4 ms·

>On Big Tech, Carr wants to implement Trump's 2020 plan to crack down on social media websites for alleged anti-conservative bias. At the time, Trump formally p

>On Big Tech, Carr wants to implement Trump's 2020 plan to crack down on social media websites for alleged anti-conservative bias. At the time, Trump formally petitioned the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a way that would limit social media platforms' legal protections for hosting third-party content when the platforms take down content they consider objectionable. I don't like the other parts, but reading this section, it's wild to me that this isn't already the case and that it's not wildly bipartisan!

everforward 2y ago
Why? This reads like a blatant First Amendment violation. The platforms are not required to carry any content and moderation is a form of speech. Eg Fox News has no obligation to report on good news for liberals and vice versa for CNN. There’s nothing the government can do there unless they can pass strict scrutiny (they almost certainly wont). Trying to remove Section 230 protections for exercising First Amendment rights isn’t going to fly. Revoking 230 entirely is fine, but doing targeted removal of 230 protections based on speech isn’t going to go anywhere. Conservatives are more than welcome to make their own social networks with opposing moderation, and they have. They just don’t get to try to force other platforms to moderate differently because no one wants to use Truth Social or whatever.
- krapp 2y ago
  >They just don’t get to try to force other platforms to moderate differently because no one wants to use Truth Social or whatever. They're going to control the White House, Congress, and Supreme Court. Yes they do get to do exactly that.
legitster 2y ago
If HN became legally responsible for everything posted on its site, there would be no more HN. Copy + paste across the internet. The internet would only be legally usable for corporate entities.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

everforward 2y ago

Why? This reads like a blatant First Amendment violation. The platforms are not required to carry any content and moderation is a form of speech. Eg Fox News has no obligation to report on good news for liberals and vice versa for CNN. There’s nothing the government can do there unless they can pass strict scrutiny (they almost certainly wont). Trying to remove Section 230 protections for exercising First Amendment rights isn’t going to fly. Revoking 230 entirely is fine, but doing targeted removal of 230 protections based on speech isn’t going to go anywhere. Conservatives are more than welcome to make their own social networks with opposing moderation, and they have. They just don’t get to try to force other platforms to moderate differently because no one wants to use Truth Social or whatever.

krapp 2y ago
>They just don’t get to try to force other platforms to moderate differently because no one wants to use Truth Social or whatever. They're going to control the White House, Congress, and Supreme Court. Yes they do get to do exactly that.

legitster 2y ago

If HN became legally responsible for everything posted on its site, there would be no more HN. Copy + paste across the internet. The internet would only be legally usable for corporate entities.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]