Section 230 actually should not be repealed but the protections it gives to common carriers should not be extended to platforms that censor and editorialize their users.
When drug dealers arrange a deal over the phone, you think the phone company should be liable and sued? I don't. They can't and don't listen in on every call or block calls they don't like so it makes no sense to hold them responsible, it would financially destroy them and deprive us all of a telephone system.
But Facebook and Twitter do exactly that, so they should be liable for every crime or civil offense broadcast on their private networks.
It's legal protection for platforms against illegal content that users might post. Publishers, like newspapers and articles are liable for the content they push.
Well it would put the company in a position to be liable.
The expectation has been that threatening to remove 230 protections would cause the companies to stop censoring.
Actually removing 230 protections would presumably cause censorship to go through the roof... Or that some of the companies would stop censoring to keep their 230.
Weed pic isn't an easy example, but say it was actually illegal to post that picture, Facebook would/could get in trouble for it without 230.
I'm not sure what the exact rules are for publishers, whether they are immediately responsible for posts or if they have time to respond afterwards.
Repealing 230 could force Facebook to delete the group. Depending on how the phrase was interpreted...
Repealing 230 is retarded, not everyone is advocating for that. Removing 230 protections from censorious "platforms" (i.e.: regard them properly as publishers) is what you want.
In any scenario, it wouldn't be illegal (on its own) to delete the group. What would be illegal is Facebook lying to the courts about their censorship practices (in an attempt to maintain 230 status). Facebook also would be liable for a lot of other stuff should they lose their 230 protection, which they should.
I don't think the users would be accountable. It would be the company... Although Facebook could potentially file a civil suit against the users after the fact (doubt that would go anywhere)
A couple years ago, A court reinterpreted Section 230 to give the social media all these powers (180 degree opposite of the original section 230). Before that, The original Section 230 protected us for over 15 years.
The Freedom of e-Assembly Act of 2021 - send to your congressman
100.01. On application of any two or more US Citizens, representing all members of an electronically gathered collective, any platform provider:
(a) is prohibited from censoring or restraining any communication of a member of the collective to any other member or members of the collective; and
(b) is prohibited from adding or deleting members of the collective, except by agreement of the original members of the collective having membership at the time of application.
100.02 Violation by a platform provider of 100.01(a) shall constitute a civil offense with a civil penalty of not less than $1000 per censored or restrained communication; violation by a platform provider of 100.01(b) shall constitute a crimingal offense with a criminal penalty of not less than $10,000 or one year in prison, or both.
I hope better explanations will follow, but the basic gist is this. The social media companies are protected from the content on their platforms in the same way the owner of a physical bulletin board would be protected if someone stuck a note up on a physical bulletin board at your local grocery store. The grocery store cannot be held liable for the content of any message as long as the store does not select which messages can be posted. So 230 grants immunity as long as the bulletin board hoster is not selecting content (which would the be acting as a publisher, whole different set of rules, and 230 not applicable). The issue is the social media sites began removing content, becoming a "publsher" rather than a bulleting board, and thus no longer eligible for section 230 protections.
Right now under Section 230 the companies are allowed to avoid all legal responsibility for posts and activities by users of their "platforms" since they don't have control over what people say on their platforms, but they are then able to make editorial decisions like banning or removing certain content. So for the purposes of being held responsible they can't because it's just a "platform" but for the purposes of censoring non-violent, non-pornographic, non-doxing material, such as the New York Post's articles on the Hunter Biden "laptop from Hell" they are publishers making editorial decisions. What Pres. Trump is calling for is forcing them to either stop censoring political expression or for them to be liable for the content they do allow and promote.
I am no lawyer either, but I understand it to be legal protection and other benefits for platforms on the internet....under the agreement that they will not act like a publisher and not dictate what is being posted, or shared, etc. on those platforms (facebook, twitter, etc.)
Section 230 actually should not be repealed but the protections it gives to common carriers should not be extended to platforms that censor and editorialize their users.
It absolutely should be repealed.
When drug dealers arrange a deal over the phone, you think the phone company should be liable and sued? I don't. They can't and don't listen in on every call or block calls they don't like so it makes no sense to hold them responsible, it would financially destroy them and deprive us all of a telephone system.
