6 ms·

This is why we can't have nice things. The social media platforms took things too far. Most republicans would be in favor of the platforms not being liable for

This is why we can't have nice things. The social media platforms took things too far. Most republicans would be in favor of the platforms not being liable for content if they don't censor. Most and both political sides would probably also agree that they should be taking steps to protect minors from child predators etc., and that was the intent behind 230 protections. The social media platforms took 230 beyond what is was initially intended for as a premise to weaponize it against people who's politics they don't agree with. Obviously with that kinds of a loophole 230 was not well thought out from that regard and would need a re-write.

nobody9999 3y ago
>The social media platforms took 230 beyond what is was initially intended for as a premise to weaponize it against people who's politics they don't agree with. So what? And I mean that quite seriously. To clarify, I despise the big social media platforms and refuse to use them even if that inconveniences me (and occasionally it does). At the same time, those platforms have the same free speech rights that I do, and curtailment of their free speech (and property) rights (in this case, the right not to publish/amplify the speech of others) also curtails my free speech (and property) rights. And since I want to protect my own rights, I support the right of those rapacious scumbags to moderate/censor on their own private property.
- ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
  If platforms are going to be editors then they don't need section 230 protection.
- someuser2345 3y ago
  You're right, these companies do have the right to censor speech that they disagree with. However, if they do that, then they are responsible for any speech that they do not censor. So for instance, if someone posts a libelous statement on Reddit, and Reddit doesn't remove that statement, then victim of libel should be allowed to sue Reddit directly, instead of just suing whoever made that post.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    I think I'd agree if the circumstances are the same, and on request a libel was not taken down for you when it was for other people. The same circumstances including being on the same subreddit, being caught by the same auto-filter, being notified in the same way, at least. So, for example if libel against you wasn't caught by a particular filter then that's not bias against you, and so they are not party to the libel (unless you can show the filter was specifically designed to fail to catch libels against you).
Analemma_ 3y ago
> The social media platforms took 230 beyond what is was initially intended for as a premise to weaponize it against people who's politics they don't agree with. So what? You're taking it as a given that "if a website moderates content in a way I don't like, the government must step in and force them to do moderation in a different way I do like"; I don't accept that premise at all, it's quite totalitarian in both concept and real-world execution.
shadowgovt 3y ago
So it turns out, inconveniently, "Children need protection from predators" and "People need protection from bigots" are two sides of the same coin. It's all politics and it always was. Claiming one is "common sense" and one is "political" misses what "political" means. I think S230 set a pretty good tone in biasing in favor of the right of the service owner to set the tone over-and-above within the constraints of the law (for a simple practical reason: if you don't give them that right, they'll just stop providing the service). But that does mean that when your provider decides that, say, debating the humanity of trans folks is no longer acceptable, we toe the line there or we start our own service.
- notaustinpowers 3y ago
  Thanks for your input on this, especially for S230. I never understood the concept that a private business has to entertain or host content that they do not want on their site. If a friend invited me to their house I can start calling their wife a fat cow and tell them how ugly I think their children are. It doesn't mean they have to put up with it or accept that sort of speech on their private property. That doesn't mean he censored me or inhibited my freedom of speech.
  - tiltowait 3y ago
    Well, did your friend invite you there saying his house was a place for you to share your mind? For me, it's an issue of scale. Your friend is a single person (or family). Twitter is a gigantic, faceless corporation (okay, Elon Musk makes it less faceless, but you know what I mean) that tries to cater to everyone—in effect, it tries to be a commons. Can we consider it one? Should we? Should we make a law that says once a social media company gets to a certain size, it can't censor anything anymore if that content is legal? I'm generally against additional regulation. I don't think, for instance, a small pro-life forum should be forced to allow pro-choice people to spew vitriol, nor vice versa. I'm hesitant to say the same for a giant company like Twitter or Facebook. There, I think it might be more appropriate to have comprehensive filtering and self-moderation tools vs. shutting people out completely (assuming their behavior is legal).
downWidOutaFite 3y ago
Most Republicans want to censor just different things, just look at all the book bannings across the country. There are tons of things that lefty people complain about being censored on social media but we don't here about it because left-wing media is nowhere near as powerful as right-wing media. (The main lie in a lot of these discussions is that corporate media is lefty.)
- int_19h 3y ago
  Speaking as another leftie, corporate media is very much culturally left. But there is a big disconnect between cultural left and economic left now, to the point where the rhetoric of the former is used to distract from the latter.
  - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
    Id like an example because i don't buy it. Unless you count something like reporting that scientists say climate change is real.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      I mean, pick pretty much any cultural issue on which there is a clear left/right political split. Abortion, LGBT rights etc.
kmeisthax 3y ago
CDA 230 exists because the Wolf of Wall Street was trying to censor evidence of his crimes. He got one ruling against Prodigy saying moderation makes you liable for defamation; and another from Compuserve saying no moderation means no liability. Let me be very clear about how the law would work sans CDA 230: any time someone does not like what you are saying, they can sue the platform you host it on to get you censored. The only platforms resistant to this would be ones full to bursting with spam. This is already really bad. If you want a partial repeal, i.e. one where platforms are still allowed to "protect minors from child predators", I'm not sure that'll pass muster at SCOTUS. Selectively removing speech protections based on content is a no-go. Furthermore, platforms being able to take down political speech they disagree with is not a "loophole". That's just what moderation is. The whole point of a moderator is to silence the loudest voices, so that others may speak.
dragonwriter 3y ago
Section 230 was written without limitation on the kind of censorship allowed because it was an end-run around Constitutional prohibition of government content favoritism that had destroyed previous censorship laws and waa (correctly) suspected would endanger much of the rest of the law it was incorporated into. If you want to allow the kind of private censorship S230 was intended to protect, and stay within the First Amendment, S230 is what you get.
mrguyorama 3y ago
230 isn't a loophole, it's a requirement for any business on the web. You cannot even have product reviews without something like 230.

