4 ms·

> The whole point of Section 230 is to allow platforms to moderate their content without becoming liable for it. I am not against Section 230. I am against pla

> The whole point of Section 230 is to allow platforms to moderate their content without becoming liable for it. I am not against Section 230. I am against platforms misusing Section 230. They are a platform until they behave like one. When the platform itself starts behaving like a publisher rather than a platform then why should provisions of Section 230 apply? > Section 230 also says that platforms can’t be held liable if they take down any content they or their users consider “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” In other words, they are not obliged to host anything they don’t want to. So was Trump's video about kids being "almost immune" to Coronavirus "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable"? Which one was it? Are you seriously telling me that the President of the United States video about kids being "almost immune" to Coronavirus is in some violation of policy while porn/gore content that is posted on these platforms not? I have personally reported so many of these videos and they still haven't been removed. And if political issues are the reason for censorship then what about the other politicians in US and around the World who say as bad or worse things as Trump? Will same rules be applied there as well or not? If not, why not? > In other words, they are not obliged to host anything they don’t want to. Then will these rules be applicable to everyone? In that case, I can give you a million tweets and comments that are "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable" which haven't been removed yet. Nor has Youtube removed "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable" videos from its platform. It is clear bias at play here. If you try to tell me that it is not then you need to take a hike.

DanBC 6y ago
> why should provisions of Section 230 apply? The law was designed to allow platforms to remove content without being legally liable for all of the content. If you disagree with that then you disagree with all of S230, and you need to campaign to have it removed and replaced. > So was Trump's video about kids being "almost immune" to Coronavirus "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable"? Which one was it It was "otherwise objectionable", because it's factually incorrect. Children do get covid-19, children do spread covid-19. They're unlikely to be harmed by covid-19, but that's not the claim he made, is it? > > In other words, they are not obliged to host anything they don’t want to. > Then will these rules be applicable to everyone? I genuinely don't understand how you don't understand this. "not obliged to host it" means "they don't have to host it", it doesn't mean "they have to search out everything that violates their policies and remove it".
- shripadk 6y ago
  > The law was designed to allow platforms to remove content without being legally liable for all of the content. If you disagree with that then you disagree with all of S230, and you need to campaign to have it removed and replaced. There is no need to campaign really. I am not an American but US laws govern these social media companies that operate in India too. I have experienced first hand how these social media companies operate here in India and know their biases clearly. But the US Government is already exploring it: https://www.project-disco.org/innovation/072920-what-is-section-230s-otherwise-objectionable-provision/ https://www.project-disco.org/innovation/072920-what-is-sect... and here: https://gosar.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3968 https://gosar.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=... > It was "otherwise objectionable", because it's factually incorrect I don't understand "otherwise objectionable" to mean "factually incorrect". There are people who genuinely get a wrong idea of some process or procedure because not everyone is technically well versed. If I tomorrow say that stuxnet virus harmed my PC the technical minded you might say that it is factually incorrect because stuxnet is a worm and not a virus. So would you then censor my right to say it incorrectly? Do you want me to communicate to you perfectly and if not, that communication must be censored? Any reasonable person will allow that much of leeway. Not everyone can have perfect communication skills. Not everyone can be well versed in everything. Anyways the point is that "otherwise objectionable" is too broad a term. For me, killing animals for food is objectionable. For you something else might be objectionable. That sort of power is not reasonable by any means for a platform to have. For instance, Twitter did not censor Ilhan Omar when she tweeted falsehood against Nick Sandmann and other Covington students. She later deleted that tweet when the true story came out into the open. But the damage was done. An innocent student's life was put at risk. All because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. "In her tweet, Omar wrote that the male students were "protesting a woman's right to choose & yelled 'it's not rape if you enjoy it' " and "taunting 5 Black men before they surrounded Phillips and led racist chants."" https://thehill.com/homenews/house/426635-omar-deletes-tweet-on-covington-students-trump https://thehill.com/homenews/house/426635-omar-deletes-tweet... and this: https://twitter.com/NRCC/status/1088163426172633095 https://twitter.com/NRCC/status/1088163426172633095 Did Twitter act on it? Nope. Why did it not when it was not just factually incorrect but also put a child's life at risk? But truth be told I don't want Twitter to act on any content that is not illegal (like child pornography, terrorism, scams etc). In true spirit of Section 230, I want her tweets to remain for as long as she desires so people see for themselves what she represents. I want Trump's tweets to remain for as long as he desires so people see for themselves what he represents. Now that is a free platform right there. I don't want social media companies to baby sit me. I don't want social media companies to tell me what to see and what not to see unless that material is banned/disallowed by law. I don't want my viewpoints censored because it doesn't match with the ones running the platform. Is that too much to ask for? > They're unlikely to be harmed by covid-19, but that's not the claim he made, is it? "Almost immune" qualifies as "unlikely to be harmed". Unless we both are referring to different dictionaries. This is nitpicking to be honest with you. It is only because it was Trump who said it that it is being made into a huge issue. Just like everyone took objection to Trump calling it Wuhan/China Virus when every outlet (CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc) was calling it by that name way before Trump even said it. Because "orange man bad". > I genuinely don't understand how you don't understand this. "not obliged to host it" means "they don't have to host it", it doesn't mean "they have to search out everything that violates their policies and remove it". It means precisely that. They have to search out everything that violates their policies and remove it. Because they said they are incapable of doing that, activist groups demanded them to provide tools which can be used to report such violations. But those tools are pretty much useless as I have repeatedly tried removing videos that blatantly violate their own policies but to no avail. Pornographic and Gore content is not allowed on Youtube according to Youtube's own guidelines. Yet those videos don't get removed and instead get "Age restricted". Because clearly they want that ad money more than following the rule of law.

