33
posted ago by Galean (edited) +33 / -0

From what I understand 230 defends Twitter and Facebook against being held accountable for the contents posted by users. Lets say they remove it what impact it is going to have?

Other then call for violence directly it is going to be defended by the 1'st Amendment so I do not see it hurting this giant corporations in a big way.

On top of that they are going to be allowed a time of X to remove calls to violence on their site, similar with how EU did.

What am I missing here?

From what I understand 230 defends Twitter and Facebook against being held accountable for the contents posted by users. Lets say they remove it what impact it is going to have? Other then call for violence directly it is going to be defended by the 1'st Amendment so I do not see it hurting this giant corporations in a big way. On top of that they are going to be allowed a time of X to remove calls to violence on their site, similar with how EU did. What am I missing here?
Comments (17)
sorted by:
25
Ariztocrat 25 points ago +25 / -0

Removal of Sec. 230 protections would mean they're wide open for lawsuits related to things published on their platforms. This is what the current, probably excessively broad interpretation of Sec. 230 is protecting them from -- the fact that they're so heavily curating what appears on their sites indicates they're stretching the definition of a platform.

17
APDSmith 17 points ago +17 / -0

They're either stretching that or they're stretching the definitions of "unknowing" with the harassment and threats from people they agree with being left up, and stretching "good faith" with the biased application of their own rules to punish the people that they do not agree with.

7
Galean [S] 7 points ago +7 / -0

But outside of calling for violence or maybe some porn stuff, lets say they find a way to easily remove from their platform in good faith and in reasonable time. Does that mean they are free to censor as much as possible and do what ever they want? What I'm asking in the post is how big a thing is this? Today the 230 is going to be meaningless, maybe they have to pay 10 mill a year in lawyers and fines, pocket change. I fear that the social media are out of reach of sanctions. The right does not like to enforce strict laws and since the media does the will of the left, the left has no interest in restricting them in anyway.

7
Steampunk_Moustache 7 points ago +7 / -0

The right does not like to enforce strict laws and since the media does the will of the left, the left has no interest in restricting them in anyway.

The right has very little time to learn that if they do not enforce these laws, they will cease to exist. They will be hunted down and killed.

13
AntonioOfVenice 13 points ago +13 / -0

I see fewer conservatives/idiots screaming about how the sacred rights of multi-billion dollar corporations are being violated by not allowing them to control democratic debate in a supposedly free country.

In a sense, they are wisening up.

Unfortunately, it is far, far too late.

4
NihilistCaregiver 4 points ago +4 / -0

Libertarian party, Ayn Rand Institute, and some others are probably still reeeeeing over the rights of private enterprise but Trump Populism is rising enough to counteract it.

1
Ahaus667 1 point ago +1 / -0

Its still a non-argument. These companies acted in bad faith and are now reaping the results. They do not deserve special protections that others do not have. If a new company takes over because they hold themselves to a non editorial status and promote free exchange in the public square then that is an economical result not a political one.

12
xleb2 12 points ago +12 / -0

Can people help me out here with these many internet checkerboard moves?

How is this related to SOPA and PIPA, and then Obama's giveaways of internet American overlordship. (forgot what that was called) Net.something that reddit was pushing There has been so much much disinformation, at this point I'm fucking lost in it. ready to give up

-2
DennJW -2 points ago +1 / -3

SOPA, PIPA, and some of Trumps recent deals, are all trade deals, treaties, and other international agreements, with some things in common. They are all ENORMOUS HUGE, but there were various terrible things in them.

Some of the components of the agreements, would have had encryption back doors (such as Australia now does have), super-oppresive copyright laws (we did get some of that), super anti-piracy laws (identity and logging requirements in e-comerce, or with information handlers, etc).

To be honest, each piece of legislation has to be handled on its own, due to them simply being so large, and covering such a massive range of policy.

Obama's surrendering of American control of ICAN, is more difficult to unpack. It's been claimed that, by allowing international actors to more directly control the lowest-level of internet names and addresses, the US has less control over the internet overall. OTOH, it's not clear what has actually changed because of this, or how America was previously using/benefiting-from that putative control.

Net neutrality, is basically Anti-Monopoly policy for ISPs. Basically, it says that if you handle internet traffic, you must handle it all at the same speed/price - regardless of content, who it came from, or where it's going.

What we have now, thanks to Trump and Ajit Pai, is a situation in which Walmart can pay Spectrum to insert a 30min delay before loading "target.com". More importantly, Spectrum can go to them and force them both to pay more so that neither one gets the privilge. Worst of all, ALL the tech companies will be willing to charge more, and serve less, serve slower, any newcomers. Amazon and Microsft Azure might not agree on a lot, but they both agree no one should enter the ring with them.

Honestly, the fall of Net Neutrality was a dangerous step in the wrong direction.

0
SR388-SAX 0 points ago +1 / -1

The monstrosity that was the last "net neutrality" bill was already a dangerous step in the wrong direction.

I'm not sure what an internet kill switch run by the executive branch had to do with "net neutrality," but I'm glad it's gone either way.

1
DennJW 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh yeah, bills to elevate Net Neutrality to a law, have been uniformly trojan-horse garbage. 100%.

This is why we can't have nice things.

10
stanzololthrowaway 10 points ago +10 / -0

Thank you Justice Thomas for getting the ball rolling, but I don't fuckin' trust the FCC as far as I can throw them.

5
smashyawaro 5 points ago +5 / -0

FCC is saying they will allow the civil courts to act as a check. They follow similar practice with traditional media companies. They don't have a panel that decides whether defamation or false claims were made, they simply allow individuals to pursue civil action and let that be the deterrent to bad behavior.

3
Decrixxx 3 points ago +4 / -1

if today you sue them for a post some user wrote on their platform, they will protect themselves in court with section 230, aka "we are just a platform if you have a problem here the guy who wrote such post sue him instead". if 230 is removed totally they became liable for every post ever written on the website by any of the users. like if the owner wrote them directly. what would happen is clear: meteor rain of lawsuits. enough to even send them in bankrupt. removing totally 230 will kill the internet as we have now. but reform in such a way that websites "platforms" that reach a certain amount of traffic will stop being seen as platforms if they moderate their content could work.

1
Galean [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

What can you sue them on? Again most stuff is going to be defended by the 1'st amendment.

2
NihilistCaregiver 2 points ago +2 / -0

NOW? They finally decide to do something on 10/16/20?

1
DennJW 1 point ago +1 / -0

Cowboy, meet horseless-barn.