The law just needs to be fixed. It was made to offer protection from bad actors on any forum.. chills come on here and many other good forums and post calls to violence or CP etc... TD would be held liable and shutdown by the current fbi without 230 just due to this. FB and Twitter would be called before Congress and talked to again.. they could eliminate all competing online forums that don’t agree with their current agenda..
230 needs to include - due to their “public” nature websites/companies can not violate people’s constitutional rights. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and free speech should all be protected.
This social contract in public spaces/domains has already been ruled as inherent in the constitution.. it just hasn’t been discussed in courts when it relates to online public spaces as far as I know.
Trump has rightfully assessed that the way "bureaucracy" works is that, nothing gets done unless you force the issue. You have to blow it up and people with "bigger" to lose will act and cooperate. He has done this so many times already.
Of course, it also means, he has to back the talk. In case they don't negotiate, it should be more hurtful for Big Tech than smaller companies.
Do other countries have section 230 immunity legislation? Do they suddenly have a collapsed internet websites? I don't think so. Granted, most of the biggest websites in the world are American.
I don't think it (removing section 230) is as bad as people think. Trump would have already calculated this. Not saying there is no impact, but I think the strategy is sound.
IMO revoking 230 would absolutely have a bad effect, but it would take time to appear. Nothing would happen until someone actually started suing a site over content on it, and then the courts would have to decide how to handle it now that 230 was gone. Hopefully somewhere around that point, a new/better version of 230 would be passed.
Trump is a risk-taker, he's probably willing to accept that trade-off in order to get reform.
The law just needs to be fixed. It was made to offer protection from bad actors on any forum.. chills come on here and many other good forums and post calls to violence or CP etc... TD would be held liable and shutdown by the current fbi without 230 just due to this. FB and Twitter would be called before Congress and talked to again.. they could eliminate all competing online forums that don’t agree with their current agenda..
230 needs to include - due to their “public” nature websites/companies can not violate people’s constitutional rights. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and free speech should all be protected. This social contract in public spaces/domains has already been ruled as inherent in the constitution.. it just hasn’t been discussed in courts when it relates to online public spaces as far as I know.
yeah sure. but how do you force it to happen?
Trump has rightfully assessed that the way "bureaucracy" works is that, nothing gets done unless you force the issue. You have to blow it up and people with "bigger" to lose will act and cooperate. He has done this so many times already.
Of course, it also means, he has to back the talk. In case they don't negotiate, it should be more hurtful for Big Tech than smaller companies.
Do other countries have section 230 immunity legislation? Do they suddenly have a collapsed internet websites? I don't think so. Granted, most of the biggest websites in the world are American.
I don't think it (removing section 230) is as bad as people think. Trump would have already calculated this. Not saying there is no impact, but I think the strategy is sound.
IMO revoking 230 would absolutely have a bad effect, but it would take time to appear. Nothing would happen until someone actually started suing a site over content on it, and then the courts would have to decide how to handle it now that 230 was gone. Hopefully somewhere around that point, a new/better version of 230 would be passed.
Trump is a risk-taker, he's probably willing to accept that trade-off in order to get reform.
Trump also has a lot of suits personally lined up, he's been against 230 because of the way people on social media are allowed to defame him.