Backpage was aiding in the trafficking of minors for sexual exploitation. They had an ad creator that would help a pimp write a sufficiently coded advertisement.
Executive order leak looking to censor online speech
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Backpage was aiding in the trafficking of minors for sexual exploitation. They had an ad creator that would help a pimp write a sufficiently coded advertisement.
They should have went after the pimp right? Why did the whole site get taken down? Pretty sure the same thing happened to CL, its still up obviously. What was the difference?
I did a little bit of research, and this is a really interesting topic. The social media giant are categorized as public platforms. This designation gives them immunity from libel & slander because they aren't considered publishers of content. All they're responsible for is removing obscene & hateful content.
News outlets are considered publishers of content. They are subject libel & slander because they actively choose what's shown on their sites. If the social media giants are actively promoting & suppressing content based off of political motives, they may lose their designation as public platforms and be considered publishers of content. That would open them up to libel & slander and change the landscape of social media forever.
This may be a bigger deal than I initially thought.
News outlets are considered publishers of content. They are subject libel & slander because they actively choose what's shown on their sites. If the social media giants are actively promoting & suppressing content based off of political motives, they may lose their designation as public platforms and be considered publishers of content. That would open them up to libel & slander and change the landscape of social media forever.
This may be a bigger deal than I initially thought.
Here's an article that goes in depth on this matter.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.
The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out long term. I bet that it will eventually end up in the SCOTUS for a ruling on the interpretation of Section 230.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.
The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out long term. I bet that it will eventually end up in the SCOTUS for a ruling on the interpretation of Section 230.
Look, I understand your concern over this issue. the main reason is that most people are idiots really and believe whatever they see on line without question or research. FB and Twitter are the most popular and widely read so the sheeple will follow and believe anything there. If FB and Twitter are filtering out rightist speech then there is a valid concern that the sheeple are being fed one side. I get it.
BUT, this is the fault of the people being morons blindly following online logorrhea. FB and Twitter are just platforms for people to express ideas. If FB and Twitter are being PROACTIVE in selecting who gets to speak then yes there should be some oversight. You cannot brag to be a public hosting site and then filter out what you don't like except for obvious term violations.
But still, being open forums FB and Twitter, much like Baron can choose what content they support and if we don't like we have the freedom to go elsewhere. Sucks but people cannot complain any more that FB is biased liberal than the fact that CNN and NYT are liberal biased. The idea is to have a free exchange of ideas but people are not allowed to be morons and blindly follow garbage and then blame others.
News organization are profiting off of information they provide and have slightly different obligations. FB profits from advertising revenue they earn from site views from information the whole world decides to share.
Again, this is not really an issue if people were not so stupid. You can research anything but most often people take a tweet or social media post as fact and repeat it virally. Used to be a difference between social media and news but CNN and FOX are repeatedly guilty of same bullshit.
BUT, this is the fault of the people being morons blindly following online logorrhea. FB and Twitter are just platforms for people to express ideas. If FB and Twitter are being PROACTIVE in selecting who gets to speak then yes there should be some oversight. You cannot brag to be a public hosting site and then filter out what you don't like except for obvious term violations.
But still, being open forums FB and Twitter, much like Baron can choose what content they support and if we don't like we have the freedom to go elsewhere. Sucks but people cannot complain any more that FB is biased liberal than the fact that CNN and NYT are liberal biased. The idea is to have a free exchange of ideas but people are not allowed to be morons and blindly follow garbage and then blame others.
News organization are profiting off of information they provide and have slightly different obligations. FB profits from advertising revenue they earn from site views from information the whole world decides to share.
Again, this is not really an issue if people were not so stupid. You can research anything but most often people take a tweet or social media post as fact and repeat it virally. Used to be a difference between social media and news but CNN and FOX are repeatedly guilty of same bullshit.
this reads more like an opinion than the actual text of 230 though