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.
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.
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.
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.