Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: bedlamite on June 19, 2019, 11:41:31 PM
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/reactions-to-sen-hawleys-bill-that-would-overturn-section-230-of-cca.html
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/449241-gop-senator-introduces-bill-to-hold-online-platforms-liable-for-political
This looks like a shot across the bow of twitter, facebook, etc. They really don't like it, so I'd like to see the text, I haven't been able to find it yet.
ETA:
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-introduces-legislation-amend-section-230-immunity-big-tech-companies
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/Ending-Support-Internet-Censorship-Act-Bill-Text.pdf
-
The big techs are going to have to decide if they are "platforms" or "publishers".
As a platform they have to allow pretty much any content (the usual 1A rules against calls to action, threats, and libel apply). Then section 230 applies.
If they are picking and choosing who can be on their system, then they are publishers and do not have section 230 immunity.
-
All I can say is :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
The big techs are going to have to decide if they are "platforms" or "publishers".
I thought I heard on the news the other day that one of the big ones (I forget which one) is seriously considering going "publisher".
I'm actually not sure how I feel about that, as they have gotten so large, that "publisher" for them is just a weasel way to be a platform where they get to push their agendas (via editing ideas they don't like) in a somewhat invisible way, that makes it look like their philosophy is actually a majority view in the US.
I'll say it again: These platforms, with Twitter being a prime example, started out with good intentions and as valuable services (like Twitter allowing information exchange during disasters, etc.). However, between their activist executives, and very often their commie activist employees and their demands, have become nothing but propaganda machines.
-
I'm actually not sure how I feel about that, as they have gotten so large, that "publisher" for them is just a weasel way to be a platform where they get to push their agendas (via editing ideas they don't like) in a somewhat invisible way, that makes it look like their philosophy is actually a majority view in the US.
My understanding is that if they're a publisher then they're legally responsible for all content put on their site.
That's the last thing any big distributed content provider or social network wants, unless they're going to only allow vetted partners to post content ... which would be lethal.
-
My understanding is that if they're a publisher then they're legally responsible for all content put on their site.
That's the last thing any big distributed content provider or social network wants, unless they're going to only allow vetted partners to post content ... which would be lethal.
Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a fatal mistake.
-
My understanding is that if they're a publisher then they're legally responsible for all content put on their site.
That's the last thing any big distributed content provider or social network wants, unless they're going to only allow vetted partners to post content ... which would be lethal.
Ah, maybe I misunderstood then. It was sounding to me like it was a loophole for them to censor the people the views they don't like.
-
*
-
So, if they censor stuff on their site, they are liable for the content... and if they don't they aren't? Seems reasonable... but I could be wrong. ???
-
Right now they are claiming the same kind of protection that a phone company or internet provider has. That is to say that they are not legally responsible for what happens on the platform because they don't choose what content goes through it.
If, on the other hand, they are a publisher they absolutely have the authority (and responsibility) to monitor and censor whatever goes out to the public.
What they want is the best of both worlds: to be able to choose to censor some things they don't like, while still claiming the same legal protections as non-censoring platforms claim so they don't have to vet every single thing that goes up.
This is giving rise to new platforms that promise to remain platforms that only censor based on content that violates US law. ThinkSpot is one I'm keeping an eye on.
-
Right now they are claiming the same kind of protection that a phone company or internet provider has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
-
Right now they are claiming the same kind of protection that a phone company or internet provider has. That is to say that they are not legally responsible for what happens on the platform because they don't choose what content goes through it.
If, on the other hand, they are a publisher they absolutely have the authority (and responsibility) to monitor and censor whatever goes out to the public.
What they want is the best of both worlds: to be able to choose to censor some things they don't like, while still claiming the same legal protections as non-censoring platforms claim so they don't have to vet every single thing that goes up.
This is giving rise to new platforms that promise to remain platforms that only censor based on content that violates US law. ThinkSpot is one I'm keeping an eye on.
And from what I have heard, judges have been reluctant to make any sort of ruling to force them to be platform or publisher. They are trying to be both.
Looking one of the links, there is a quote from the tech companies where they essentially say they don't want to give up censoring content.
-
The Internet Association, Silicon Valley's top tech trade group, in its own statement said Section 230 "is the law that allows online companies to moderate and remove content that no reasonable person wants online – including content that could have a 'political viewpoint.' "
"This bill forces platforms to make an impossible choice: either host reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech, or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism," Internet Association president and CEO Michael Beckerman said in a statement. "That shouldn't be a tradeoff."
The catch is the way they define "reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech". To them it is anything they disagree with plus scary guns. Knowing what companies like Twitter and Youtube are doing, that quote is laughable.
-
That said, have any of you heard of anything in the bill we would not want?
Personally, I have no problem with websites acting as platforms and getting some protection provided they are not censoring the content. However, it appears there is little or no way to enforce that as they are finding all sorts of stealthy ways to censor content.
-
The catch is the way they define "reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech". To them it is anything they disagree with plus scary guns. Knowing what companies like Twitter and Youtube are doing, that quote is laughable.
Its always inferred that those doing wrongspeech are neo-nazi white separatist hatey-haters, therefore, it shouldn't be allowed or protected.
Weirdly, the left used to use the example of the ACLU as one time standing up for the KKK when defending the ACLU for defending very vile positions that the left loved.