3 ms·
>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.
by 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 agoIf platforms are going to be editors then they don't need section 230 protection.
- someuser2345 3y agoYou'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 agoI 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).