4 ms·

Ugh. This is inevitably going to be based on a complete misunderstanding of section 230. Section 230 says that platforms cannot be held liable for the speech th

Ugh. This is inevitably going to be based on a complete misunderstanding of section 230. Section 230 says that platforms cannot be held liable for the speech they allow on their platforms. Repealing it would only lead to more restrictions on what people can post. We should expect more of our Senators, but I can't say I'm surprised. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
It is kiiinda hilarious, you are right. You know, the funniest thing is that in a divided government, there is no possibility of movement on this subject. The Republicans want one type of change to section 230, which would prevent the suppression of conservative-adjacent voices. On the other hand, the Democrats would like the opposite: greater responsibility of the platform to limit racist, sexist, and violent content. It seems like compromise on this subject is extremely difficult when the two sides want directionally opposite changes, and each controls one half of the legislative apparatus. What kind of bargain could they strike? "Well, we're going to have YouTube ban sexists but allow unlimited racist content. Ok, deal?" It's hard for me to picture any amendment of section 230 that would be both material and palatable to both sides. Not to mention that there's the whole constitutionality question, where corporations have enhanced rights of political speech post Citizen's United, and any legislative infringement on that can probably be challenged all the way to the top.
- foota 6y ago
  I mean, they could remove section 230 protections, which is what the direction I've read seems they're looking towards :(
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    I don't think they will be able to come to an agreement on what exactly that means. I know that senators are short-sighted, but the "unintended" consequences of a decision like this are so near to hand that they hardly deserve the adjective.
- rhizome 6y ago
  The Republicans want one type of change to section 230, which would prevent the suppression of conservative-adjacent voices. On the other hand, the Democrats would like the opposite: greater responsibility of the platform to limit racist, sexist, and violent content. I just want to observe that the position of "conservative" Republicans is to insert the hand of a central government to limit the operations of a private company, and the Democrats are taking the self-regulation stance, the "hands-off option," if you will.
  - dmurray 6y ago
    The Republican position is arguably for more regulation, but the Democratic one certainly is. Requiring "greater responsibility of the platform to limit racist, sexist, and violent content" is definitely not a "hands-off option", rather the opposite. Federal legislators on both sides believe that federal legislatures should have more powers, and they usually get them. That's the real history of American regulation.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    They're conservatives, not libertarians. While Republicans generally push for less regulation than Democrats do, for them it's more about protecting business profit, not about an ideal of non-interference (even if they may try to frame it that way for PR reasons).
- triceratops 6y ago
  > which would prevent the suppression of conservative-adjacent voices. The existence of which there is no proof of. And which is entirely legal to do anyway, though short-sighted from a business perspective.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
rhizome 6y ago
>Repealing it would only lead to more restrictions on what people can post. ...which so far appears to be necessary. Sure, FB announced yesterday that they are banning "LOL voting machines steal ur 401K" ads, but all of these announcements are really well past their sell-by dates, and Facebook has established repeatedly that they will be the last ones to do anything. I doubt we're ever going to "holy shit!" about them.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  The problem is that this would apply to everyone, not just Facebook.
panny 6y ago
>Repealing it would only lead to more restrictions on what people can post. From the right's point of view, that's the desired effect. The right is already being deplatformed. Removing 230 protections means everyone is deplatformed. That will kill their businesses as companies with 230 protection can outcompete them. Scorched earth policy. However, this is only because the right wanted to classify these things as the public square, and therefore subject to first amendment protection. The left claims this is private business and not subject to first amendment. A judge in the WeChat download ban case just handed Trump a public square ruling. It will be interesting to see if they do anything with that or continue with scorched earth instead. At this point, I think the right wants to see these leftist silicon valley companies punished, so a public square ruling may be too little too late.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

It is kiiinda hilarious, you are right. You know, the funniest thing is that in a divided government, there is no possibility of movement on this subject. The Republicans want one type of change to section 230, which would prevent the suppression of conservative-adjacent voices. On the other hand, the Democrats would like the opposite: greater responsibility of the platform to limit racist, sexist, and violent content. It seems like compromise on this subject is extremely difficult when the two sides want directionally opposite changes, and each controls one half of the legislative apparatus. What kind of bargain could they strike? "Well, we're going to have YouTube ban sexists but allow unlimited racist content. Ok, deal?" It's hard for me to picture any amendment of section 230 that would be both material and palatable to both sides. Not to mention that there's the whole constitutionality question, where corporations have enhanced rights of political speech post Citizen's United, and any legislative infringement on that can probably be challenged all the way to the top.

foota 6y ago
I mean, they could remove section 230 protections, which is what the direction I've read seems they're looking towards :(
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  I don't think they will be able to come to an agreement on what exactly that means. I know that senators are short-sighted, but the "unintended" consequences of a decision like this are so near to hand that they hardly deserve the adjective.
rhizome 6y ago
The Republicans want one type of change to section 230, which would prevent the suppression of conservative-adjacent voices. On the other hand, the Democrats would like the opposite: greater responsibility of the platform to limit racist, sexist, and violent content. I just want to observe that the position of "conservative" Republicans is to insert the hand of a central government to limit the operations of a private company, and the Democrats are taking the self-regulation stance, the "hands-off option," if you will.
- dmurray 6y ago
  The Republican position is arguably for more regulation, but the Democratic one certainly is. Requiring "greater responsibility of the platform to limit racist, sexist, and violent content" is definitely not a "hands-off option", rather the opposite. Federal legislators on both sides believe that federal legislatures should have more powers, and they usually get them. That's the real history of American regulation.
- kelnos 6y ago
  They're conservatives, not libertarians. While Republicans generally push for less regulation than Democrats do, for them it's more about protecting business profit, not about an ideal of non-interference (even if they may try to frame it that way for PR reasons).
triceratops 6y ago
> which would prevent the suppression of conservative-adjacent voices. The existence of which there is no proof of. And which is entirely legal to do anyway, though short-sighted from a business perspective.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

rhizome 6y ago

>Repealing it would only lead to more restrictions on what people can post. ...which so far appears to be necessary. Sure, FB announced yesterday that they are banning "LOL voting machines steal ur 401K" ads, but all of these announcements are really well past their sell-by dates, and Facebook has established repeatedly that they will be the last ones to do anything. I doubt we're ever going to "holy shit!" about them.

colejohnson66 6y ago
The problem is that this would apply to everyone, not just Facebook.

panny 6y ago

>Repealing it would only lead to more restrictions on what people can post. From the right's point of view, that's the desired effect. The right is already being deplatformed. Removing 230 protections means everyone is deplatformed. That will kill their businesses as companies with 230 protection can outcompete them. Scorched earth policy. However, this is only because the right wanted to classify these things as the public square, and therefore subject to first amendment protection. The left claims this is private business and not subject to first amendment. A judge in the WeChat download ban case just handed Trump a public square ruling. It will be interesting to see if they do anything with that or continue with scorched earth instead. At this point, I think the right wants to see these leftist silicon valley companies punished, so a public square ruling may be too little too late.