3 ms·

Either don't suspend it, or just scrap it altogether. One thing I keep seeing is people that are ideologically opposed to restriction of speech keep getting ca

Either don't suspend it, or just scrap it altogether. One thing I keep seeing is people that are ideologically opposed to restriction of speech keep getting caught up in a semantic argument about the rights of private companies- and fail to actually come up with a solution. This far into the game, when the sitting White House press secretary goes on record stating that the current administration has been giving these social media companies guidelines and cues on what to clamp down on...we are so far past these arguments. And regulation/regulatory capture is not the solution. These exemptions are really just retroactive proposals to legalize what the big tech social media companies are already doing.

mariodiana 5y ago
It becomes more complicated than the simple case of private companies and their rights when those companies are being strong-armed by the threat of government regulation, and when a presidential administration has a hotline to those companies to flag "misinformation." That's backdoor government censorship.
krapp 5y ago
>These exemptions are really just retroactive proposals to legalize what the big tech social media companies are already doing. Big tech social media companies have always been allowed to moderate and ban content, that has always been legal. It's literally what Section 230 was written to permit.
- yonaguska 5y ago
  > Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action. Hmm, they're just doing a lot of "acting in good faith" then. Ok.
rektide 5y ago
What an entitled belittling perspective. You keep talking about a solution. You are talking about ending democracy. You are talking about telling people they cannot speak. There is no solution. Trying to imagine this is a problem of big platforms, of social media, is a complete fantasy. It's a scape-goat against an easy, modern, popular target to rage against. It's low and it's cowardly & frankly it's besides the point. America has always had a conspiracy theorist problem, a huge one. It's metastatized somewhat. But it's not big platform alone that's causing this. Ideas are more viral with a better connected society. Blaming the easy obvious targets is lazy & boring & I'm exhausted by such callous hateful anti-speach views, so repetetively demanding "solutions", so angrily telling us we cannot allow speech online.
- yonaguska 5y ago
  What? I'm pro free-speech. I'm sick of the private companies hiding behind 230 while simultaneously acting as publishers. In theory, 230 is great. In practice, it's just become regulatory capture as it's selectively enforced. And honestly, I have no problem with the conspiracy theory "problem". I don't think it's a problem. Ideas are countered by other ideas, not restricting speech.
  - rektide 5y ago
    these companies have the same rights as you. your desire to tell these people that you want them to be liable is punching yourself in the face, it means you won't be able to host comments or host other people's voice either. I don't get how you can think what you ask for would only affect them. this us vs them mentality is ridiculous & disgusting. these entities are being treated like the private entities that they are & the twisted meanspirited against-them rage you hit with is hitting against each & every citizen's right. this fabricated fictitious no-lawful-basis that anyone who hosts speech online is suddenly a publisher is some serious china/Russia grade info-fascism & it's so vile, so wrong, such a dangerous disgusting info-fascism that would singlehandedly doom every hope of cyberspace we've ever had. there's no line you propose, just sabtoage, destruction of safe harbor, tearing down hostability. I can not state enough what a shallow shortsighted assessment you've taken in determining that dynamiting the best/only online legal bastion of free speech online we have (because you have stupid bone to picks with some private entities moderation attempts) is good for anyone. there's no selective enforcement. we all enjoy safe harbor. everyone hosting content online needs it. desperately needs it. everyone.

mariodiana 5y ago

It becomes more complicated than the simple case of private companies and their rights when those companies are being strong-armed by the threat of government regulation, and when a presidential administration has a hotline to those companies to flag "misinformation." That's backdoor government censorship.

krapp 5y ago

>These exemptions are really just retroactive proposals to legalize what the big tech social media companies are already doing. Big tech social media companies have always been allowed to moderate and ban content, that has always been legal. It's literally what Section 230 was written to permit.

yonaguska 5y ago
> Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action. Hmm, they're just doing a lot of "acting in good faith" then. Ok.

rektide 5y ago

What an entitled belittling perspective. You keep talking about a solution. You are talking about ending democracy. You are talking about telling people they cannot speak. There is no solution. Trying to imagine this is a problem of big platforms, of social media, is a complete fantasy. It's a scape-goat against an easy, modern, popular target to rage against. It's low and it's cowardly & frankly it's besides the point. America has always had a conspiracy theorist problem, a huge one. It's metastatized somewhat. But it's not big platform alone that's causing this. Ideas are more viral with a better connected society. Blaming the easy obvious targets is lazy & boring & I'm exhausted by such callous hateful anti-speach views, so repetetively demanding "solutions", so angrily telling us we cannot allow speech online.

yonaguska 5y ago
What? I'm pro free-speech. I'm sick of the private companies hiding behind 230 while simultaneously acting as publishers. In theory, 230 is great. In practice, it's just become regulatory capture as it's selectively enforced. And honestly, I have no problem with the conspiracy theory "problem". I don't think it's a problem. Ideas are countered by other ideas, not restricting speech.
- rektide 5y ago
  these companies have the same rights as you. your desire to tell these people that you want them to be liable is punching yourself in the face, it means you won't be able to host comments or host other people's voice either. I don't get how you can think what you ask for would only affect them. this us vs them mentality is ridiculous & disgusting. these entities are being treated like the private entities that they are & the twisted meanspirited against-them rage you hit with is hitting against each & every citizen's right. this fabricated fictitious no-lawful-basis that anyone who hosts speech online is suddenly a publisher is some serious china/Russia grade info-fascism & it's so vile, so wrong, such a dangerous disgusting info-fascism that would singlehandedly doom every hope of cyberspace we've ever had. there's no line you propose, just sabtoage, destruction of safe harbor, tearing down hostability. I can not state enough what a shallow shortsighted assessment you've taken in determining that dynamiting the best/only online legal bastion of free speech online we have (because you have stupid bone to picks with some private entities moderation attempts) is good for anyone. there's no selective enforcement. we all enjoy safe harbor. everyone hosting content online needs it. desperately needs it. everyone.