4 ms·

> 230 is safe Both sides have said 230 needs fixed/removed, if for different reasons. to think 230 can't be removed/fixed now is laughable. https://www.busine

> 230 is safe Both sides have said 230 needs fixed/removed, if for different reasons. to think 230 can't be removed/fixed now is laughable. https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-section-230-tech-firms-regulated-treated-as-publishers-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-section-230-tech-firms... > President-elect Joe Biden has said that he wants to revoke Section 230. When Biden was vice president under Obama, the administration was largely hands-off when it came to the tech industry. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/biden-wants-to-get-rid-of-techs-legal-shield-section-230.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/biden-wants-to-get-rid-of-te... > Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden told The New York Times editorial board that tech’s legal shield known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act should be revoked. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/04/trump-biden-pelosi-section-230-repeal-facebook-twitter-google/4132529001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/04/trump-biden-p... > Democrats, including President-elect Joe Biden, urged Congress to revise Section 230 to force tech companies to remove hate speech and extremism, election interference and falsehoods. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Section 230 a gift to Big Tech. "It is not out of the question that that could be removed," she said in 2019.

trumpthrow 6y ago
Lies.
syockit 6y ago
As an outsider, the situation is quite amusing to see. One side wants to revoke 230 so that the tech companies would stop policing content. Another side wants to revoke it so that the companies would police more content instead.
- paxys 6y ago
  The Republican position on this has always been idiotic. Revoking 230 would make platforms directly liable for what is written on them, making them crack down more on their posts.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    The Republican position isn't so idiotic when you consider that a consequence would be that (supposedly Democrat-supporting) Big Tech companies would be unable to provide platforms for the free spreading of ideas, reducing their attention and revenue, and making it harder for citizens to organize and hold their government to account. It makes even more sense when you consider that the second-order effect would be that people migrate their discussions to sites operated from countries outside the US, which have their own political agendas. Perhaps you can think of a country that has advanced cyber capabilities, strong control over local platforms, and resentment of US global influence. This MO of triggering national self-destruction becomes more obvious the more examples you see, such as the spreading of misinformation about 5G or vaccines/masks, in order to radicalize citizens into destroying their own communications infrastructure and overwhelm their health services.
  - ryanSrich 6y ago
    Well, at least in that case things would have to be legally equal right? Twitter would be required to also ban the thousands of Antifa and far-left violent groups that have ravaged cities and local businesses all summer. No more double standards.
    - fapjacks 6y ago
      While it would be nice if this were the result, why do you imagine that Twitter would ban these accounts promoting violence when members of the American government and major media outlets openly signal boost and support the very same violence? It is clear that one faction's promotion of violence is considered acceptable while the other faction's promotion of violence is not.
      - ryanSrich 6y ago
        While I agree that the woke corps certainly promote and endorse these groups, I still have a small amount of faith in the US legal system to seek justice. Meaning if Twitter failed to maintain their legal obligation to enforce, they'd be open to litigation.

trumpthrow 6y ago

Lies.

syockit 6y ago

As an outsider, the situation is quite amusing to see. One side wants to revoke 230 so that the tech companies would stop policing content. Another side wants to revoke it so that the companies would police more content instead.

paxys 6y ago
The Republican position on this has always been idiotic. Revoking 230 would make platforms directly liable for what is written on them, making them crack down more on their posts.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  The Republican position isn't so idiotic when you consider that a consequence would be that (supposedly Democrat-supporting) Big Tech companies would be unable to provide platforms for the free spreading of ideas, reducing their attention and revenue, and making it harder for citizens to organize and hold their government to account. It makes even more sense when you consider that the second-order effect would be that people migrate their discussions to sites operated from countries outside the US, which have their own political agendas. Perhaps you can think of a country that has advanced cyber capabilities, strong control over local platforms, and resentment of US global influence. This MO of triggering national self-destruction becomes more obvious the more examples you see, such as the spreading of misinformation about 5G or vaccines/masks, in order to radicalize citizens into destroying their own communications infrastructure and overwhelm their health services.
- ryanSrich 6y ago
  Well, at least in that case things would have to be legally equal right? Twitter would be required to also ban the thousands of Antifa and far-left violent groups that have ravaged cities and local businesses all summer. No more double standards.
  - fapjacks 6y ago
    While it would be nice if this were the result, why do you imagine that Twitter would ban these accounts promoting violence when members of the American government and major media outlets openly signal boost and support the very same violence? It is clear that one faction's promotion of violence is considered acceptable while the other faction's promotion of violence is not.
    - ryanSrich 6y ago
      While I agree that the woke corps certainly promote and endorse these groups, I still have a small amount of faith in the US legal system to seek justice. Meaning if Twitter failed to maintain their legal obligation to enforce, they'd be open to litigation.