4 ms·

>>Is it really the modern equivalent? yes, lets look at it from a legal stand point. Utilities like the phone company are granted special privileges under th

by syshum 6y ago

>>Is it really the modern equivalent? yes, lets look at it from a legal stand point. Utilities like the phone company are granted special privileges under the law, in exchange for society granting them those special privileges they must service all persons in their service area provided they pay the bill (and in some cases even if they do not) Now lets look at social media and other platform, we as a society have granted them special provisions under the law, the most well known today is Section 230 but there are others. I do not believe it is unreasonable then to demand these platform be require to allow all persons to speak provided their speech is legal speech. This is standard would be massively more open than the current moderation standards of the platforms today Now each one of the platforms are free to fore go those special legal provisions, and be treated as publishers, like say a NYTimes, or a DailyWire publication. Under those rules then they have full and complete editorial control over everything on their site but they also assume more legal liability. What the platforms today want is a little bit of A, and a little bit of B, I think that is not what we as a society should allow They need to choose, are they platforms or publishers

npunt 6y ago
I regret to inform you that you have been terribly misled about section 230 and you should read this https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
- syshum 6y ago
  Yes I have read that many times, and I regret to inform you that you have been terribly misled about section 230 further in no way does your link refute my position at all. Not only is TechDirt take factually incorrect on the history of Section 230, I am talking about REFORMS to Section 230 to make it CLEAR what the section should mean, which IMO should be legal speech, not simply allow the platforms to set their own moderation standards The Ninth Circuit has as stated the intent of Section 230 was "Congress wanted to encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet, and to promote the development of e-commerce" The clear purpose of section 230 is promote not impede free speech. TechDirt on the whole has taken very pro-censorship stances provided it is "mah private companies" doing the censorship This is not inline with the actual facts of law, nor it is inline with how we as a society should be progressing I know it may come as a shock but people can have differing opinions from TechDirt....
  - armada651 6y ago
    You can definitely have different opinions on what you think the law should say, but you're misrepresenting what section 230 is for. I can't find that Ninth Circuit rulling you're referring to. The closest I can find is Barnes v. Yahoo! where the court ruled a company can't be compelled under the CDA to ban someone. In that ruling the Ninth circuit said that congress wanted to “promote the free exchange of information and ideas over the Internet and to encourage voluntary monitoring for offensive or obscene material.”. I can't find a ruling that says the intention of section 230 was to enforce unfettered free speech. Rather as I understand it section 230 is there to protect companies who want to publish a myriad of opinions by clarifying that it is the user who is liable for what they say, not the company that runs the website
    - syshum 6y ago
      >>I can't find that Ninth Circuit rulling you're referring to. Batzel v. Smith [1][2] >>Rather as I understand it section 230 is there to protect companies who want to publish a myriad of opinions by clarifying that it is the user who is liable for what they say, not the company that runs the website The 2 congressmen that created the law are on record talking about how they did not want speech on the internet to be stifled because of legal liabilities if they moderated some content, the primary justification/rhetoric at the time like most laws designed to allow censorship/moderation was "think of the children, children might see some boobs or franks and be scared for life" "The broad language of Section 230’s protection reflects the intent to protect the industry and its users’ ability to communicate freely." [1] It was not conceived at the time of the Sections passage the internet companies would start to bann their "users" or "customers" from the service for political speech, such a thing was really unheard of during that time in American History, it just was not done. Times have changed, the law needs to be updated to reflect the original intent of the law which was and is to expand not limit speech [1]https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/08/correcting-the-record-on-section-230s-legislative-history-guest-blog-post.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/08/correcting-the... [2]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16376502179767104974&q=%22batzel+v.+smith%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=163765021797671...

by syshum 6y ago

npunt 6y ago

I regret to inform you that you have been terribly misled about section 230 and you should read this https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

syshum 6y ago
Yes I have read that many times, and I regret to inform you that you have been terribly misled about section 230 further in no way does your link refute my position at all. Not only is TechDirt take factually incorrect on the history of Section 230, I am talking about REFORMS to Section 230 to make it CLEAR what the section should mean, which IMO should be legal speech, not simply allow the platforms to set their own moderation standards The Ninth Circuit has as stated the intent of Section 230 was "Congress wanted to encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet, and to promote the development of e-commerce" The clear purpose of section 230 is promote not impede free speech. TechDirt on the whole has taken very pro-censorship stances provided it is "mah private companies" doing the censorship This is not inline with the actual facts of law, nor it is inline with how we as a society should be progressing I know it may come as a shock but people can have differing opinions from TechDirt....
- armada651 6y ago
  You can definitely have different opinions on what you think the law should say, but you're misrepresenting what section 230 is for. I can't find that Ninth Circuit rulling you're referring to. The closest I can find is Barnes v. Yahoo! where the court ruled a company can't be compelled under the CDA to ban someone. In that ruling the Ninth circuit said that congress wanted to “promote the free exchange of information and ideas over the Internet and to encourage voluntary monitoring for offensive or obscene material.”. I can't find a ruling that says the intention of section 230 was to enforce unfettered free speech. Rather as I understand it section 230 is there to protect companies who want to publish a myriad of opinions by clarifying that it is the user who is liable for what they say, not the company that runs the website
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>I can't find that Ninth Circuit rulling you're referring to. Batzel v. Smith [1][2] >>Rather as I understand it section 230 is there to protect companies who want to publish a myriad of opinions by clarifying that it is the user who is liable for what they say, not the company that runs the website The 2 congressmen that created the law are on record talking about how they did not want speech on the internet to be stifled because of legal liabilities if they moderated some content, the primary justification/rhetoric at the time like most laws designed to allow censorship/moderation was "think of the children, children might see some boobs or franks and be scared for life" "The broad language of Section 230’s protection reflects the intent to protect the industry and its users’ ability to communicate freely." [1] It was not conceived at the time of the Sections passage the internet companies would start to bann their "users" or "customers" from the service for political speech, such a thing was really unheard of during that time in American History, it just was not done. Times have changed, the law needs to be updated to reflect the original intent of the law which was and is to expand not limit speech [1]https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/08/correcting-the-record-on-section-230s-legislative-history-guest-blog-post.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/08/correcting-the... [2]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16376502179767104974&q=%22batzel+v.+smith%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=163765021797671...