posted ago by Berret
+9 / -0
I get that 230 will should be reformed, because platforms like Twitter and Facebook are censoring our side and basically no one else, because of the "good faith" clause, and obviously they're exercising it in bad faith. However, if 230 completely goes away, from what I've read on here and other places, places like this will completely cease to exist, and commenting will go away on others. It'll just be whatever curated crap the "publisher" feels like putting out. I'm not some kind of concern shill, but I am concerned about this place being threatened or going away were 230 to just completely go away. Can someone please tell me in a reasoned manner why that won't be the case?
I get that 230 will should be reformed, because platforms like Twitter and Facebook are censoring our side and basically no one else, because of the "good faith" clause, and obviously they're exercising it in bad faith. However, if 230 completely goes away, from what I've read on here and other places, places like this will completely cease to exist, and commenting will go away on others. It'll just be whatever curated crap the "publisher" feels like putting out. I'm not some kind of concern shill, but I *am* concerned about this place being threatened or going away were 230 to just completely go away. Can someone please tell me in a reasoned manner why that won't be the case?
With 230, because it is being abused, the reaction is over aggressive. 230 needs to stay, but some kind of careful modification is needed. However, I don't trust government to understand nuance nor to do careful modification.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Because it is too broad and is abused. Get rid of it completely and start from scratch, otherwise all the extra legislative carve outs will remain even if it is amended.
A new bill should be explicit about what constitutes a platform and that the platform is not allowed to delete anything without a court order for removing speech or United States Citizen and Legal Resident speakers.
These platforms shall not artificially weight speech, such as google shadow banning some while artificially elevating others. If they are a search engine, then it should function with out bias.
If this is not the case, then they cannot be indemnified.
Here's my answer. It's probably not the best answer but it's the best I have.
Remember all of the arguments that the libertarians lodge against Lincoln? Suspending Habeas Corpus and other rights? They call him a tyrant for that.
It was all 100% necessary. Why? Because government on all levels was filled with people who would act on bad faith or worse were straight up compromised.
We're in the same situation now. Thankfully: President Trump is still our president.
All I have is my opinion. If speech is censored no 230 protection. If speech is free yes 230 protection. I don't see it going down like that only because that isn't complicated enough to work for the govt.
I’m actually having a good back and forth with someone else about this right now.
It’s nice having someone who is wanting to talk about their opinion on this instead of just calling each commies.
My understanding is that it's either a public square, where anyone can post anything or its a curated, editorialized platform.
Sites that invite public communication like this one would not disappear, per se, but moderators deleting, editing, slapping disclaimers on user content would go away if those platforms wish to enjoy their current protections.