Section 230 does not create any distinctions between 'platform' and 'publisher', and platforms like Facebook are operating within the law when they excessively censor conservatives.
THAT is the problem. The Section 230 protections are offered to every content-hosting website unconditionally, even when the actions of private companies can effectively subvert the first amendment with their moderation policies.
I sit squarely in the camp for removing the 230 protections from Google, Facebook, and Twitter. I just thought I'd post this in case anyone was still wondering. Section 230 is terrible, but the law itself is on their side, unfortunately...
This is an interesting problem to have. It never used to be the case that platforms could become so large that their moderation choices would have de-facto free speech implications. We would be getting shit for banning leftists from this site if this was the only site they had to post on. If everyone in the US was on TheDonald and only TheDonald, it would be the exact same problem....
Section 230 does not create any distinctions between 'platform' and 'publisher', and platforms like Facebook are operating within the law when they excessively censor conservatives.
THAT is the problem. The Section 230 protections are offered to every content-hosting website unconditionally, even when the actions of private companies can effectively subvert the first amendment with their moderation policies.
I sit squarely in the camp for removing the 230 protections from Google, Facebook, and Twitter. I just thought I'd post this in case anyone was still wondering. Section 230 is terrible, but the law itself is *on their side*, unfortunately...
This is an interesting problem to have. It never used to be the case that platforms could become so large that their moderation choices would have de-facto free speech implications. We would be getting shit for banning leftists from this site if this was the only site they had to post on. If everyone in the US was on TheDonald and only TheDonald, it would be the exact same problem....
People here just don’t understand how 230 works. 230 only applies to content the host wants to keep. It does not apply to content they want to remove. It’s their servers and currently the law is such they can remove anything they want. They’re not forced to host anything they don’t want to host.
You have to pass a completely different bill or completely rewrite 230 to make them have to keep your content.
Remove protections for them. They are acting like a publisher. But removing entirely will destroy sites like this. Trolls will post stuff and owners will get sued until this site is taken down.
Right. We need to collectively figure out how large is too large a platform before they can be considered a public forum. When do the protections apply and when don't they. The sooner we have a clear answer to that, the more effective will be in getting it changed. But until then, I can't endorse throwing out Section 230 entirely.
Agreed. Twitter and FB both have actual news organizations, government officials, reporters, etc as members. Verified accounts. Who are publishing articles, information, opinions, etc. By Twitter and FB fact checking and censoring those, they qualify as a publisher. Sites like these are anonymous people. No one here is “verified” except for a mod. We’re a message board that shares information from other sources. I don’t know the best way to draw the lines, but because FB and Twitter are the main ways most people on the internet communicate and get info, they need to be held accountable in some way. YouTube as well.