5 ms·

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/20

• criddell 4y ago
  I think you are responding to something the GP never said or implied. Meta wants you to think you are in charge of what you see but it isn't true and hasn't been for a while now. The algorithm decides. It acts as an editor pulling together a site tailored to whatever it thinks will maximize Meta revenue.
• skizm 4y ago
  Devil's advocate here (I won't comment on if I agree with the argument or not), but this article seems to miss the point of the section 230 debate. All of the stuff here is about what the law is now. The objection most people have is that it shouldn't be like this and we need to change or remove section 230. It specifically allows sites to be biased while also not holding them legally accountable for anything they choose not to remove. Once a social media site hits a certain scale, they can completely control any narrative they want. Should this be allowed is the real question (imo).
  • kcplate 4y ago
    > to miss the point of the section 230 debate. All of the stuff here is about what the law is now This is something that kind of irritates me about Mike Masnick (who I generally enjoy reading). He always seems so focused on the current state of the law that he seems blind to the debate.
  • scohesc 4y ago
    I tend to agree with you - getting rid of section 230 or limiting it to certain types of content providers based on some certain metric would be ideal. I've been doing some thinking and it seems to me like Section 230 being repealed would be disastrous for smaller websites/startups/content creators. If I create a small-scale forum - I am now legally responsible for what is posted on that platform and can be sued repeatedly into the ground until I'm not able to continue running my business/forum/whatever. If someone has the capital to do that and a mission to remove me from the internet, then they're able to. With section 230, it has that "monkey's paw" style penalty. Sure, it would be nice to go after social media companies that continuously abuse their power and act on behalf of the government to control what you can say, when you can say it, but then you'd also potentially open up a bunch of legal trouble for smaller outlets. If there was a way to enact something where above a certain threshold, section 230 no longer applies to your company and you need to be responsible for the content on your platform - maybe that would be ideal, but I don't know what that threshold would be - profits, incorporated vs LLC vs sole proprietorship, I'm not sure.
  • nradov 4y ago
    Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested extending common carrier laws to cover social media. This would essentially prevent them from censoring any legal content, much like legacy telephone companies can't block users from discussing certain topics. Such a change would require an Act of Congress to amend or replace the Communications Decency Act. And there are potential First Amendment concerns in terms of forced speech. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-aims-at-tech-and-its-power-to-cut-off-speech https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th... So it's an interesting policy idea but I'm not sure whether it would be better or worse than the current state.
    • rocket_surgeron 4y ago
      [flagged]
      • soundnote 4y ago
        > Also, you often have no choice in what telco provider services you as an end-user due to monopoly grants. You never don't have a choice of an alternative to Facebook or Twitter. Unless the Apple-Google duopoly bans the nascent competition.
  • rat87 4y ago
    This suggestion seems like it's made by people in order to just nuke all social media sites (by making it impossible to run sites that aren't filled with garbage) because they're salty that the site once moderated them fairly or unfairly