4 ms·

While this looks good on paper, it would severely hinder free speech on these platforms if not already.

• xpe 6y ago
  When you say "free speech", are you referring to the First Amendment (1A)? If so, are you claiming that the bill would conflict with 1A? If so, on what basis?
  • peytn 6y ago
    Not the OP, but I believe the freedom of speech is a concept that exists outside of the Constitution. The OP may be referring to a principle or ideal instead of a constitutional construction.
  • ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Well, given corporate personhood, the parent may be worried this law would harm Google and Facebook's legal right to speak paid promotions for racists.
  • dangerbird2 6y ago
    Obviously how a social media platform moderates itself has virtually nothing to do with 1A. Limiting or eliminating section 230 would place more legal liability on the platforms over users' content. They would have a much greater incentive to limit users speech whenever there is the slightest risk of putting the platform in legal jeopardy. The fact that social media platforms aren't considered "publishers" means that the financial benefit for having a quasi free-speech community overrides their legal risk.
• AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Restricting advertising that is deemed harmful is not unprecedented, for instance tobacco ads in much of the world or prescription drug ads in sane countries. This doesn't even restrict any new kind of ad, it just opens these platforms up to liability for the ads they run. Seems pretty reasonable to me. It means if my system was exploited via an ad on Facebook[0], I can sue Facebook for showing me that ad. [0] Situation is hypothetical, I don't actually use Facebook.