3 ms·

Yep, when Facebook first started moderating messages and/or selecting what users view with an algorithm more complicated than "what has been posted last", it wa

Yep, when Facebook first started moderating messages and/or selecting what users view with an algorithm more complicated than "what has been posted last", it was predicted that they were opening themselves to the "publishers are responsible for what they publish" legal attack. And here we are. These corporations want to have their cake and eat it too... At the time a lot of people have considered the very concept of platform as evil for this reason ("protocols not platforms"), but this was also related to issues coming from their use of closed source software, and more importantly : antitrust - the mere size of these corporation makes them at the very least "friendly elephant in a china shop" kind of evil, but the USA didn't want to shut down the GAFAMs considering the immense not so soft power their monopolies give them in the world. A less radical proposal was to have some allowed middle ground between common carrier and publisher : "displayer", but this would still need to come with severe restrictions to what these companies are currently enjoying in the current "lawless" void : again, restrictions on size, kind (think Wikipedia or archival), running as a for-profit, forced usage of interoperable protocols, use of open source software, have been suggested and even somewhat put into practice in recent EUropean laws (though it is suspected that due to the heavy lobbying that the GAFAMs have done, the end result is more that the current laws are helping them by making it harder for new competitors to emerge, while they are so big they can bear the regulatory brunt). (P.S.: It's kind of amusing to see Texas Republicans to be a shining beacon of liberalism...)

joshuamorton 4y ago
This is a non sequitur. It is legal to repeal section 230. It would be bad, but it is legal. But in either case, the law under discussion is unconstitutional. And it'd be doubly unconstitutional if you're claiming that the point of this law is to get around a federal law. States can't do that, that's the point of the supremacy clause.
- leereeves 4y ago
  Every time you use the word "unconstitutional", it should be prefaced by "IMO". > the point of this law is to get around a federal law. States can't do that, that's the point of the supremacy clause. How many states have made marijuana legal despite federal law?
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    There is nothing stopping the federal government from arresting me, in California, for marijuana related crimes. And it regularly does (trafficking), because federal law supersedes state law. The federal government choosing not to for most cases, and choosing to functionally defer to the states does not affect what it is allowed to do. And there is a difference between making something illegal and making something legal. Once the federal govt says something is legal, supremacy prevents states from making it illegal (remember the Republican talking point about how the Dems could pass a national abortion legalization law? That works because of the supremacy clause). Like it's really clear at this point you know basically nothing about how the us legal system works. Because you keep bringing up these things that just are not relevant. And I don't really want to teach you.

joshuamorton 4y ago

This is a non sequitur. It is legal to repeal section 230. It would be bad, but it is legal. But in either case, the law under discussion is unconstitutional. And it'd be doubly unconstitutional if you're claiming that the point of this law is to get around a federal law. States can't do that, that's the point of the supremacy clause.

leereeves 4y ago
Every time you use the word "unconstitutional", it should be prefaced by "IMO". > the point of this law is to get around a federal law. States can't do that, that's the point of the supremacy clause. How many states have made marijuana legal despite federal law?
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  There is nothing stopping the federal government from arresting me, in California, for marijuana related crimes. And it regularly does (trafficking), because federal law supersedes state law. The federal government choosing not to for most cases, and choosing to functionally defer to the states does not affect what it is allowed to do. And there is a difference between making something illegal and making something legal. Once the federal govt says something is legal, supremacy prevents states from making it illegal (remember the Republican talking point about how the Dems could pass a national abortion legalization law? That works because of the supremacy clause). Like it's really clear at this point you know basically nothing about how the us legal system works. Because you keep bringing up these things that just are not relevant. And I don't really want to teach you.