Reply With Quote
Has nothing to do with conservatives or liberals, it has to do with legal liability.
The moment a service provider is on the hook for the stupid you post is the moment they’re not going to provide a service anymore.
Has nothing to do with conservatives or liberals, it has to do with legal liability.
The moment a service provider is on the hook for the stupid you post is the moment they’re not going to provide a service anymore.
derp doesnt know what 230 does
low information poster
I don’t know about that. The first amendment protects US citizens from government censorship even if what they say is incredibly foul or dumb. Section 230 is doing the same for private companies on the internet.
As soon as you get rid of that we enter into a very difficult zone where lawsuits end up defining what can be said or not, and that’s provided these companies can take on lawsuits at all (which is another biggie, the barrier to entry into the market now becomes extremely high).
There’s all sorts of fallouts from 230 going away and none of them good regardless of your political leaning.
without 230, any public post (even just a status update) could make facebook liable for defamation. so sure, if you just use the messenger portion of it, or make a post with a private setting, you'd be able to go about using it normally. but any post that is going to be available to be seen by 3rd parties is going to be problematic
yep
if they want to do some nuanced reform of 230, i'm all ears to hear what the specific proposals are
but this whole "nuke 230 and revoke it completely" talk is completely bat
That’s been pretty clear from the get go.
I mean, if the intention is to blow social media to pieces without hurting sites like this one, there’s probably much better ways to do it. For example, regulating strong user privacy and outlawing selling data and ads.
That would also maim pretty badly actors like Google.
If you really want to see what hurts these companies, follow Facebook ing about Apple’s new proposed privacy system. They’ve been extremely vocal and antsy about it because it completely wrecks their business model.
Repealing Section 230 theoretically wouldn’t hurt 1st amendment rights, it’d just make the social media platform jointly liable for defamatory statements on their platform. Doesn’t create new liability, just adds parties to the list of defendants for what’s already a tort.
Still not sure why MAGA s think repealing 230 will make it easier for Trump to tweet though
maga s have no clue what 230 does. they think it has something to do with a platform supposedly being "fair and neutral"Repealing Section 230 theoretically wouldn’t hurt 1st amendment rights, it’d just make the social media platform jointly liable for defamatory statements on their platform. Doesn’t create new liability, just adds parties to the list of defendants for what’s already a tort.
Still not sure why MAGA s think repealing 230 will make it easier for Trump to tweet though
The problem is that there’s a high cost for that. And it’s not just defamation. Any user post that names Coca Cola now is a potential lawsuit for trademark infringement, that includes the service provider. Every small video clip is a potential lawsuit for copyright infringement.Repealing Section 230 theoretically wouldn’t hurt 1st amendment rights, it’d just make the social media platform jointly liable for defamatory statements on their platform. Doesn’t create new liability, just adds parties to the list of defendants for what’s already a tort.
Still not sure why MAGA s think repealing 230 will make it easier for Trump to tweet though
It really is way more than tort, and what’s worse, from a legal standpoint you rather sue Twitter and/or Facebook and count each post as an individual infraction instead of suing individual users.
If these companies then decide they want to live in this environment, then they have to develop new filters and tech to pretty much scrub almost everything, which really means the end of those services as we know them.
The fact that MAGA s have no idea what 230 does is well known.
FB, Twitter, YT etc got their non publisher protections on the basis that they weren't going to editorialize / egregiously censor. Now they're taking undue control and operating on a different standard. End users are not not liable because of their 230 protections. I can't even tell you how much you and your ilk are philo'ing and goal post moving. I'd have to spend time I don't want to spend making a diagram.
It'd make them liable because they're not abiding the basis of 230 now, which is to stay out of sh**. They think they can send their truth goon squads around to say what's true or not and censor people telling the truth because they have these extremely privileged protections. You ing assholes know this and want it that way because you think you're the benefactors. Your MAGA doesn't know this or that talk is just you guys being the condescending s you are.Repealing Section 230 theoretically wouldn’t hurt 1st amendment rights, it’d just make the social media platform jointly liable for defamatory statements on their platform. Doesn’t create new liability, just adds parties to the list of defendants for what’s already a tort.
Still not sure why MAGA s think repealing 230 will make it easier for Trump to tweet though
The fact that ChumpDumper has no idea what 230 does is well known.
You're derp, derp.
Your alts can't save you from that.
Facebook arguably has a right wing bias.
The pages of Bongino, Ben Shapiro and various right wingers routinely get more interactions than the NYT and various left/liberal media outlets on fb.
That’s factually wrong. Section 230 shields the service providers, not the end users.
If Kori Ellis has to hire a lawyer because you called somebody a chumpette and they didn’t like that, there’s no more Spurstalk, do you understand how that works, why it doesn’t matter if you’re conservative or liberal?
That's what I said.
You should also familiarize yourself with Section 230(c)(2), what’s known as ‘the Good Samaritan’ clause, on what you call censorship. It’s specifically stipulated in the law they can do what they’re doing as long as it’s done in good faith.
Again, inform yourself first, then come back to have a discussion.
That's the land of absurd. That's not how it's going to go.
Though I don't want to be totally dismissive of your concerns. I'm not putting anything past these bold assholes at this point.
I missed the double negative. End users have no bearing on any Section 230 discussion, so I’m not sure why you bring them up at all.
That’s absolutely how it goes. How do you think Section 230 came to be? It was the fallout from a couple of similar lawsuits in the late 90s.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions