I agree with you, government shouldn't regulate speech online - large corps can afford the fees, others will be doomed to controlled speech and bullshit comedy sketches like it was some kind of USSR on crack
I'm all for busting up some monopolies though, makes other platforms more competitive.
removing section 230 could backfire according to this article and many similar articles. Unless we're clearly definining what's approved and unapproved content - is there a universal filter that can be created somehow? I don't think so but if there is one I think the individual should have control over that filter, not the government - with some obviously illegal things that should be unaccessible. This comes back to the need for a digital bill of rights so other's rights are protected online.
Instead of hobbling the big tech firms that Trump and others despise, it would make them more powerful.
lol, no. It would bankrupt big tech, because they'd have to rewrite their platforms faster than they could be sued out of existence, which is pretty fast. And in their place, would be the return of the personal platforms. People hosting their own websites again.
reason.com is about as trustworthy as any other MSM outlet. Meaning, not at all. Use an archive link next time and stop sending them traffic.
Internet platforms should be common carriers. Should a utility company be able to turn off the power to group for having some unwanted opinion? No. Neither should FB. Poland has the idea. Make it Illegal to censor anything not illegal. Simple.
I can't say whether it's a good idea or not, but I can say that article is utter trash.
It's blatently biased.
Has no actual legal overview of the issue.
Is pure opinion.
I agree with you, government shouldn't regulate speech online - large corps can afford the fees, others will be doomed to controlled speech and bullshit comedy sketches like it was some kind of USSR on crack
I'm all for busting up some monopolies though, makes other platforms more competitive.
removing section 230 could backfire according to this article and many similar articles. Unless we're clearly definining what's approved and unapproved content - is there a universal filter that can be created somehow? I don't think so but if there is one I think the individual should have control over that filter, not the government - with some obviously illegal things that should be unaccessible. This comes back to the need for a digital bill of rights so other's rights are protected online.
If they do not remove it, you riot, protest, rebel until they do!
lol, no. It would bankrupt big tech, because they'd have to rewrite their platforms faster than they could be sued out of existence, which is pretty fast. And in their place, would be the return of the personal platforms. People hosting their own websites again.
reason.com is about as trustworthy as any other MSM outlet. Meaning, not at all. Use an archive link next time and stop sending them traffic.
personal websites would be nice - I guess comments will be self moderated again.
not bad to be honest, not bad at all.
Internet platforms should be common carriers. Should a utility company be able to turn off the power to group for having some unwanted opinion? No. Neither should FB. Poland has the idea. Make it Illegal to censor anything not illegal. Simple.