Florida passes law to stop social media companies from permanent bans

[LS1Z28]

Acceptable behavior under Section 230:
1. Any site should be allowed to remove obscene content.
2. Any site should be allowed to remove illegal content.
3. Any site should be allowed to create and enforce their own rules, as long as they apply them fairly to everyone.

Unacceptable behavior under Section 230:
1. Sites shouldn't be allowed to remove published content based off whether or not they agree with it.
2. Sites shouldn't be allowed to use algorithms or content curators to push/minimize published content based off whether or not they agree with it.
3. Sites shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose when they enforce their rules. They should have clear an concise rules that apply to everyone. There's no excuse for a social media platform to ban a sitting president, but allow the head of Ayatollah.

Social media companies are private entities that are legally allowed to do whatever they want with their platforms. That being said, Section 230 only applies to non-publishers. You can make a strong legal argument that social media companies are publishers if they're actively involved in shaping the content beyond basic moderation.

 

[Cuddles]

Acceptable behavior under Section 230:
1. Any site should be allowed to remove obscene content.
2. Any site should be allowed to remove illegal content.
3. Any site should be allowed to create and enforce their own rules, as long as they apply them fairly to everyone.

Unacceptable behavior under Section 230:
1. Sites shouldn't be allowed to remove published content based off whether or not they agree with it.
2. Sites shouldn't be allowed to use algorithms or content curators to push/minimize published content based off whether or not they agree with it.
3. Sites shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose when they enforce their rules. They should have clear an concise rules that apply to everyone. There's no excuse for a social media platform to ban a sitting president, but allow the head of Ayatollah.

Social media companies are private entities that are legally allowed to do whatever they want with their platforms. That being said, Section 230 only applies to non-publishers. You can make a strong legal argument that social media companies are publishers if they're actively involved in shaping the content beyond basic moderation.

Listen, the rules applying to "everyone" is at best applicable to protected classes (women, gays, minorities, etc), even then, good luck applying that standard to sites like stormfront, gun/prepper forums, etc...

 

[jem]

Listen, the rules applying to "everyone" is at best applicable to protected classes (women, gays, minorities, etc), even then, good luck applying that standard to sites like stormfront, gun/prepper forums, etc...

You comment unwittingly provides the first clue to the problem 230 has created.

Why do you have to put quotations around everyone?

Everyone is "Everyone" and I am pretty sure LS meant everyone

For what are you advocating? I am not sure how to decipher your code.

here is a guess...

Sites can edit viewpoints to the point of leaving defamation and erasing truth as long as they deem themselves to be advancing the interests of certain groups?

 

[El OchoCinco]

Why does a sitting President need access to FB and twitter to push crazy theories of election fraud that was never proven.... Sitting president has a whole press office and pres corps following him....

As for Ayotollah, I am sure if people complained it would be blocked bt not sure why FB has left it up

If FB wants to edit content I am ok with it. FB was intended to be a social media platform to share pictures and connect with friends and families and market businesses now I guess, and even to follow famous people. I hate that it has become a place for people to spout off politicial nonsense on either side and such but..

FB is free to leave it there or take it down and I am free to ignore it and block what I don't want to see.....so no big deal.

Sounds like the whiny conservative vaginas who cmapaigned against TV shows that did not meet their high religious standards and instead of simply turning the channel they had to complain and stomp their feet and say "Look at me.... I am offended!"

 

[Overnight]

...and instead of simply turning the channel they had to complain and stomp their feet and say "Look at me.... I am offended!"

That is something that drove Howard Stern absolutely bonkers for decades on terrestrial radio. Exactly what you said..."Don't like what you hear, turn off the radio! Change the station!"

But no, they keep listening because they WANT to be offended, so they can claim a right to complain. They effectively give up their freedom of choice by doing so however.

 

[LS1Z28]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

This is the portion of Section 230 that provides social media companies with protection. It's pretty clear to me that it was intended to stop them from being sued into oblivion if someone published objectionable content on their site. It wasn't intended to give them blanket legal immunity to manipulate their content in any way they choose without being considered a publisher.

