7 ms·
I think you’re downplaying the “Other” category, which literally gives DO carte blanche in cancelling those they don’t approve of, or worse who the mob pressure
by jtdev 6y ago
I think you’re downplaying the “Other” category, which literally gives DO carte blanche in cancelling those they don’t approve of, or worse who the mob pressures DO to cancel.
Do you not see how problematic this is? I agree with all of the other categories wholeheartedly, but even then, application of the policies of these organizations should be uniform, i.e., if both right wing and left wing websites publishes “Violent Threats and Harrassment”, both should be taken down. That’s not what we’re seeing in practice from the major cloud providers.
- 1f60c 6y ago> Do you not see how problematic this is? Their platform, their rules.
- jtdev 6y ago“Their platform” has become the public square. If you think allowing unfettered control of such a utility by a small number of mega corporations - with political biases that change to suit their bottom line - is a good thing then I’m not sure we’re on the same page, in the same book, on the same planet.
- timdev2 6y agoThese companies, and the systems and platforms they own, have not become "the public square" any more than a widely read newspaper, or the only Kinkos in town have. Nor are they utilities. You're using words and phrases with significant legal implications to characterize things that don't meet the well-understood legal definitions. I don't think you're being dishonest, but I fear you've been bamboozled by the dishonest arguments of others, and are now parroting them. I may not like the decisions made by private companies, but private companies doing things I don't like w/r/t hosting speech is preferable to getting state power involved. I don't like Nazi's marching in Skokie. And I don't like what the right insists of calling "cancel culture". But both of those things are constitutionally protected for good reason, and those rights are worth defending.
- jtdev 6y agoSection 230 is woefully naive and written for a bygone era. Censorship of speech by a small group of kleptocrat mega corporations on the greatest communication medium ever known to mankind is antithetical to everything America stands for.
- timdev2 6y agoHave you considered that your problem is not with Section 230, but with the First Amendment?
- jtdev 6y agoYes, I have considered that. But, no, that’s not my “problem”; I understand that this is not covered by the constitution. I believe that Section 230 should be updated and the clearly vague “otherwise objectionable” language should be removed in favor of specific language regarding where, when, and why content can be taken down, i.e., only when that content is unlawful. I understand that some are still basking in electoral victories that were without question aided by the ambiguity in Section 230; this euphoria shouldn’t be confused with righteousness.
- timdev2 6y agoImagine a world where Section 230 doesn't exist. A mean corporation takes down your post, or bans you. What cause of action do you imagine you'd have that wouldn't be barred by 1A? By and large, 230 acts merely as a procedural fast-last to dismiss suits earlier than they'd otherwise be. But they'd ultimately be decided the same way on first amendment grounds.
- jtdev 6y agoYou’re presenting a false dichotomy... 230 needs to be updated, not thrown out; 230 clearly has important aspects that must remain, and other aspects that are clearly being abused by big tech.