4 ms·

And the problem here is that it is inseparable from the political issue. The core is 4a, replace vague terminology. The point is to end 230 unless social medi

And the problem here is that it is inseparable from the political issue. The core is 4a, replace vague terminology. The point is to end 230 unless social media is compelled to reproduce right wing content. Nothing else. The other stuff about illegal material doesn't really matter. Why this? Because this is all right wing media talks about with respect to 230. They want social media punished for removing their material. They publish their vicious lies which are removed by the website. Then they loudly proclaim the constitution is the reason. So we can see through the politics. The rest of the proposed bill is fluff. The part that matters is the compelled speech. So we have this: "Publish our lies or you are liable for all other user content that might be illegal."

ryanobjc 6y ago
Right wing 'material' is often refused for inciting violence, targeted harassment, and more now explicit lies on matters of significant civic importance - such as when/where to vote, lying health info in the middle of a pandemic, etc. It's bad faith content, then when their crap is reasonably removed, there's endless crying. In fact a lot of the bad faith content is mixed up deliberately with political speech to incite action which allows them to claim marytrdom. If you do a long youtube video that is mostly political speech, and then you mix in a 5 minute targeted violent harassment in the middle, youtube is going to remove the whole thing. This is total bad faith. The ironic thing is right-wing "alternative forums" to reddit/youtube/twitter, all have extensive moderation because, surprise surprise, trolling behavior degrades the value of online discussion boards. Don't be surprised if all you do is stand in a theater yelling you are shown the door. Or worse, you start yelling threats at another movie goer. That's the real analogy of 'right wing content' being banned.

ryanobjc 6y ago

Right wing 'material' is often refused for inciting violence, targeted harassment, and more now explicit lies on matters of significant civic importance - such as when/where to vote, lying health info in the middle of a pandemic, etc. It's bad faith content, then when their crap is reasonably removed, there's endless crying. In fact a lot of the bad faith content is mixed up deliberately with political speech to incite action which allows them to claim marytrdom. If you do a long youtube video that is mostly political speech, and then you mix in a 5 minute targeted violent harassment in the middle, youtube is going to remove the whole thing. This is total bad faith. The ironic thing is right-wing "alternative forums" to reddit/youtube/twitter, all have extensive moderation because, surprise surprise, trolling behavior degrades the value of online discussion boards. Don't be surprised if all you do is stand in a theater yelling you are shown the door. Or worse, you start yelling threats at another movie goer. That's the real analogy of 'right wing content' being banned.