3 ms·

I believe this proposal would more or less be the DEFAULT were it not for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 has had both good

I believe this proposal would more or less be the DEFAULT were it not for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 has had both good results (bloggers aren't going to get in trouble because someone posted something illegal in their comments) and bad results (twitter/youtube/paypal were all allowed to nuke Alex Jones from orbit simultaneously, removing his ability to distribute content, communicate with followers, and accept payments). I don't like or agree with Alex Jones (he's a wacko, but people have made some funny videos out of his freakouts), but people have to remember: if it can happen to one person, the same could happen to anyone. People praised this "deplatforming" because they didn't like the target. But this is essentially praising these sites for crippling someone's career without any oversight.

xxpor 7y ago
Limiting deplatforming is taking away Twitter/YouTube's etc 1st amendment rights.
- saurik 7y ago
  If the choice of deplatforming someone is a 1st amendment speech act (which I am ok with), then the choice to not do so needs to be a prosecutable offense (at which point you are just arguing that everyone should be a "publisher"). (Then, if websites can't manage to exist in this legally-consistent regime, maybe we finally get research into distributed systems in order to have true "platforms".)
  - dooglius 7y ago
    Did you miss a "not" there or are you saying deplatforming should be a requirement?
- stale2002 7y ago
  Would you say the same exact thing about the phone companies? Phone companies are platforms in the same exact way. Do you believe their 1st amendment rights are being taking away, because they can't "deplatform" phone calls from people they don't like, or from their competitors?
asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
> if it can happen to one person, the same could happen to anyone. A guy stands on a hill holding high an umbrella in the middle of a thunderstorm and is then struck by lightning. "If it could happen to one person it could happen to anyone." Technically true, but you have a lot of control over the odds. Being a racist harassing villain is the common thread shared amongst almost everyone who has been deplatformed so far. Stay out of that territory, and stay off hills during storms. You'll be fine.
simlevesque 7y ago
> twitter/youtube/paypal were all allowed to nuke Alex Jones from orbit simultaneously, removing his ability to distribute content, communicate with followers, and accept payments That is not a bad result.
- clutchingstraws 7y ago
  It's a convenient result in the short term for those of us on the left who think that Alex Jones' views are utterly repugnant, but ultimately these sorts of deplatforming actions are counterproductive. Alex Jones' fans will no longer be exposed to rational arguments from non-fans on the same platform. They'll instead become increasingly trapped in their own filter bubbles, and now have even more of a martyr complex. The cure for bad speech is good speech in an open forum.
  - nl 7y ago
    Alex Jones' fans will no longer be exposed to rational arguments from non-fans on the same platform. They'll instead become increasingly trapped in their own filter bubbles, and now have even more of a martyr complex. This is a common argument, and yet every study of conspiracy theories shows this isn't the case. Conspiracy theories thrive on reach, and in the absence of reach they tend to die out.

xxpor 7y ago

Limiting deplatforming is taking away Twitter/YouTube's etc 1st amendment rights.

saurik 7y ago
If the choice of deplatforming someone is a 1st amendment speech act (which I am ok with), then the choice to not do so needs to be a prosecutable offense (at which point you are just arguing that everyone should be a "publisher"). (Then, if websites can't manage to exist in this legally-consistent regime, maybe we finally get research into distributed systems in order to have true "platforms".)
- dooglius 7y ago
  Did you miss a "not" there or are you saying deplatforming should be a requirement?
stale2002 7y ago
Would you say the same exact thing about the phone companies? Phone companies are platforms in the same exact way. Do you believe their 1st amendment rights are being taking away, because they can't "deplatform" phone calls from people they don't like, or from their competitors?

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

> if it can happen to one person, the same could happen to anyone. A guy stands on a hill holding high an umbrella in the middle of a thunderstorm and is then struck by lightning. "If it could happen to one person it could happen to anyone." Technically true, but you have a lot of control over the odds. Being a racist harassing villain is the common thread shared amongst almost everyone who has been deplatformed so far. Stay out of that territory, and stay off hills during storms. You'll be fine.

simlevesque 7y ago

> twitter/youtube/paypal were all allowed to nuke Alex Jones from orbit simultaneously, removing his ability to distribute content, communicate with followers, and accept payments That is not a bad result.

clutchingstraws 7y ago
It's a convenient result in the short term for those of us on the left who think that Alex Jones' views are utterly repugnant, but ultimately these sorts of deplatforming actions are counterproductive. Alex Jones' fans will no longer be exposed to rational arguments from non-fans on the same platform. They'll instead become increasingly trapped in their own filter bubbles, and now have even more of a martyr complex. The cure for bad speech is good speech in an open forum.
- nl 7y ago
  Alex Jones' fans will no longer be exposed to rational arguments from non-fans on the same platform. They'll instead become increasingly trapped in their own filter bubbles, and now have even more of a martyr complex. This is a common argument, and yet every study of conspiracy theories shows this isn't the case. Conspiracy theories thrive on reach, and in the absence of reach they tend to die out.