4 ms·
Facebook can’t have it both ways. They can’t tell Congress they are like the telephone company (an agnostic communication channel) and then turn around and cens
by atlgator 6y ago
Facebook can’t have it both ways. They can’t tell Congress they are like the telephone company (an agnostic communication channel) and then turn around and censor whatever they feel like. Either take responsibility for the content or stay out of it.
- tzs 6y agoThe whole point of section 230 of the CDA was to say that they can. Before 230, there had been court rulings that said if a platform moderated user supplied content they were liable for that content. Section 230 was written to reverse those rulings. I'm not sure why, but a myth has taken hold that under 230 you have to be neutral to get the liability shield.
- atlgator 6y agoTIL. Thanks for pointing me to the legislation.
- anonbcpolitics 6y agoIt's not a new myth but a new suggestion. 230 was written for a bulletin board site in '96. Twitter and other social media behemoths still enjoy this protection. There's been proposals to hold these behemoths accountable by taking away their liability IF they do not act neutral and meet a certain criteria (X users, X income, etc.).
- Nasrudith 6y ago"Accountable", there is that weasel word again for "do what we want or else" without even defining it.
- anonbcpolitics 6y agoI clearly defined what and why. Sorry one word triggered you so bad you couldn't add to the conversation. Pick from a thesaurus and move on.
- calimac 6y agoread the full code. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- tomjen3 6y agoThat section doesn't allow you to lie to Congress, which is what gp was complaining about. Facebook can defend itself in the court of public opinion by claiming to be neutral, but when they are in fact discriminating against certain viewpoints they end up facing critisism and potential boycots for that, regardless of whether it is legal.
- perl4ever 6y agoMaybe some people would actually like to repeal that though.
- CydeWeys 6y agoThis is a common misunderstanding that is often repeated despite being wrong. This is the exact opposite of Section 230, which says that you can have it both ways: You can moderate some but not all stuff without getting in trouble.
- joejerryronnie 6y agoBut this is exactly what the public seems to be demanding of Facebook - i.e. take responsibility for censoring your content, but only the content I disagree with. FB is in a no-win situation unless they can offload the content moderation to a government entity.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> FB is in a no-win situation unless they can offload the content moderation to a government entity. Content moderation is something the US government very specifically can't do.
- tomjen3 6y agoBy force, but the US government can come out with guidelines and Facebook can choose to block posts that goes against those guidelines, essentially outsourcing their content moderation to the US government while facing only a small amount of the flack (Facebook does not have an opinion on the wearing of masks, we do not allow posts that go against the scientifically backed recommendations of AGENCY).
- thaumasiotes 6y agoGranted, that is exactly how the government lends teeth to sexual harassment policies it would be legally unable to enforce itself. But I don't think a policy of "nobody can dispute the government's official statements" would fly, even with the enforcement done by Facebook.
- joejerryronnie 6y agoPossibly a government sanctioned third party “content moderation board” then? This is partly a cynical take on how FB can offload an impossible task to somebody else.