4 ms·

The anti-230 sentiment is just a knee-jerk reaction from people that see an unfair situation and just want to punish the perpetrators. It's a guttural response

by d0100 6y ago

The anti-230 sentiment is just a knee-jerk reaction from people that see an unfair situation and just want to punish the perpetrators. It's a guttural response to unfair treatment. I think that what should be sought is another "Section 231" that makes banning users from platforms must go through the justice system, just like if you wanted to ban someone from the town square. This gives platforms a scapegoat, "the government won't let me", but still allows the platform to do things like not list "bad" people in the "discover" feed and make better mute/ignore features Unilateral and permanent banning just creates more problems

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
More problems for who? Not for the platform. Maybe for the folks who are banned, they lose their free megaphone and have to actually pay to get their opinions heard, which seems like a fine trade off to me. I’m slowly coming around to the idea that getting rid of section 230 would be a good thing overall. Social media platforms shouldn’t be amplifying ideas they think are odious. Why the heck would anybody do that? For money? Would you be willing to spread propaganda that you thought was terrible for money? I sure wouldn’t.
mullingitover 6y ago
> I think that what should be sought is another "Section 231" that makes banning users from platforms must go through the justice system, just like if you wanted to ban someone from the town square. These platforms aren't remotely the town square. The comparison has been made to them being the shopping mall, and I think it's apt. > Unilateral and permanent banning just creates more problems Creating government red tape when swift action is needed to remove users who violate the rights of others or harm others is not the answer. The latitude service providers are given to remove objectionable content enables the internet to work quite well. From what I've seen, the biggest complaints of censorship are defending the indefensible, and for support of that claim I direct your attention to the evidence Amazon gathered in response to Parler's lawsuit. > This gives platforms a scapegoat, "the government won't let me", but still allows the platform to do things like not list "bad" people in the "discover" feed and make better mute/ignore features If a shop that you're forced to allow in your shopping mall is doing money laundering and arms trafficking, I don't think the answer is 'just remove them from your mall's map while you file a lawsuit against them'.

by d0100 6y ago

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

More problems for who? Not for the platform. Maybe for the folks who are banned, they lose their free megaphone and have to actually pay to get their opinions heard, which seems like a fine trade off to me. I’m slowly coming around to the idea that getting rid of section 230 would be a good thing overall. Social media platforms shouldn’t be amplifying ideas they think are odious. Why the heck would anybody do that? For money? Would you be willing to spread propaganda that you thought was terrible for money? I sure wouldn’t.

mullingitover 6y ago

> I think that what should be sought is another "Section 231" that makes banning users from platforms must go through the justice system, just like if you wanted to ban someone from the town square. These platforms aren't remotely the town square. The comparison has been made to them being the shopping mall, and I think it's apt. > Unilateral and permanent banning just creates more problems Creating government red tape when swift action is needed to remove users who violate the rights of others or harm others is not the answer. The latitude service providers are given to remove objectionable content enables the internet to work quite well. From what I've seen, the biggest complaints of censorship are defending the indefensible, and for support of that claim I direct your attention to the evidence Amazon gathered in response to Parler's lawsuit. > This gives platforms a scapegoat, "the government won't let me", but still allows the platform to do things like not list "bad" people in the "discover" feed and make better mute/ignore features If a shop that you're forced to allow in your shopping mall is doing money laundering and arms trafficking, I don't think the answer is 'just remove them from your mall's map while you file a lawsuit against them'.