Because big tech are the ones that secretly want it removed is my guess. If 230 is removed the wrong way, big tech would be the only internet forum survivors.
Or leave 230 in place, and let Facebook and Twitter censor everyone until their platforms are an empty wasteland of Chinese bots and everyone has moved on to other sites.
My take would be to qualify as a platform your code, data (except user authentication data), and process must all be open source and subject to audit on a regular basis. If you can't meet that then you are a publisher.
True. If you're a publisher, which is usually for legacy media, it makes sense for them. Here, anyone can post anything which makes it infinitely harder to police content
In my ideal rule the site would be able to choose and would simply be more or less restricted in their behavior based on that choice. There should also be some kind of safe harbor provision and reasonable time given to take down bad content, like with DMCA.
Yes like law breaking things. Fan page for child sex? No. Fan page for Trump. Leave it alone. Fan page for Leftrds? Leave alone. So reddit and Facebook can't delete groups that are legal. Plotting terrorism.. fine? Then fine them after warning? Donate fine to children burn hospital.
Perhaps something like an "aggregator" category, for crowd sourced forum boards and membership required sites designed to spread information. It'd need to be very carefully designed to prevent censorship but still allow for moderation of relevant content. Not sure how it could be done legally, but then again, I an not a lawyer, merely a student of the law and a technologist by trade.
.win would be considered a publisher as well. This site wouldn’t last a day before being sued into oblivion by trolls.
There needs to be a new category that is not a platform or publisher.
This is a private site it doesn't claim to be a public forum. Not sure how all that works.
I don't know why 230 even matters. The law trump should be creating is one that prevents them censoring any content at all
Because big tech are the ones that secretly want it removed is my guess. If 230 is removed the wrong way, big tech would be the only internet forum survivors.
Or leave 230 in place, and let Facebook and Twitter censor everyone until their platforms are an empty wasteland of Chinese bots and everyone has moved on to other sites.
That's just not going to happen. We coined the term too big to fail for a reason
Naive suggestion. The service would be flooded with illegal content, absent any moderation.
The solution you are looking for is simple: leave the abusive service.
Only use services that treat you fairly. Read the fine print before agreeing to the terms of service next time.
Can anyone register an account here?
Anyone can but when you make an account it said Trump supporters only so like I said not sure how it all works legally.
Well let me tell you how that works legally: this site is a public forum. It is publicly accessible.
This idea that you can pass a law that foolproof categorizes big tech separate from the rest of the web is a fantasy.
Whether registration/verificstion is required.
My take would be to qualify as a platform your code, data (except user authentication data), and process must all be open source and subject to audit on a regular basis. If you can't meet that then you are a publisher.
This is a good one too
True. If you're a publisher, which is usually for legacy media, it makes sense for them. Here, anyone can post anything which makes it infinitely harder to police content
In my ideal rule the site would be able to choose and would simply be more or less restricted in their behavior based on that choice. There should also be some kind of safe harbor provision and reasonable time given to take down bad content, like with DMCA.
Follow the rules of the constitution you’re free from 230... once you start to deviate from the constitution, you’re a publisher
Yes like law breaking things. Fan page for child sex? No. Fan page for Trump. Leave it alone. Fan page for Leftrds? Leave alone. So reddit and Facebook can't delete groups that are legal. Plotting terrorism.. fine? Then fine them after warning? Donate fine to children burn hospital.
Perhaps something like an "aggregator" category, for crowd sourced forum boards and membership required sites designed to spread information. It'd need to be very carefully designed to prevent censorship but still allow for moderation of relevant content. Not sure how it could be done legally, but then again, I an not a lawyer, merely a student of the law and a technologist by trade.