McConnell introduces $2,000 COVID Relief bill tied to section 230 repeal and creation of election fraud committee
(www.wric.com)
🛑 STOP THE STEAL 🛑
Comments (577)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Sounds like a good reason to create new websites and not become a communist loving weirdo?
YouTube is a massive money drain on Google.
If you were to create a new site, you would need some form of regulation or a different method to host videos, like Bitchute, where it works like a P2P stream, rather than stream from a central server.
Problem with that is, you cant really live stream. Lots of content creators rely heavily on the ability to live stream because thats where they make most of their money.
You can upload videos and depend on donations, sure, but its not the same as getting over 1k in an hour if you're a popular guy, or around 500 a stream if you're lesser known.
This is where YouTube SHOULD be making its money from. That and advertisers. But they've went down the SJW road and completely fucked themselves. If they, and all of big tech, just left people alone and acted like a platform, 230 wouldn't be an issue. However, they abuse the shit out of the system and 230 is what keeps them shielded by lawsuits.
If repealed, it will lead to a mass censorship for sure. If reformed, it would potentially be one hell of a tool. But I'd rather see it repealed and replaced with something simple.
No special exceptions for anyone. Just a simple rule. If you're a platform, be a platform. No censorship unless its illegal. Allow people to post what ever the fuck they want, when they want. Allow advertisers to advertise on what ever they want to advertise on. Monetize people and leave them alone.
If you want to censor, then you are no longer a platform and you are now vulnerable for anything anyone posts because you are now a publisher.
Done and friggin done.
230 was supposed to be simple. It's called "the twenty six words that created the internet" so it's not a long bill.
All that is needed are a few simple amendments:
Any online interactive service provider which displays warnings, fact checks or other messaging intended to dissuade users from viewing a piece of content or from trusting a piece of content next to content generated by a user, or as a prerequisite from viewing content by a user shall, for the purposes of this bill be considered a publisher - This covers fact checks where they do not suspend content, but where they editorialize next to it
In the event that 15 or more users of an online service provider wish to form a class to allege that a service provider moderates their content contrary to the online service provider's terms of service, they may do so in court in a class action lawsuit. The losing party shall pay the winning party's fees and court costs. This clause shall supersede any binding arbitration requirements imposed by the service provider's terms of service - This covers cases where there is a clear bias against one particular group. The class action aspect requires that the plaintiffs can show a pattern of behavior and the losing party having to pay all court costs discourages frivolous lawsuits.