoring the somebodies. especially with tech where pretty much any good coder can do a lot of shit in different ways that isnt really copyright infringement despite the needless lawsuits (theres more than equation for most problems lol).
the problem here is much similar to copyright enforcement -- running say this website, thedonald.win, its very hard to stop every user from posting a potentially copyrighted image and its not the administrator's fault that it would happen. If you go out and say "you need the most advanced google bot to prevent all potential infringement" not only have you just CREATED a defacto monopoly by law, but also priced out just about any normal individual who wanted to run a website that probably never would have any infringing content anyway.
so what you need is multiple systems of standards -- not just one tier. it may seem unfair, but its the only fair way. if you have a single-tier of justice for this type of crime than it becomes unfair to one group to the excess of the other.
what you want is equal unfairness. the solution nobody is asking for really. a multi-tier system where certain individuals are exempt and others arent based on things like content, intent, company size, and there should be complaint forms that citizens can file for those who receive exemptions that can begin investigation for a hearing to remove said exemptions should they violate the terms and requirements to obtain them.
If im running my own site i should have way less liability than facebook in terms of everything especially if its not even a business. facebook should have to spend way extra money on moderation and copyright enforcement than I do. individuals who violate free speech should lose protections but not those who dont or otherwise have no stakes in doing so.
That’s not the solution. The solution is to amend section 230 to clearly state that any platform who censors user content becomes a publisher and will have protections removed. That way the law is verbatim instead of implied.
The President vastly underestimates how much influence he has online. Trust busting, FEC investigations, and more aside: if the President were to promote free speech technology platforms like Gab the Big Tech panopticon would collapse on itself and fast.
I just hope the President realizes this before it’s too late.
100 percent this there was and gab explains why here
The Big Tech giants want to be regulated.
Yes, you read that right.
Big Tech knows that if online speech is regulated by the federal government, either directly or indirectly via regulation of tech companies, they can and will weaponize it against The People and stifle competition.
Big Tech oligarchs have tried everything to destroy Gab.com and stop our industry-leading free speech software from reaching the masses.
They banned us from both app stores, yet we still continued to grow.
Then they banned us from hosting providers, so we built our own.
Then they banned us from Paypal, Stripe, Coinbase, Square, and more. So we educated our community on free speech money and the great people on Gab started mailing us physical checks to keep the site online.
Then they blacklisted my family from Visa in a Communist Chinese Party social credit score-style form of tyranny.
Despite being banned by 25+ service providers including domain registrars, hosting platforms, app stores, email services, ecommerce services, and more: Gab has survived and continues to thrive.
Gab exists outside of the establishment’s control. They don’t like this, at all. Their monopoly on the free flow of information is coming to an end because Gab is inevitable.
When all else has failed, Big Tech and the establishment have set their sights on using Big Government to crush Gab and other alternative technology startups by destroying Section 230 and lobbying for regulation of speech on the internet.
Regulation will solidify Big Tech’s already overpowered and abusive market monopolies.
What folks need to understand is that Section 230 does not protect the speech of Big Tech companies. When Big Tech “fact checks” user content they are acting as a publisher and Section 230 immunity does not apply. As such, they can be held accountable for that speech.
Section 230 doesn’t apply to Big Tech’s editorializing. The First Amendment does. Section 230 only applies to content that users post on their platforms. It provides no protections for Big Tech’s own speech. They can and should be punished for the false information they are giving the public by weaponizing this editorialization of user content
In the case of the Coronavirus, Big Tech has been using the WHO as an “authority” on health related matters instead of official health guidelines from the President of the United States. This is a matter of national security and public health.
The same goes for editorializing election-related content. By “fact checking” one candidate and not another Big Tech is giving an in-kind campaign contribution of enormous and immeasurable monetary value to the Biden campaign. Big Tech should be investigated by the FEC for these in-kind campaign contributions to the Biden campaign. The RNC has filed a report on it, so let’s hope the FEC takes action.
Big Tech had record stock market performance under the Trump administration and how are they repaying him?
By helping the Democrats spread the Russian hoax narrative.
By “fact checking” him and not Joe Biden.
By censoring links to news stories about Joe Biden.
