4 ms·
> I did address it, though the answer is disappointing: Only Google (or someone with Google's private business data) could give you that number. But it's absolu
by manuelabeledo 6y ago
> I did address it, though the answer is disappointing: Only Google (or someone with Google's private business data) could give you that number. But it's absolutely much higher than they'd like you to believe.
Well, that's pretty much wishful thinking.
> Broadcast companies are already held to all of the laws and risks that Section 230 is protecting Google and Facebook from.
Are they now.
Let's put it this way: section 230 protects Facebook from being held accountable for the anachronistic opinion about Jewish people, and violent tendencies derived from it, of a random user. Such random user, as a TV show guest, could spout a call to arms to an audience of 2,5 million spectators, and the broadcaster would not suffer any legal consequences.
Repealing section 230 _without_ a reasonable alternative would indeed held Google for a higher level of accountability than, say, Fox News.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago> Repealing section 230 _without_ a reasonable alternative would indeed held Google for a higher level of accountability than, say, Fox News. Under what law? Section 230 is a special exemption for tech companies. Without it, Google is indeed subject to the same laws as Fox News. Now, it's possible those laws aren't strong enough... but they'd be equally not strong enough upon both Google and Fox News. Currently, Fox News is held accountable poorly, and Google is not held accountable at all whatsoever.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- manuelabeledo 6y agoSection 230 protects companies by not making them responsible for what third party actors publish in their platforms. Name a single US based TV station prosecuted because some of their guests made false or hateful comments on air. Heck, it is in fact easier for the FCC to nail a broadcast company for "indecency", rather than hate speech.
- ocdtrekkie 6y agoI am going to stop here and not reply further, because I think we're going in circles. Again: Section 230 is an exception for tech companies. It allows them less accountability than other businesses. There is no law enforcing stricter responsibility for tech companies than broadcast companies. Which means, if Fox News isn't held accountable enough, you shouldn't see any reason for Section 230 to exist: It's not protecting tech companies from any effective law as it is, so removing it won't harm anyone.