3 ms·
Yes, 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 u
by jtdev 6y ago
Yes, 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.
- timdev2 6y agoOkay, let's just strike the "otherwise objectionable" at the end of (c)(2)(A): What cause of action do you imagine you'd have that wouldn't be barred by 1A?
- jtdev 6y agoThat depends. Are these organizations acting in “good faith”?
- timdev2 6y agoI'm asking you for a hypothetical - they can be acting with as much or as little "good faith" as you like.
- jtdev 6y agoOakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. was in my mind and many others greatly preferred to the current mess we see caused by 230. Please tell me how your 1A hypothetical works out. Genuinely interested in hearing how you think 1A and SCOTUS will support your side of this argument.
- timdev2 6y agoStratton Oakmont v Prodigy Services is only tenuously related to your gripe about websites removing content. Stratton didn't sue Prodigy for taking down posts by Stratton. They sued Prodigy for not taking down allegedly defamatory posts by users. I asked you to provide a cause of action for "censorship" by a web site. SOvP isn't that. A more recent, federal, and better-fitting case would be PragerU vs. YouTube. There, PragerU sued over their content being remove/restricted. They lost on 230 grounds. But even without 230, they almost certainly would have lost on 1A grounds, because YouTube's exercise of editorial discretion about what content they host is clearly 1A protected activity. Going back to Stratton Oakmont for a moment: I understand the argument that, absent the liability shield in 230, content moderation of less-than-clearly-illegal content would be vanishingly rare. Web sites would seek to avoid potential liability by getting out of the content-moderation business, which would fix your issue. I'm not convinced that would actually be the outcome. Even if it were, I wouldn't enjoy every web site devolving into 4chan-but-covered-in-spam.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jtdev 6y ago...and there we have it. If you want to selectively censor lawful content, you should be treated as a publisher.