3 ms·

Section 230 is an indemnification. Removing it is removing a regulation. Section 230 not permission for the FCC to go after the web, it prevents the web from be

Section 230 is an indemnification. Removing it is removing a regulation. Section 230 not permission for the FCC to go after the web, it prevents the web from being shielded.

JAlexoid 2y ago
Section 230 doesn't indemnify anything. It recognizes that a platform is just an intermediary, not the originator. Similar provisions are in place in most of the civilized world.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Modern "platforms" sponsor content and push what they want, much like magazines and TV outlets. So social media as we know it is kind of a new development in technology that needs to be addressed properly.
  - JAlexoid 2y ago
    > Modern "platforms" sponsor content and push what they want, much like magazines and TV outlets. They aren't magazines or TV, where everything is under editorial control. Not to mention, that magazines and TV outlets are also typically not liable when information in ads or third parties(such as pundits) is litigated against.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Social media using tens of thousands of moderators and AI to enforce extralegal policies about content sure sounds like editorial control to me. They an easily be viewed as employing content producers. Discriminating against content they don't like and promoting content that they do like (especially against user and producer preferences) is an act of editorializing. It doesn't matter to me how they justify that to themselves. Social media should be a utility, not a social engineering psyop working for government and industry "elites"...
- Incipient 2y ago
  Personally I haven't reached a conclusion either way. The counter to this point, is that torrent providers are also just intermediaries, not the originators. To some extent, companies/people should be accountable for the actions they facilitate as an intermediary. I'm just not sure how accountable.
  - JAlexoid 2y ago
    There are exclusions to this law, that obligates establishment of reasonable measures and adherence to take down rules. (That's why we have DMCA, that actually offers indemnity for copyright violations)
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
Section 230 is safe harbor. If websites are responsible/liable for everything posted on them, there is a huge new legal burden for websites to regulate & filter every single bit of user submitted content. It's wild how such a simple premise is totally willfully misconstrued (or maybe you happen to just be way off base, but there's huge ranks of people inventing all sorts of wild delusional fictions about Safe Harbor).

Section 230 is an indemnification. Removing it is removing a regulation. Section 230 not permission for the FCC to go after the web, it prevents the web from being shielded.

JAlexoid 2y ago

Section 230 doesn't indemnify anything. It recognizes that a platform is just an intermediary, not the originator. Similar provisions are in place in most of the civilized world.

wakawaka28 2y ago
Modern "platforms" sponsor content and push what they want, much like magazines and TV outlets. So social media as we know it is kind of a new development in technology that needs to be addressed properly.
- JAlexoid 2y ago
  > Modern "platforms" sponsor content and push what they want, much like magazines and TV outlets. They aren't magazines or TV, where everything is under editorial control. Not to mention, that magazines and TV outlets are also typically not liable when information in ads or third parties(such as pundits) is litigated against.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Social media using tens of thousands of moderators and AI to enforce extralegal policies about content sure sounds like editorial control to me. They an easily be viewed as employing content producers. Discriminating against content they don't like and promoting content that they do like (especially against user and producer preferences) is an act of editorializing. It doesn't matter to me how they justify that to themselves. Social media should be a utility, not a social engineering psyop working for government and industry "elites"...
Incipient 2y ago
Personally I haven't reached a conclusion either way. The counter to this point, is that torrent providers are also just intermediaries, not the originators. To some extent, companies/people should be accountable for the actions they facilitate as an intermediary. I'm just not sure how accountable.
- JAlexoid 2y ago
  There are exclusions to this law, that obligates establishment of reasonable measures and adherence to take down rules. (That's why we have DMCA, that actually offers indemnity for copyright violations)

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

Section 230 is safe harbor. If websites are responsible/liable for everything posted on them, there is a huge new legal burden for websites to regulate & filter every single bit of user submitted content. It's wild how such a simple premise is totally willfully misconstrued (or maybe you happen to just be way off base, but there's huge ranks of people inventing all sorts of wild delusional fictions about Safe Harbor).