7 ms·

by whose definition? Let me explain the purpose of section 230 and it's right in the US Congress bill pre-amble(intro). section 230 set's up liability protect

by whose definition? Let me explain the purpose of section 230 and it's right in the US Congress bill pre-amble(intro). section 230 set's up liability protection for communication companies that accept user content IF THEY VOLUNTEER to moderate non private speech. IE the public speech that occurs in what be called semi-private commons. Tis is not censorship claimed by title baiting it's protection of the public commons from delving into a huge mess not-safe for anyone to speak into

marcus_holmes 6y ago
the question, as always, is whose speech gets moderated? What ideas are so terrible that you are not allowed to mention them on the internet? And who gets to decide that? Up until now, we've been drawing the line at child pornography. Now it seems we're moving the line somewhere else. Who gets to decide where that line is drawn?
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  In the US, it’s whoever owns the platform. Congress can’t do it, per the constitution.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    and yet that's exactly what is happening here, isn't it?
- mewse 6y ago
  Intuitively (though I don’t know enough to talk about this from a legal standpoint), it seems fairly obvious to me that social media platforms are a kind of “shared speech” system. You write something as a user, and the social media platform repeats it later to other visitors to the platform. In effect, both you and the platform are “speaking” whatever you write. The platform can’t compel you to say something, and you can’t compel them to say something either. Conceptually it’s a bit like slogans on vehicle license plates in the US, where it’s legal for you to mask out the slogan on a license plate (though illegal to mask the functional parts of the plate, such as the registration number), and it’s also legal for the state to refuse to put your requested message on a license plate. It’s shared speech, and neither side can be compelled to engage in speech that they object to. I don’t see a problem, personally, from this perspective. You don’t get to compel someone else to say what you want them to say; whoever you’re asking to repeat your words always gets an opportunity to refuse. And of course, there can then be consequences for that refusal or non-refusal.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    this seems like an end-run around the rules: "I can't stop you from saying something, but I can stop them from allowing it to be said on their platform"
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    The license plate topic went all the way to the Supreme Court: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard where the court found 6-3 that you could not be compelled to display a state motto that you morally objected to.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

the question, as always, is whose speech gets moderated? What ideas are so terrible that you are not allowed to mention them on the internet? And who gets to decide that? Up until now, we've been drawing the line at child pornography. Now it seems we're moving the line somewhere else. Who gets to decide where that line is drawn?

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
In the US, it’s whoever owns the platform. Congress can’t do it, per the constitution.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  and yet that's exactly what is happening here, isn't it?
mewse 6y ago
Intuitively (though I don’t know enough to talk about this from a legal standpoint), it seems fairly obvious to me that social media platforms are a kind of “shared speech” system. You write something as a user, and the social media platform repeats it later to other visitors to the platform. In effect, both you and the platform are “speaking” whatever you write. The platform can’t compel you to say something, and you can’t compel them to say something either. Conceptually it’s a bit like slogans on vehicle license plates in the US, where it’s legal for you to mask out the slogan on a license plate (though illegal to mask the functional parts of the plate, such as the registration number), and it’s also legal for the state to refuse to put your requested message on a license plate. It’s shared speech, and neither side can be compelled to engage in speech that they object to. I don’t see a problem, personally, from this perspective. You don’t get to compel someone else to say what you want them to say; whoever you’re asking to repeat your words always gets an opportunity to refuse. And of course, there can then be consequences for that refusal or non-refusal.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  this seems like an end-run around the rules: "I can't stop you from saying something, but I can stop them from allowing it to be said on their platform"
- sokoloff 6y ago
  The license plate topic went all the way to the Supreme Court: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard where the court found 6-3 that you could not be compelled to display a state motto that you morally objected to.