Early in the life of the World Wide Web, there were two online communities. One was called CompuServe and one was called Prodigy.
CompuServe did not filter or curate their content.
Prodigy employed people who were charged with policing, editing, and removing content that violated whatever rules they decided were important.
Both were sued for content on their platforms.
CompuServe's lawsuit was dismissed. Prodigy's was not.
Section 230 was enacted TO PROTECT PLATFORMS THAT CURATE THEIR CONTENT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS. What we have today is an inevitable consequence. It gives far too much power to moderators and that's where the democrats take over and dig in.
A repeal of section 230 would not be damaging to platforms that Do NOT censor content. The CompuServe lawsuit is precedent.
A practical example? Users will become much more familiar with the "hide" button below each post.
God how i miss the wild west days of the internet... sure speeds were slow as fuck, but anything went and the world was your oyster.
Is Usenet still up? I haven't had a newsgroup reader for 10 or 15 years.
Lol I have no idea, tbh I've never used it. My hayday on the internet was 95-2008ish. Basically high school through college era. I never was serious about things, just tried to enjoy everything that everyone else thought I shouldn't lol.
Usenet was the real wild west. It had discussion of any topic, pirated everything, any kind of content, jihadists, coded messages. It was nuts.
Thanks for posting that.
What's amazing about it is, as always, if the law were actually enforced as written, it would probably be fine.
A first-year law student could prove that the behavior of Big Internet companies violates the "in good faith" test.
Thank you for the clarification. Trump should probably tweet this information so companies like Parler know they're not being targeted.
Yeah Andrew Torba doesn't seem to understand it either. His platform is 100 percent hands off unless laws are violated. I would have no problem if the entire Internet were that way.
It's understandable. I read it, more than once, and also understood it as protecting platforms from being liable for user content. But this does make more sense, because I thought that would have already been covered under the DMCA.
Does Trump intend to repeal the entire NDAA? If not, why not?
I will have to read more before replying to the other stuff.
Without enforcing the 'in good faith' part, it really protects platforms for curating their content, no matter their bias. This allows them to limit a post by the president of the United States while allowing the ayatollahs to threaten Israel and Antifa to organize.
Respectfully, I disagree. Your interpretation was exactly what my post intended to address. It only protects platforms from liability AFTER curating their content. Platforms that do not curate are not in any danger. Section 230 does not protect Gab. The CompuServe ruling protects Gab.
As I mentioned, the law is not enforced properly since nobody thinks Facebook or Twitter silence conservatives "in good faith".
As an aside, your example doesnt apply. President Trump is a public figure. Section 230 doesn't protect people slandering and libeling him.