posted ago by hackinthebox
+229 / -0
How to force Facebook and Twitter to stop censorship! Pass legislation at the STATE level. Your thoughts?
If it cant be / wont be done federally, do it locally. 230 protects against civil liability. It doesn’t protect companies from state laws and criminal liability. What would a proposed bill include??
- digital communications companies that serve as a platform shall not remove or moderate content unless it is sexually explicit, violates FCC broadcast (tv and radio) guidelines, or is otherwise unlawful. This applies to platforms where users are generally free to post, reply and interact as they choose, comment sections, and media sharing platforms.
- Companies that remove content on those grounds will submit each occurrence to the state for judicial review (because if it’s unlawful, the crime needs to be reported) or keep records and submit it quarterly or whatever 2a) Maybe the state only reviews instances that are objected to by a state resident. This would still allow moderation of bots/spam, and all moderation from sites that allow anonymous user accounts because they wont object, and couldnt prove they owned the account anyway. That lets many companies off the hook, but not FB/Twitter
- Very steep fines for violations
- Companies that regularly violate these standards can be submitted for state review to revoke business license
- Same goes for disabling user accounts/banning users or groups
- Can’t discriminate against customers of web services. If you think their activity is “unlawful” or “harmful” theres already law enforcement agencies to report to.
- Contracts between service providers and users/app developers/platforms may not limit the subjective or qualitative nature of the content. No political discrimination in your “terms of service”. No banning Parler off AWS because all of a sudden you think youre the FBI and gonna save the day from “potential” violence. If I have to bake your gay wedding cake, you’re going to host my Pepe memes.
- BANKS AND PAYMENT PROCESSORS MAY NOT REFUSE SERVICE BASED ON non-financial factors. Credit reporting agency information may be used. If a bank thinks its account holder is doing something illegal, the bank should report the activity (as per current law).
- TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS, like airlines, ride-shares, railways, etc, MAY NOT BAN ANYONE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON. If that person is an immediate threat, call the police.
WE DEMAND EQUAL ACCESS TO BANKING, TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION
How to force Facebook and Twitter to stop censorship! Pass legislation at the STATE level. Your thoughts?
If it cant be / wont be done federally, do it locally. 230 protects against civil liability. It doesn’t protect companies from state laws and criminal liability. What would a proposed bill include??
1) digital communications companies that serve as a platform shall not remove or moderate content unless it is sexually explicit, violates FCC broadcast (tv and radio) guidelines, or is otherwise unlawful. This applies to platforms where users are generally free to post, reply and interact as they choose, comment sections, and media sharing platforms.
2) Companies that remove content on those grounds will submit each occurrence to the state for judicial review (because if it’s unlawful, the crime needs to be reported) or keep records and submit it quarterly or whatever
2a) Maybe the state only reviews instances that are objected to by a state resident. This would still allow moderation of bots/spam, and all moderation from sites that allow anonymous user accounts because they wont object, and couldnt prove they owned the account anyway. That lets many companies off the hook, but not FB/Twitter
3) Very steep fines for violations
4) Companies that regularly violate these standards can be submitted for state review to revoke business license
5) Same goes for disabling user accounts/banning users or groups
6) Can’t discriminate against customers of web services. If you think their activity is “unlawful” or “harmful” theres already law enforcement agencies to report to.
7) Contracts between service providers and users/app developers/platforms may not limit the subjective or qualitative nature of the content. No political discrimination in your “terms of service”. No banning Parler off AWS because all of a sudden you think youre the FBI and gonna save the day from “potential” violence. If I have to bake your gay wedding cake, you’re going to host my Pepe memes.
8) BANKS AND PAYMENT PROCESSORS MAY NOT REFUSE SERVICE BASED ON non-financial factors. Credit reporting agency information may be used. If a bank thinks its account holder is doing something illegal, the bank should report the activity (as per current law).
9) TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS, like airlines, ride-shares, railways, etc, MAY NOT BAN ANYONE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON. If that person is an immediate threat, call the police.
WE DEMAND EQUAL ACCESS TO BANKING, TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION
Thats why it must be done at the state level
Thats cool. But we’re talking telecommunications regulation. If California can require a special label on every product to be legal for sale, Texas can require that companies do not violate protected rights.
I think the way to go is to simply add political orientation to the existing list of "protected classes" in prevailing anti-discrimination law - which isn't going to go away under any scenario I can imagine. This would encompass virtually 100% of the goods and services in commerce.
We can try to go that route when Trump's 2nd term starts.
IF social media is considered a “public forum” rather than just a “platform”, banning people is HIGHLY unconstitutional. If politicians can’t moderate opinions they dont like off their FB, page, then a CEO certainly cannot ban politicians off the forum altogether.
I have a better version of it, that would allow for small sites or sites dedicated to only one thing like this one to keep banning people as we see fit while limiting big tech, here I go:
Whereas the latest technological developments have made self evident that the Internet is indispensable for modern day living
Whereas big social media platform have exercised arbitrary banning of "undesirables" from their services in a manner contravening the established principle of good faith moderation
We propose the following to solve the issue:
creating a definition of "Public forums for online speech" which would apply to the 50 most visited sites in this state, sites in the list, unless they explicitly choose to opt out with the exception specified under article 2 will be compelled to adhere to good faith moderation. Which is defined as follows: Users cannot be banned for any kind of lawful speech, with the exception of posting pornographic content or images of gore, in case the site explicitly markets itself as family friendly. Transgressions will be punished as explained in article 3.
Sites that would otherwise be part of the top 50, can decide to explicitly not be "public forums for online speech" if they in turn accept to focus on only one or a few specif subject(s), for example being sites dedicated only to discussion of sports matches. In those cases the site can employ a wider discretion in the denial of its services to users, with one condition, explicitly non political or non religious sites should NOT terminate service to users for their political or religious views. Failure to do so will incur in penalties explained in article 3.
Any site who violates articles 1 or 2 of this bill will be punished with a fine ranging from $100 to $1000000 for each violation committed, and with the immediate loss of all current public contracts it may have signed with this State's government.
All this should be done locally anyway! It’s time the people understood and take back local government to get control of their states the way our founders intended. Incidentally, this is the only (and constitutional) way we reign in the federal government whose powers are delegated by the States and are “few and defined”. Conversely, the States powers are “numerous and indefinite”. Federal government was delegated power to be exercised principally on external objects, such as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. Look back at how the founding fathers defined the term “State”. They referred to our States the same way they referred to France and England as States. That’s very telling. The founding fathers viewed our States as completely sovereign and gave them the choice to join a union. Germany is a sovereign country. It joined the EU. Does the EU rule them and make all their laws, no. People need to start understanding they way it was designed and How upside down it is in America now.
starting to think the book of revelations wasnt fake
They won't since it supports them that are in power... ...for now.
NOW is the time for some basement dwelling pede nerd to come up with a NEW mousetrap and put them out of biz! Revenge of the based nerds! Im sure a gofundme type financing would happen. Maybe GEOTUS would even contribute...