The judges ruled against trump bc of optics (per trump). Media calls them his pocket judges, looks terrible in their elite high iq social circles, they rule against trump to fix it.
Look, I think my solution works pretty well, you want 230 protections you should be accountable to the 1st amendment according to US federal standards. Identifying yourself as a public place of discord.
230 grants communication companies protection from lawsuit because they are not responsible for what users say. In return for this protection, they may not remove users from their service for content, the same way your phone service cannot remove you for the content of a personal conversation. The exception is for pornography, gore, incitement of violence, or "otherwise objectionable". They are removing users for political content and justifying under the "otherwise objectionable" clause. They are acting as editors fully controlling content, while having a special government exemption from any content related lawsuits.
Yup, and this is also why we can't keep it as is. It's not a matter of enforcement - there are no provisions limiting the protection given by (c)(1). There's no, "unless you act like a publisher" limitation.
Yeah, removing 230 altogether would be terrible. Maybe not quite as much as people are currently saying - I mean look at net neutrality and what a nothing burger that turned out to be (so far) - but still potentially very bad.
But if people want to keep making the publisher v platform argument, which I agree with, they really need to recognize that it's not possible to make an argument for enforcement on those grounds with section 230 as it currently is.
Moderation by topic would still be Ok as long as they still had access to the service in general. They might have to make a .win for lefties. Harassment would still get removed. The point is, even the header of what you posted corroborates this, removal from service was meant to be for objectively offensive material, not opinions. They are abusing this law, but gaining all of the legal benefits.
Holy shit. Did not expect that.
The judges ruled against trump bc of optics (per trump). Media calls them his pocket judges, looks terrible in their elite high iq social circles, they rule against trump to fix it.
The courts have been compromised for years. It is only now that the veil has been removed for all to see their corruption.
The purge continues
IMO, no one has any clue what would happen if 230 was removed.
I recommend just saying that platforms are accountable for free speech according to US federal standards.
Look, I think my solution works pretty well, you want 230 protections you should be accountable to the 1st amendment according to US federal standards. Identifying yourself as a public place of discord.
It really needs an honest discussion, but it isn't ever going to get one.
230 grants communication companies protection from lawsuit because they are not responsible for what users say. In return for this protection, they may not remove users from their service for content, the same way your phone service cannot remove you for the content of a personal conversation. The exception is for pornography, gore, incitement of violence, or "otherwise objectionable". They are removing users for political content and justifying under the "otherwise objectionable" clause. They are acting as editors fully controlling content, while having a special government exemption from any content related lawsuits.
Yup, and this is also why we can't keep it as is. It's not a matter of enforcement - there are no provisions limiting the protection given by (c)(1). There's no, "unless you act like a publisher" limitation.
Yeah, removing 230 altogether would be terrible. Maybe not quite as much as people are currently saying - I mean look at net neutrality and what a nothing burger that turned out to be (so far) - but still potentially very bad.
But if people want to keep making the publisher v platform argument, which I agree with, they really need to recognize that it's not possible to make an argument for enforcement on those grounds with section 230 as it currently is.
Moderation by topic would still be Ok as long as they still had access to the service in general. They might have to make a .win for lefties. Harassment would still get removed. The point is, even the header of what you posted corroborates this, removal from service was meant to be for objectively offensive material, not opinions. They are abusing this law, but gaining all of the legal benefits.
Things are soooo much better with Sec 230...
The original wording said they were exempt from lawsuits so let me as they did not suppress free political, religious, et al., speech.
That wording was removed in committee shortly before the bill hit the floor for vote.
For the life of me, I cannot find the source of this the day after reading it many, many months ago.
I'll start digging again.
spez: regardless, the law can be re-written to better protect avg Americans against censorship.
Take the subjective part out of Section 230 and we will be good to go.
When you leave it up to someone's judgment without concrete bylines we get censorship like this.