230 was originally intended to protect internet service providers.. Just like you can't sue ATT for someone calling you over their lines with slanderous remarks
i don’t Understand 230. But I believe freedom of speech should be allowed. I thought 230 allowed for you to. It be prosecuted, for what others said. It wasn’t this “you get to censor freedom of speech bs”
Pretty much, yes. TDW has moderation, which means the site has demonstrated it takes responsibility for what is posted here and allowed to remain. If Section 230 is removed entirely, that means that the owners/operators of TDW can be held liable for any illegal or civil violations that take place on TDW. So if a meme has a copywritten image, TDW is responsible for that copyright violation. The site likely would not last very long at all if 230 were actually entirely removed.
It doesn't need to be repealed. It needs to be clarified that its intention is not and never was censorship within platforms that purport to be for everyone, based on vague things like "this is objectionable." It was meant to protect from prosecution and to allow censorship of some very specific things when they are being directed to a mass audience (porn, gore, etc). 230 needs to be revised and clarified.
As I understand it, the original purpose of section 230 was to apply to ISPs, so that they would not be held liable for criminal activity occurring on their networks. That would be much the same way that your phone provider isn't punished if you use their service for criminal activities. It was adapted (but not appropriately updated) to apply to things like social networks and particular websites. I'm no legal expert but the conclusion I've come to is that 230 doesn't need to be REPEALED, but it does need SERIOUS clarifications. There are way too many loopholes that websites and applications use to censor things in ways that are not appropriate, while simultaneously claiming to be "protected."
They claim "we are a free for all platform" while removing anything they find "objectionable," which is literally a term used in section 230 to "define" what can be removed. Anything can be "objectionable." It just depends on who you ask. I'm of the opinion that websites which cater to a particular audience and aren't a "free for all" shouldn't be held accountable for criminal activities construed as being organized or happening on their website UNLESS it's apparent that the owners intentionally participated in organizing or allowing it. Websites that claim to be platforms for everyone should be treated as utilities, meaning, they should not be allowed to censor and discriminate based on what they find "objectionable." There are terms in section 230 that are more specific and actually pertain to maintaining a level of decency for mass consumption. Simply stating something is "objectionable" is obviously not specific at all and can mean literally anything.
Judge: "it says el-oh-el-oh-el, kay-ee-kay, i would eat a yard of her bleep just to see where it came from then donkey punch her in the back of the head. Comment below reads 'updoot for that'"
230 was originally intended to protect internet service providers.. Just like you can't sue ATT for someone calling you over their lines with slanderous remarks
i don’t Understand 230. But I believe freedom of speech should be allowed. I thought 230 allowed for you to. It be prosecuted, for what others said. It wasn’t this “you get to censor freedom of speech bs”
Not*
exactly
Pretty much, yes. TDW has moderation, which means the site has demonstrated it takes responsibility for what is posted here and allowed to remain. If Section 230 is removed entirely, that means that the owners/operators of TDW can be held liable for any illegal or civil violations that take place on TDW. So if a meme has a copywritten image, TDW is responsible for that copyright violation. The site likely would not last very long at all if 230 were actually entirely removed.
It doesn't need to be repealed. It needs to be clarified that its intention is not and never was censorship within platforms that purport to be for everyone, based on vague things like "this is objectionable." It was meant to protect from prosecution and to allow censorship of some very specific things when they are being directed to a mass audience (porn, gore, etc). 230 needs to be revised and clarified.
I never said it did in my post.
I know. That was my inarticulate way of agreeing with you.
Ah, sometimes I get things. Only sometimes though.
As I understand it, the original purpose of section 230 was to apply to ISPs, so that they would not be held liable for criminal activity occurring on their networks. That would be much the same way that your phone provider isn't punished if you use their service for criminal activities. It was adapted (but not appropriately updated) to apply to things like social networks and particular websites. I'm no legal expert but the conclusion I've come to is that 230 doesn't need to be REPEALED, but it does need SERIOUS clarifications. There are way too many loopholes that websites and applications use to censor things in ways that are not appropriate, while simultaneously claiming to be "protected."
They claim "we are a free for all platform" while removing anything they find "objectionable," which is literally a term used in section 230 to "define" what can be removed. Anything can be "objectionable." It just depends on who you ask. I'm of the opinion that websites which cater to a particular audience and aren't a "free for all" shouldn't be held accountable for criminal activities construed as being organized or happening on their website UNLESS it's apparent that the owners intentionally participated in organizing or allowing it. Websites that claim to be platforms for everyone should be treated as utilities, meaning, they should not be allowed to censor and discriminate based on what they find "objectionable." There are terms in section 230 that are more specific and actually pertain to maintaining a level of decency for mass consumption. Simply stating something is "objectionable" is obviously not specific at all and can mean literally anything.
i am going to that court case.
Judge: "it says el-oh-el-oh-el, kay-ee-kay, i would eat a yard of her bleep just to see where it came from then donkey punch her in the back of the head. Comment below reads 'updoot for that'"
There is an assumption here that the servers for TDW are in the US. They may not be.
Yes. Its a bad idea all things considered.