nobody9999 3y ago

>The social media platforms took 230 beyond what is was initially intended for as a premise to weaponize it against people who's politics they don't agree with. So what? And I mean that quite seriously. To clarify, I despise the big social media platforms and refuse to use them even if that inconveniences me (and occasionally it does). At the same time, those platforms have the same free speech rights that I do, and curtailment of their free speech (and property) rights (in this case, the right not to publish/amplify the speech of others) also curtails my free speech (and property) rights. And since I want to protect my own rights, I support the right of those rapacious scumbags to moderate/censor on their own private property.

ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
If platforms are going to be editors then they don't need section 230 protection.
someuser2345 3y ago
You're right, these companies do have the right to censor speech that they disagree with. However, if they do that, then they are responsible for any speech that they do not censor. So for instance, if someone posts a libelous statement on Reddit, and Reddit doesn't remove that statement, then victim of libel should be allowed to sue Reddit directly, instead of just suing whoever made that post.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  I think I'd agree if the circumstances are the same, and on request a libel was not taken down for you when it was for other people. The same circumstances including being on the same subreddit, being caught by the same auto-filter, being notified in the same way, at least. So, for example if libel against you wasn't caught by a particular filter then that's not bias against you, and so they are not party to the libel (unless you can show the filter was specifically designed to fail to catch libels against you).

Analemma_ 3y ago

> The social media platforms took 230 beyond what is was initially intended for as a premise to weaponize it against people who's politics they don't agree with. So what? You're taking it as a given that "if a website moderates content in a way I don't like, the government must step in and force them to do moderation in a different way I do like"; I don't accept that premise at all, it's quite totalitarian in both concept and real-world execution.

shadowgovt 3y ago

So it turns out, inconveniently, "Children need protection from predators" and "People need protection from bigots" are two sides of the same coin. It's all politics and it always was. Claiming one is "common sense" and one is "political" misses what "political" means. I think S230 set a pretty good tone in biasing in favor of the right of the service owner to set the tone over-and-above within the constraints of the law (for a simple practical reason: if you don't give them that right, they'll just stop providing the service). But that does mean that when your provider decides that, say, debating the humanity of trans folks is no longer acceptable, we toe the line there or we start our own service.

notaustinpowers 3y ago
Thanks for your input on this, especially for S230. I never understood the concept that a private business has to entertain or host content that they do not want on their site. If a friend invited me to their house I can start calling their wife a fat cow and tell them how ugly I think their children are. It doesn't mean they have to put up with it or accept that sort of speech on their private property. That doesn't mean he censored me or inhibited my freedom of speech.
- tiltowait 3y ago
  Well, did your friend invite you there saying his house was a place for you to share your mind? For me, it's an issue of scale. Your friend is a single person (or family). Twitter is a gigantic, faceless corporation (okay, Elon Musk makes it less faceless, but you know what I mean) that tries to cater to everyone—in effect, it tries to be a commons. Can we consider it one? Should we? Should we make a law that says once a social media company gets to a certain size, it can't censor anything anymore if that content is legal? I'm generally against additional regulation. I don't think, for instance, a small pro-life forum should be forced to allow pro-choice people to spew vitriol, nor vice versa. I'm hesitant to say the same for a giant company like Twitter or Facebook. There, I think it might be more appropriate to have comprehensive filtering and self-moderation tools vs. shutting people out completely (assuming their behavior is legal).

downWidOutaFite 3y ago

Most Republicans want to censor just different things, just look at all the book bannings across the country. There are tons of things that lefty people complain about being censored on social media but we don't here about it because left-wing media is nowhere near as powerful as right-wing media. (The main lie in a lot of these discussions is that corporate media is lefty.)

int_19h 3y ago
Speaking as another leftie, corporate media is very much culturally left. But there is a big disconnect between cultural left and economic left now, to the point where the rhetoric of the former is used to distract from the latter.
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  Id like an example because i don't buy it. Unless you count something like reporting that scientists say climate change is real.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    I mean, pick pretty much any cultural issue on which there is a clear left/right political split. Abortion, LGBT rights etc.

kmeisthax 3y ago

CDA 230 exists because the Wolf of Wall Street was trying to censor evidence of his crimes. He got one ruling against Prodigy saying moderation makes you liable for defamation; and another from Compuserve saying no moderation means no liability. Let me be very clear about how the law would work sans CDA 230: any time someone does not like what you are saying, they can sue the platform you host it on to get you censored. The only platforms resistant to this would be ones full to bursting with spam. This is already really bad. If you want a partial repeal, i.e. one where platforms are still allowed to "protect minors from child predators", I'm not sure that'll pass muster at SCOTUS. Selectively removing speech protections based on content is a no-go. Furthermore, platforms being able to take down political speech they disagree with is not a "loophole". That's just what moderation is. The whole point of a moderator is to silence the loudest voices, so that others may speak.

dragonwriter 3y ago

Section 230 was written without limitation on the kind of censorship allowed because it was an end-run around Constitutional prohibition of government content favoritism that had destroyed previous censorship laws and waa (correctly) suspected would endanger much of the rest of the law it was incorporated into. If you want to allow the kind of private censorship S230 was intended to protect, and stay within the First Amendment, S230 is what you get.

mrguyorama 3y ago

230 isn't a loophole, it's a requirement for any business on the web. You cannot even have product reviews without something like 230.