If a social media company is actively involved in shaping and molding their content beyond basic moderation, they should be considered a publisher and lose their legal protection under Section 230. That's my personal opinion, but this can only be determined through the court system. It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this issue. Here's an article on the subject. It sounds like Justice Thomas agrees with my opinion.

From the article:
Thomas wrote that the protection provided by Section 230 is far more sweeping than intended and this extension of §230 immunity is “beyond the natural reading of the text.” Thomas seems to argue that an internet company that exercises editorial control over content is a publisher that can be held liable for any content the internet company’s platform carries. Based on Thomas’ statement, a company like Facebook must decide whether it wants to be a distributor with no control over content on a user’s page and enjoy immunity from liability based on that content, or be a publisher that can moderate content on a user’s page and be held liable for that content.

 

[userque]

Acceptable behavior under Section 230:
1. Any site should be allowed to remove obscene content.
2. Any site should be allowed to remove illegal content.
3. Any site should be allowed to create and enforce their own rules, as long as they apply them fairly to everyone.

Unacceptable behavior under Section 230:
1. Sites shouldn't be allowed to remove published content based off whether or not they agree with it.
2. Sites shouldn't be allowed to use algorithms or content curators to push/minimize published content based off whether or not they agree with it.
3. Sites shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose when they enforce their rules. They should have clear an concise rules that apply to everyone. There's no excuse for a social media platform to ban a sitting president, but allow the head of Ayatollah.

Social media companies are private entities that are legally allowed to do whatever they want with their platforms. That being said, Section 230 only applies to non-publishers. You can make a strong legal argument that social media companies are publishers if they're actively involved in shaping the content beyond basic moderation.

EDIT: Not necessarily directed against @LS1Z28 . Quoting his post for the Sec. 230 information, since it relates to this post of mine.

Some posts here seem to suggest that FB is editing posts. I've never seen nor heard that.

FB, essentially, has 'replied' to posts that are inconsistent with accepted (at the time) facts. Stating accepted facts; and pointing out posts that alleged contrary to accepted facts, is not editing.

FB doesn't delete those posts.

FB banned people for rule violations. Banned people who circumvent the ban may then have those posts deleted.

Hypocrite cons are suddenly against a free market.

 

[LS1Z28]

Some posts here seem to suggest that FB is editing posts. I've never seen nor heard that.

FB, essentially, has 'replied' to posts that are inconsistent with accepted (at the time) facts. Stating accepted facts; and pointing out posts that alleged contrary to accepted facts, is not editing.

FB doesn't delete those posts.

FB banned people for rule violations. Banned people who circumvent the ban may then have those posts deleted.

Hypocrite cons are suddenly against a free market.

View attachment 259901

I'm all for fair markets. I would never argue that the government should force social media companies to do anything. The question is whether or not they should lose their Section 230 protection if they take an active role in shaping their published content beyond simple moderation. The line between publisher and distributor has become quite blurry. It needs to be defined by the court system.

 

[userque]

I'm all for fair markets. I would never argue that the government should force social media companies to do anything. The question is whether or not they should lose their Section 230 protection if they take an active role in shaping their published content beyond simple moderation. The line between publisher and distributor has become quite blurry. It needs to be defined by the court system.

We mostly agree.

I merely quoted your post because my post was made in light of sec. 230, which you outlined in your post.

However, I don't think the line is blurry. The courts can solidify things ... even when they aren't blurry. This would calm things down a bit.

My post laid out what I believe FB does; and what they do is proper wrt 230.

Give an example of something FB did that was "blurry" wrt whichever particular part of 230.

 

[Cuddles]

I'm all for fair markets. I would never argue that the government should force social media companies to do anything. The question is whether or not they should lose their Section 230 protection if they take an active role in shaping their published content beyond simple moderation. The line between publisher and distributor has become quite blurry. It needs to be defined by the court system.

230 being implemented as cons cry about will kill online discourse, simple as that. They also had no problem when online outlets cleaned up lefty content.