3 ms·

Issue is common carrier vs publishers. Common carrier: service provider is not responsible for any information customers transmit. Publisher: service provider

Issue is common carrier vs publishers. Common carrier: service provider is not responsible for any information customers transmit. Publisher: service provider is responsible for which customer-supplied information is transmitted. Section 203 bends the line between these, absolving service provider from liability of content while allowing good-faith effort to cull bad content. T/G/F broke that line by conflating “opposing views” with “bad content” unto sociopolitical ends. At some point a court or legislature must clarify that making bad-faith deletions of content nullifies the 203 protection. Here we go.

not2b 5y ago
No, they didn't ban Trump for "opposing views", but for calling for violence and spreading demonstrably false information, repeatedly. They can document this, along with the dozens of warnings they gave Trump, and they will whenever Trump, after losing the first round instantly (terms of service say you must sue company X in the state where it is headquartered, you chose Florida, go away), refiles in the proper places, they'll do that.
- kstrauser 5y ago
  Exactly. No one's "deplatforming" (:eyeroll:) George Will for being a conservative. The sane, rational conservative voices still have full access to those platforms. (I'm not a conservative, but I can appreciate that there are still clear heads on the right who have interesting things to say even if I disagree with them.)
- ctdonath 5y ago
  Construing common opposing views as “violence and lies” does not, historically, end well.
rektide 5y ago
Section 230 is literally designed to give content providers freedom to moderate & keep their site as they please. It's designed to allow sites to have liberties to do as they please. This desire to re-imagine 230, to invent these differing categories, or to imagine additional obligations to carry content, is fabricated made up nonsense with zero basis in fact. It's a complete schtick. Personally, to me, it comes off as a vengeful control act, often by influences/camps who rightfully these platforms should want to stay away from for good cause, but that's a weakly held opinion of myself. I normally am horrified by corporate rights, by treating corporations as people, but in this case, I 100% think 230 did the right thing, and allowed companies to build the sites they wanted to build, rather than having to get swamped by whomever came by & wanted to use the site for whatever dreadful horrible affairs they wanted.
basch 5y ago
There is no such thing as nullifying 230 protection. It doesnt have a clause on how you "lose protection." The law says "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." Otherwise objectionable is a pretty broad brush to take down anything you want, THAT YOU DONT LIKE. And thats the point. If you build a platform you can host whatever you want, and if you take down things you dont like, that doesnt make you the speaker of what remains. What would a "bad faith" removal of non-objectionable content even look like? Removing it just to annoy the person, basically "don't pick on people for fun?" Imagine if youtube took down spam, and in doing so became the speaker of every other video it hosted.

not2b 5y ago

No, they didn't ban Trump for "opposing views", but for calling for violence and spreading demonstrably false information, repeatedly. They can document this, along with the dozens of warnings they gave Trump, and they will whenever Trump, after losing the first round instantly (terms of service say you must sue company X in the state where it is headquartered, you chose Florida, go away), refiles in the proper places, they'll do that.

kstrauser 5y ago
Exactly. No one's "deplatforming" (:eyeroll:) George Will for being a conservative. The sane, rational conservative voices still have full access to those platforms. (I'm not a conservative, but I can appreciate that there are still clear heads on the right who have interesting things to say even if I disagree with them.)
ctdonath 5y ago
Construing common opposing views as “violence and lies” does not, historically, end well.

rektide 5y ago

Section 230 is literally designed to give content providers freedom to moderate & keep their site as they please. It's designed to allow sites to have liberties to do as they please. This desire to re-imagine 230, to invent these differing categories, or to imagine additional obligations to carry content, is fabricated made up nonsense with zero basis in fact. It's a complete schtick. Personally, to me, it comes off as a vengeful control act, often by influences/camps who rightfully these platforms should want to stay away from for good cause, but that's a weakly held opinion of myself. I normally am horrified by corporate rights, by treating corporations as people, but in this case, I 100% think 230 did the right thing, and allowed companies to build the sites they wanted to build, rather than having to get swamped by whomever came by & wanted to use the site for whatever dreadful horrible affairs they wanted.

basch 5y ago

There is no such thing as nullifying 230 protection. It doesnt have a clause on how you "lose protection." The law says "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." Otherwise objectionable is a pretty broad brush to take down anything you want, THAT YOU DONT LIKE. And thats the point. If you build a platform you can host whatever you want, and if you take down things you dont like, that doesnt make you the speaker of what remains. What would a "bad faith" removal of non-objectionable content even look like? Removing it just to annoy the person, basically "don't pick on people for fun?" Imagine if youtube took down spam, and in doing so became the speaker of every other video it hosted.