New legislation should not be needed... just a administrative interpretation of 230 as it is. Pointing out it was about obscenity.. and it is not being used as such.. ergo the tech companies are legally publishers until they come into compliance with 230.
Hey, if ATF can interpret the legal definition of "machinegun" to include a silly plastic toy used to effectively jerk off a rifle, DoJ should be able to massage whatever statute they like into saying political censorship is illegal.
The problem is, Section 230 is a liability shield for when someone posts child porn on Facebook. It doesn't say that Facebook CANNOT remove non-child-porn posts, it just says that as long as they remove child porn posts when notified, that they aren't liable for it.
Section 230(c):
(2): "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—"
(A): "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be [...] harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or" (emphasis added)
Translation: you can censor the fuck out of whomever you want, as long as anyone on the planet finds it objectionable, and there is no affirmative duty to censor evenhandedly or fairly.
You aren't acting in good faith when you hire foreign ultra-leftists to form a council that decides to censor only conservatives and skeptics based on tenuous, imaginary grounds while also openly endorsing or ignoring provably and clearly murderous ideologies and terrorism and child sexual grooming.
Leaning your way.
New legislation should not be needed... just a administrative interpretation of 230 as it is. Pointing out it was about obscenity.. and it is not being used as such.. ergo the tech companies are legally publishers until they come into compliance with 230.
Hey, if ATF can interpret the legal definition of "machinegun" to include a silly plastic toy used to effectively jerk off a rifle, DoJ should be able to massage whatever statute they like into saying political censorship is illegal.
The problem is they are not interpreting 230 to mean... what 230 means...
Well, people who cannot interpret the simple language of the second amendment are also going to have trouble with lots of meanings.
In both cases the same idiots have problems
*or a shoestring
The problem is, Section 230 is a liability shield for when someone posts child porn on Facebook. It doesn't say that Facebook CANNOT remove non-child-porn posts, it just says that as long as they remove child porn posts when notified, that they aren't liable for it.
Section 230(c):
Translation: you can censor the fuck out of whomever you want, as long as anyone on the planet finds it objectionable, and there is no affirmative duty to censor evenhandedly or fairly.
You aren't acting in good faith when you hire foreign ultra-leftists to form a council that decides to censor only conservatives and skeptics based on tenuous, imaginary grounds while also openly endorsing or ignoring provably and clearly murderous ideologies and terrorism and child sexual grooming.
I agree, messing with section 230 could have consequences for online freedom. Maybe setting in stone the good faith clause would be enough.