Yeah, to me it's not about 230 either, it's about saying Fuckbook and Twatter are publishers. I did see that proposal and it's an interesting tie into the existing law. Why sensor anything if it doesn't break law already created by elected representatives...
I agree that simply removing 230 would be a step backward, but a proper revision or replacement would be great if it addressed stuff like what you're listing here.
There needs to be clear separation between a Public Platform (which accepts all free speech, only limits based on the laws, and could accept public funding) and a Private Platform (which has internal rules that are agreed to and is either out to make its own money or follow its own passions/interests). We cannot have entities claiming to be both at the same time, just like how I cannot both be an owner of a home and a renter in it (rent to myself, receive rent writeoffs).
Wait you mean I can't do that? Because I started a side business and built a 1600 sq ft shop that my business pays me rent for. It's an LLC though so all income, though pass through, is still recorded and taxed. I digress.
Anyhow on the topic you make a lot of sense. I'm not saying 230 couldn't use revision, but I am saying that clearly FB and Twitter are publishers.
Totes. At this point, it would nearly be impossible for them to deny if they were properly squeezed by legal teams under oath instead of the B.S. we have been getting for years now with Congressional "Hearings". Hearings indeed; all TALK with no action!
Yeah, to me it's not about 230 either, it's about saying Fuckbook and Twatter are publishers. I did see that proposal and it's an interesting tie into the existing law. Why sensor anything if it doesn't break law already created by elected representatives...
I agree that simply removing 230 would be a step backward, but a proper revision or replacement would be great if it addressed stuff like what you're listing here.
There needs to be clear separation between a Public Platform (which accepts all free speech, only limits based on the laws, and could accept public funding) and a Private Platform (which has internal rules that are agreed to and is either out to make its own money or follow its own passions/interests). We cannot have entities claiming to be both at the same time, just like how I cannot both be an owner of a home and a renter in it (rent to myself, receive rent writeoffs).
Wait you mean I can't do that? Because I started a side business and built a 1600 sq ft shop that my business pays me rent for. It's an LLC though so all income, though pass through, is still recorded and taxed. I digress.
Anyhow on the topic you make a lot of sense. I'm not saying 230 couldn't use revision, but I am saying that clearly FB and Twitter are publishers.
Totes. At this point, it would nearly be impossible for them to deny if they were properly squeezed by legal teams under oath instead of the B.S. we have been getting for years now with Congressional "Hearings". Hearings indeed; all TALK with no action!