3 ms·

The fact that the congressman speaking does not mean his statement deoes extrapolate for the entirety of congress. Did we hear other arguments on front of the

The fact that the congressman speaking does not mean his statement deoes extrapolate for the entirety of congress. Did we hear other arguments on front of the Chairman against said protection ? His speech, for all we now, can be qualified by political donations received from the interested parties for him to have a certain opinion. However for the issue at hand, lets give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that congress shared this opinion in majority and no financial interests were at play. On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 was intended to protect monopolies ? Big boys != monopolies. Can you successfully argue that AOL or MS were internet monopolies then ?

nobody9999 6y ago
>On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 was intended to protect monopolies ? Because section 230 protects everyone. There is no limitation in the law that says "if you have x% market share, you are not covered under the law." My point WRT Prodigy/AOL, etc. was that there certainly wasn't the intent to exclude the large players (which is what you asserted without evidence). In fact, a major impetus for section 230 was the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy decision[0]. And so I'll ask you: On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 wasn't intended to protect everyone? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
nobody9999 6y ago
>The fact that the congressman speaking does not mean his statement deoes extrapolate for the entirety of congress. Did we hear other arguments on front of the Chairman against said protection ? Given that Chris Cox (the congressman quoted) co-sponsored and co-wrote section 230 with Ron Wyden, his take on what it was all about is absolutely relevant, as is the fact that there was a competing bill that when finally passed, incorporated section 230. A piece of unsolicited advice: Learn some history, friend.

nobody9999 6y ago

>On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 was intended to protect monopolies ? Because section 230 protects everyone. There is no limitation in the law that says "if you have x% market share, you are not covered under the law." My point WRT Prodigy/AOL, etc. was that there certainly wasn't the intent to exclude the large players (which is what you asserted without evidence). In fact, a major impetus for section 230 was the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy decision[0]. And so I'll ask you: On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 wasn't intended to protect everyone? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....

nobody9999 6y ago

>The fact that the congressman speaking does not mean his statement deoes extrapolate for the entirety of congress. Did we hear other arguments on front of the Chairman against said protection ? Given that Chris Cox (the congressman quoted) co-sponsored and co-wrote section 230 with Ron Wyden, his take on what it was all about is absolutely relevant, as is the fact that there was a competing bill that when finally passed, incorporated section 230. A piece of unsolicited advice: Learn some history, friend.