3 ms·

It seems that some people's problem with § 230 is that it permits a publisher to filter content without also risking liability for the content. "Get rid of § 2

by D13Fd 6y ago

It seems that some people's problem with § 230 is that it permits a publisher to filter content without also risking liability for the content. "Get rid of § 230" is a backwards way to solve the problem that they have. They don't actually want publishers to be liable for the content on their sites (which would, if anything, lead to greatly increased censorship and filtering). They want to STOP companies from censoring what the companies deem misinformation or otherwise offensive content. In other words, they want the law to be "if you control a channel for speech, you are not permitted to censor or filter out what you view as misinformation, incitements to violence, or otherwise offensive content." Again, this has no support in the free speech rights of the first amendment. In fact, it could be viewed as contrary to free speech, since the government would be forcing people and corporations to carry content on their websites that those people or corporations do not agree with and/or find offensive.

beerandt 6y ago
By promoting or demoting, or removing content (without some form of due process) the platform expresses an opinion, making it the act of a publisher, which should be an act they are liable for. >would be forcing people and corporations to carry content on their websites that those people or corporations do not agree with If you choose to build/host a public square, you must provide equal opportunity and access to it. Limiting access thereafter would involve police for criminal acts, or court / restraining orders for civil. Both are performed by govt, within the government's constitutional limits. Due process. If you want to control content and be a publisher, then fine, but now we're talking about assumed liability for content, and an entirely different relationship with content creators. Just as the owners of a private venue are responsible for the actions of entertainers they might hire.

by D13Fd 6y ago

beerandt 6y ago

By promoting or demoting, or removing content (without some form of due process) the platform expresses an opinion, making it the act of a publisher, which should be an act they are liable for. >would be forcing people and corporations to carry content on their websites that those people or corporations do not agree with If you choose to build/host a public square, you must provide equal opportunity and access to it. Limiting access thereafter would involve police for criminal acts, or court / restraining orders for civil. Both are performed by govt, within the government's constitutional limits. Due process. If you want to control content and be a publisher, then fine, but now we're talking about assumed liability for content, and an entirely different relationship with content creators. Just as the owners of a private venue are responsible for the actions of entertainers they might hire.