The President can and should trust bust the Big Tech monopolies, in particular Apple and Google’s duopoly on mobile app distribution along with Facebook and Google’s duopoly on online advertising and search. The only big reason he hasn't is because Big Tech stocks make up a significant portion of the stock market growth he likes to tout.
If the market needs to take a hit in order to destroy a domestic threat to freedom and the flow of information online then so be it. We do not worship the stock market in America, we worship almighty God. Your 401k gains aren’t worth the future of the Republic, sorry.
My point is: don’t fall for the Section 230 narrative. It’s a distraction. There are plenty of other things that can be done to stop Big Tech tyranny.
The President vastly underestimates how much influence he has online. Trust busting, FEC investigations, and more aside: if the President were to promote free speech technology platforms like Gab the Big Tech panopticon would collapse on itself and fast.
I just hope the President realizes this before it’s too late.
was with you until here.
Either platforms editorialize and fact check at all (and become publishers)
or they remain a neutral platform and do zero editorials or fact checking (remaining a platform).
A sensible standard would be that platforms can moderate and delete content based on a set of standards as long as they are open about what they are, and they can also publish their own opinions separately, as long as they are clear which is which.
But if they "fact check" user content or otherwise editorialise about it, then they lose protection for the user content as it has become part of their own publication.
they do want regulation.
the only real solution to effective regulation is to go counter to logic. you must deliver what is least wanted by the biggest entities, counter to all of history's tax and economic policy here.
what is needed is a multi-tiered plan of exemptions by which only specific entities qualify for specific exemptions.
basically google and amazon should get nothing or the absolute minimum protection possible to provide by law. small entities, independent websites, and basically people with no money or backing or standing should get 100% protection at all times, and entities in the middle should get some limited protections but only that.
facebook, google, amazon should lose almost everything except the bare minimums required to do business reasonably.
large corporations should mostly lose 230 unless they specifically manage their website counter to the personal interests of the owners and allow/maintain free speech as a public square -- personally id be happier if these services were forced to register as nonprofit or something for it, but compromise could be obtained for medium to large size enterprises given certain concessions made over control.
independent websites should see no change whatsoever allowing lightly hand-moderated discussion forums and such with no copyright liability assuming fair and reasonable moderation. these people have little to no money often, are not businesses even (its uncommon today in the reddit world but still), and are run as hobbies.
people who arent violating free speech shouldnt be unfairly regulated out of the markets and out of the public square in favor of those capable of meeting excessive and specific unilateral regulations.
this is NOT FAIR to big business and every lobbyist in history would be after you since it actually SOLVES the problem without granting them their monopoly status.
I know this seems to go counter to logic but the point is to maintain both the library/archival and the digital public square while only regulating the individuals specifically causing an issue without bias towards anyone's individual socio-economic goals.
My perspective here is we SHOULD be listening to the nobodies and totally the ignoring the somebodies. especially with tech where pretty much any good coder can do a lot of shit in different ways that isnt really copyright infringement despite the needless lawsuits (theres more than equation for most problems lol).
the problem here is much similar to copyright enforcement -- running say this website, thedonald.win, its very hard to stop every user from posting a potentially copyrighted image and its not the administrator's fault that it would happen. If you go out and say "you need the most advanced google bot to prevent all potential infringement" not only have you just CREATED a defacto monopoly by law, but also priced out just about any normal individual who wanted to run a website that probably never would have any infringing content anyway.
so what you need is multiple systems of standards -- not just one tier. it may seem unfair, but its the only fair way. if you have a single-tier of justice for this type of crime than it becomes unfair to one group to the excess of the other.
what you want is equal unfairness. the solution nobody is asking for really. a multi-tier system where certain individuals are exempt and others arent based on things like content, intent, company size, and there should be complaint forms that citizens can file for those who receive exemptions that can begin investigation for a hearing to remove said exemptions should they violate the terms and requirements to obtain them.
If im running my own site i should have way less liability than facebook in terms of everything especially if its not even a business. facebook should have to spend way extra money on moderation and copyright enforcement than I do. individuals who violate free speech should lose protections but not those who dont or otherwise have no stakes in doing so.
That’s not the solution. The solution is to amend section 230 to clearly state that any platform who censors user content becomes a publisher and will have protections removed. That way the law is verbatim instead of implied.
Well said!
Me too pede. Me too.
If it gets put on the .gov, their should be no speech regulations, barring what is already illegal.