Well they technically could still ban conservatives as long as their TOS says they're going to ban conservatives. Kinda like how ours says Trump supporters only.
Section 230 provides liability coverage for 'platforms' like facebook, twitter, etc, which makes them not responsible for what users post. It'd be impossible to operate a platform without that coverage, as lawsuits would roll in every time some a-hole made a slanderous comment towards another. This would bankrupty the platform in litigation costs. So 230 is well intentioned, and without something similar we wouldn't have some of the nice platforms we do have. BUUUUUT, these platforms have acted in bad faith, moderating content in extremely lopsided manner to where they suppress conservative speech and promote lefty speech (silencing posts, faking twitter trends, for example). These reforms attempt to say "You can moderate, but you must be fair and consistent. And if you do not stay fair and consistent, you will lose liability protection". Basically telling them to be fair or fuck off.
So 230 is well intentioned, and without something similar we wouldn't have some of the nice platforms we do have.
Not true. These platforms could exist where you self-publish and they amplify it - like what cloudfare does for thedonald.win - so that you don't need a terabit internet connection.
They don't do this because 230 let's them get away with hosting your content instead of amplifying it, and that lets them censor and monopolize your content.
Well if we take the time to write some good laws, when the time comes and we have the votes, we can get it done. Either that or we get some sort of agreements with these companies or its monopoly busting time.
It is attempting to fix the paradox of companies like Google, facebook, twitter from being able to act like platform while still retaining the protections of a publisher. Right now the tech giants all use a loop hole in the old section 230 to protect themselves while they do as they please. If this goes through it will force these companies to change how they deal with content. Hopefully it will force them declare as publisher with full editorial control over what gets posted or a platform which allows anyone to post anything as long as it does not break any laws (or terms of service because muh private companies).
From what ive heard, the idea is that 230 reform would mean that tech companies wouldnt be liable for anything said on their platforms. The theory is that the reason conservatives are being censored is because advertisers are saying they dont want to be on controversial content. So when advertisers or activist complain about content, the tech companies can point to the law and say there's nothing they can do about it
ELi5 plz?
This would lead to more free speech online. Facebook and other social medias can get away with a lot of censorship because of section 230.
Well they technically could still ban conservatives as long as their TOS says they're going to ban conservatives. Kinda like how ours says Trump supporters only.
True but no more masquerading as an impartial content provider. They will have to admit their bias.
And honestly I’m okay with this. If I host a American cars forum and people start bashing American cars, I want to be able to ban them
Admit and then what? Do you think people don't know already?
Ahhh, that makes sense. I was wondering how we got away with deporting cucks, good to know we're fucking MAGA and only MAGA up in this bitch!
Section 230 provides liability coverage for 'platforms' like facebook, twitter, etc, which makes them not responsible for what users post. It'd be impossible to operate a platform without that coverage, as lawsuits would roll in every time some a-hole made a slanderous comment towards another. This would bankrupty the platform in litigation costs. So 230 is well intentioned, and without something similar we wouldn't have some of the nice platforms we do have. BUUUUUT, these platforms have acted in bad faith, moderating content in extremely lopsided manner to where they suppress conservative speech and promote lefty speech (silencing posts, faking twitter trends, for example). These reforms attempt to say "You can moderate, but you must be fair and consistent. And if you do not stay fair and consistent, you will lose liability protection". Basically telling them to be fair or fuck off.
Not true. These platforms could exist where you self-publish and they amplify it - like what cloudfare does for thedonald.win - so that you don't need a terabit internet connection.
They don't do this because 230 let's them get away with hosting your content instead of amplifying it, and that lets them censor and monopolize your content.
Well if we take the time to write some good laws, when the time comes and we have the votes, we can get it done. Either that or we get some sort of agreements with these companies or its monopoly busting time.
It is attempting to fix the paradox of companies like Google, facebook, twitter from being able to act like platform while still retaining the protections of a publisher. Right now the tech giants all use a loop hole in the old section 230 to protect themselves while they do as they please. If this goes through it will force these companies to change how they deal with content. Hopefully it will force them declare as publisher with full editorial control over what gets posted or a platform which allows anyone to post anything as long as it does not break any laws (or terms of service because muh private companies).
From what ive heard, the idea is that 230 reform would mean that tech companies wouldnt be liable for anything said on their platforms. The theory is that the reason conservatives are being censored is because advertisers are saying they dont want to be on controversial content. So when advertisers or activist complain about content, the tech companies can point to the law and say there's nothing they can do about it