Sec 230 actually says that platforms CAN curate WITHOUT being responsible for what users post on their platform.
Everyone is totally unaware of what sec 230 says and means.
The problem isn't that they curate. The problem is that there is no limit or consequence to biased curation.
The section was out in place to stop people from suing platforms since they can't review every single piece of info posted on their platform. So, platforms CAN curate user postings WITHOUT being liable.
The notification means that people can legally sue FB right?
Is it considered a publisher now?
If there will be antifa/blm threatening and call for violence and facebook doesn't ban them, can people sue facebook for direct result for calls for violence?
Interesting point- yes, publication of specific incitement could open them up to liability. That could be a lot more costly than a mere libel suit- here's to watching small town mayors raid the Zuckerberg foundation vaults to rebuild their police stations.
The notification doesn't mean people can sue them as publishers yet, though. It's a hedge, in case of a Trump victory and proper enforcement of 230. It may be subtle propaganda to drum up support for retaining 230 protections for FB.
No. You can't sue facebook. That's my point. Everyone thinks facebook is acting contrary to section 230 but they aren't. The problem is that section 230 ALLOWS them to do exactly what they are doing.
Yes but the whole issue is due to how they have been using sec-230 and how they should lose their protection and be considered publishers instead of hosts. The problem isn't sec 230 the problem is how it has been used, that is why no one talks against sec-230 but talk about these platforms being promoted to content publishers since they want to curate what can and can't be said in their platforms.
No, the issue is that section 230 is too broad and general. It gives them all the leeway they need to be doing exactly what they are doing now.
They literally can be publishers and still face no consequences for being biased against any group. They are using it within the bounds of how it was written, that is to say, there are no boundaries
Goodbye Sec 230 protection, right? Fire up the lawyers!
This is yuge. Let the censoring begin. Don't hold back Facebook. Expect Twitter to follow shortly.
FUCKING THIS!!!
Sec 230 actually says that platforms CAN curate WITHOUT being responsible for what users post on their platform.
Everyone is totally unaware of what sec 230 says and means.
The problem isn't that they curate. The problem is that there is no limit or consequence to biased curation.
The section was out in place to stop people from suing platforms since they can't review every single piece of info posted on their platform. So, platforms CAN curate user postings WITHOUT being liable.
The notification means that people can legally sue FB right?
Is it considered a publisher now?
If there will be antifa/blm threatening and call for violence and facebook doesn't ban them, can people sue facebook for direct result for calls for violence?
Interesting point- yes, publication of specific incitement could open them up to liability. That could be a lot more costly than a mere libel suit- here's to watching small town mayors raid the Zuckerberg foundation vaults to rebuild their police stations.
The notification doesn't mean people can sue them as publishers yet, though. It's a hedge, in case of a Trump victory and proper enforcement of 230. It may be subtle propaganda to drum up support for retaining 230 protections for FB.
Sly motherzucker
No. You can't sue facebook. That's my point. Everyone thinks facebook is acting contrary to section 230 but they aren't. The problem is that section 230 ALLOWS them to do exactly what they are doing.
Yes but the whole issue is due to how they have been using sec-230 and how they should lose their protection and be considered publishers instead of hosts. The problem isn't sec 230 the problem is how it has been used, that is why no one talks against sec-230 but talk about these platforms being promoted to content publishers since they want to curate what can and can't be said in their platforms.
No, the issue is that section 230 is too broad and general. It gives them all the leeway they need to be doing exactly what they are doing now.
They literally can be publishers and still face no consequences for being biased against any group. They are using it within the bounds of how it was written, that is to say, there are no boundaries