DanBC 6y ago

> why should provisions of Section 230 apply? The law was designed to allow platforms to remove content without being legally liable for all of the content. If you disagree with that then you disagree with all of S230, and you need to campaign to have it removed and replaced. > So was Trump's video about kids being "almost immune" to Coronavirus "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable"? Which one was it It was "otherwise objectionable", because it's factually incorrect. Children do get covid-19, children do spread covid-19. They're unlikely to be harmed by covid-19, but that's not the claim he made, is it? > > In other words, they are not obliged to host anything they don’t want to. > Then will these rules be applicable to everyone? I genuinely don't understand how you don't understand this. "not obliged to host it" means "they don't have to host it", it doesn't mean "they have to search out everything that violates their policies and remove it".

shripadk 6y ago
> The law was designed to allow platforms to remove content without being legally liable for all of the content. If you disagree with that then you disagree with all of S230, and you need to campaign to have it removed and replaced. There is no need to campaign really. I am not an American but US laws govern these social media companies that operate in India too. I have experienced first hand how these social media companies operate here in India and know their biases clearly. But the US Government is already exploring it: https://www.project-disco.org/innovation/072920-what-is-section-230s-otherwise-objectionable-provision/ https://www.project-disco.org/innovation/072920-what-is-sect... and here: https://gosar.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3968 https://gosar.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=... > It was "otherwise objectionable", because it's factually incorrect I don't understand "otherwise objectionable" to mean "factually incorrect". There are people who genuinely get a wrong idea of some process or procedure because not everyone is technically well versed. If I tomorrow say that stuxnet virus harmed my PC the technical minded you might say that it is factually incorrect because stuxnet is a worm and not a virus. So would you then censor my right to say it incorrectly? Do you want me to communicate to you perfectly and if not, that communication must be censored? Any reasonable person will allow that much of leeway. Not everyone can have perfect communication skills. Not everyone can be well versed in everything. Anyways the point is that "otherwise objectionable" is too broad a term. For me, killing animals for food is objectionable. For you something else might be objectionable. That sort of power is not reasonable by any means for a platform to have. For instance, Twitter did not censor Ilhan Omar when she tweeted falsehood against Nick Sandmann and other Covington students. She later deleted that tweet when the true story came out into the open. But the damage was done. An innocent student's life was put at risk. All because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. "In her tweet, Omar wrote that the male students were "protesting a woman's right to choose & yelled 'it's not rape if you enjoy it' " and "taunting 5 Black men before they surrounded Phillips and led racist chants."" https://thehill.com/homenews/house/426635-omar-deletes-tweet-on-covington-students-trump https://thehill.com/homenews/house/426635-omar-deletes-tweet... and this: https://twitter.com/NRCC/status/1088163426172633095 https://twitter.com/NRCC/status/1088163426172633095 Did Twitter act on it? Nope. Why did it not when it was not just factually incorrect but also put a child's life at risk? But truth be told I don't want Twitter to act on any content that is not illegal (like child pornography, terrorism, scams etc). In true spirit of Section 230, I want her tweets to remain for as long as she desires so people see for themselves what she represents. I want Trump's tweets to remain for as long as he desires so people see for themselves what he represents. Now that is a free platform right there. I don't want social media companies to baby sit me. I don't want social media companies to tell me what to see and what not to see unless that material is banned/disallowed by law. I don't want my viewpoints censored because it doesn't match with the ones running the platform. Is that too much to ask for? > They're unlikely to be harmed by covid-19, but that's not the claim he made, is it? "Almost immune" qualifies as "unlikely to be harmed". Unless we both are referring to different dictionaries. This is nitpicking to be honest with you. It is only because it was Trump who said it that it is being made into a huge issue. Just like everyone took objection to Trump calling it Wuhan/China Virus when every outlet (CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc) was calling it by that name way before Trump even said it. Because "orange man bad". > I genuinely don't understand how you don't understand this. "not obliged to host it" means "they don't have to host it", it doesn't mean "they have to search out everything that violates their policies and remove it". It means precisely that. They have to search out everything that violates their policies and remove it. Because they said they are incapable of doing that, activist groups demanded them to provide tools which can be used to report such violations. But those tools are pretty much useless as I have repeatedly tried removing videos that blatantly violate their own policies but to no avail. Pornographic and Gore content is not allowed on Youtube according to Youtube's own guidelines. Yet those videos don't get removed and instead get "Age restricted". Because clearly they want that ad money more than following the rule of law.