4 ms·

Section 230 is just allowance for mass abuse. Why should Facebook/Twitter/Google be treated differently from a media company when they are inserting their versi

• madeofpalk 6y ago
  > inserting their version of the Truth Explain? Section 230 just says that you can't be held accountable for what other people say. How can you "abuse" that? If Facebook/Twitter/Google are first hand saying/pubishing their own speach, then they can be held accountable for that.
  • jimmydorry 6y ago
    I imagine GP is talking about the text and links that FB/Twitter/Google are inserting on specific user created content. The claim is that these actions fall under the purview of "curation" and "moderation" from either side respectively.
    • Spivak 6y ago
      Let’s talk about a non-politically charged example. Take the famous Zalgo post on SO https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open-tags-except-xhtml-self-contained-tags https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open... where the moderators left the content up because of its fame but added a comment at the top. SO is full of posts like this that have external significance but normally wouldn’t be allowed. I honestly don’t see anything wrong with Twitter saying “hey we think it’s important for the president’s words to stay up but we want to be clear that they wouldn’t normally and here’s why.”
    • nobody9999 6y ago
      >The claim is that these actions fall under the purview of "curation" and "moderation" from either side respectively. IIUC, if Twitter/Facebook chose, they could legally just block those tweets/posts altogether under the guise of Section 230. In fact, they do that sort of thing all the time. The only reason they've started putting "labels" on these is because they prefer not to block stuff completely. Either way, both section 230 and the fact that they're private (rather than government) entities give them that latitude. Without Section 230, they'd likely just block all those posts and much, much more in order to avoid litigation. That said, I'm less concerned about section 230 WRT to Twitter and Facebook and more concerned about small sites and blogs. Without Section 230, anyone with deep pockets could just bury anyone who allows comments on their site in lawsuits. Twitter and Facebook could fight back and likely succeed. But anyone without millions to spend on legal fees could easily be forced offline. And so I wonder, what value would be added by removing section 230 protections? I'd expect that the only folks who would really benefit would be lawyers -- and the rest of us would be poorer, both in terms the diversity of voices and diversity of platforms, for it.
    • tzs 6y ago
      Section 230 does not provide FB or Twitter with any protection for the text they add. That is not user provided content and is outside the scope of 230. When they add their own text to, say, a Trump tweet, section 230 only protects them from liability over the content of Trump's tweet itself.
      • Spivak 6y ago
        And since the labels that Twitter, Insta, TikTok, YouTube are adding to political content basically amount to “don’t assume this what you see on the internet true, here’s a link to official resources” it’s hard to argue they’re suddenly endorsing content.
    • madeofpalk 6y ago
      That text they put up, they’re responsible and liable for. That is not “section 230” protected.
• Hamuko 6y ago
  >Bernie will never have a platform again. Under what scenario will Bernie be deplatformed? Because Section 230 isn't anything new or upcoming.