But Facebook and Twitter do exactly that, so they should be liable for every crime or civil offense broadcast on their private networks.
^^^^^^ SPOT ON ^^^^^^
A court, a couple years ago, screwed up Section 230.
It's legal protection for platforms against illegal content that users might post. Publishers, like newspapers and articles are liable for the content they push.
This 👆....and now that Twitter, Facebook and Gulag have chosen to be publishers they should be sued out business
Section 230 operated just fine for over 15 years.
Then, a court reinterpreted Section 230 to give platforms an exemption to censor hate speech.
The court case may have been a straw man so Social Media could get control over their platforms.
We just need Congress to re-instate the original Section 230.
Well it would put the company in a position to be liable.
The expectation has been that threatening to remove 230 protections would cause the companies to stop censoring.
Actually removing 230 protections would presumably cause censorship to go through the roof... Or that some of the companies would stop censoring to keep their 230.
Weed pic isn't an easy example, but say it was actually illegal to post that picture, Facebook would/could get in trouble for it without 230.
I'm not sure what the exact rules are for publishers, whether they are immediately responsible for posts or if they have time to respond afterwards.
Repealing 230 could force Facebook to delete the group. Depending on how the phrase was interpreted...
Repealing 230 is retarded, not everyone is advocating for that. Removing 230 protections from censorious "platforms" (i.e.: regard them properly as publishers) is what you want.
In any scenario, it wouldn't be illegal (on its own) to delete the group. What would be illegal is Facebook lying to the courts about their censorship practices (in an attempt to maintain 230 status). Facebook also would be liable for a lot of other stuff should they lose their 230 protection, which they should.
I don't think the users would be accountable. It would be the company... Although Facebook could potentially file a civil suit against the users after the fact (doubt that would go anywhere)
A couple years ago, A court reinterpreted Section 230 to give the social media all these powers (180 degree opposite of the original section 230). Before that, The original Section 230 protected us for over 15 years.
Its big techs imunity for censuring people and it needs to be repealed because it has been abused to silence many
++++++++
https://thedonald.win/p/GbkDytrN/the-freedom-of-eassembly-act-of-/
The Freedom of e-Assembly Act of 2021 - send to your congressman
100.01. On application of any two or more US Citizens, representing all members of an electronically gathered collective, any platform provider:
(a) is prohibited from censoring or restraining any communication of a member of the collective to any other member or members of the collective; and
(b) is prohibited from adding or deleting members of the collective, except by agreement of the original members of the collective having membership at the time of application.
100.02 Violation by a platform provider of 100.01(a) shall constitute a civil offense with a civil penalty of not less than $1000 per censored or restrained communication; violation by a platform provider of 100.01(b) shall constitute a crimingal offense with a criminal penalty of not less than $10,000 or one year in prison, or both.
I hope better explanations will follow, but the basic gist is this. The social media companies are protected from the content on their platforms in the same way the owner of a physical bulletin board would be protected if someone stuck a note up on a physical bulletin board at your local grocery store. The grocery store cannot be held liable for the content of any message as long as the store does not select which messages can be posted. So 230 grants immunity as long as the bulletin board hoster is not selecting content (which would the be acting as a publisher, whole different set of rules, and 230 not applicable). The issue is the social media sites began removing content, becoming a "publsher" rather than a bulleting board, and thus no longer eligible for section 230 protections.
Right now under Section 230 the companies are allowed to avoid all legal responsibility for posts and activities by users of their "platforms" since they don't have control over what people say on their platforms, but they are then able to make editorial decisions like banning or removing certain content. So for the purposes of being held responsible they can't because it's just a "platform" but for the purposes of censoring non-violent, non-pornographic, non-doxing material, such as the New York Post's articles on the Hunter Biden "laptop from Hell" they are publishers making editorial decisions. What Pres. Trump is calling for is forcing them to either stop censoring political expression or for them to be liable for the content they do allow and promote.
I am no lawyer either, but I understand it to be legal protection and other benefits for platforms on the internet....under the agreement that they will not act like a publisher and not dictate what is being posted, or shared, etc. on those platforms (facebook, twitter, etc.)