Props for what exactly? The end of online communication?
Freedom of speech at stake
- Thread starter Andrea Wylan
- Start date
Props for what exactly? The end of online communication?
From the release:
H.R.8922 ,the Breakup Big Tech Act of 2020 would take away legal immunity from interactive computer service providers that engage in certain manipulative activities, including social media companies who act as publishers by moderating and censoring content.
The full text of the bill isn't out yet, but it's my understanding that Section 230 immunity would still exist for companies that aren't actively engaged in shaping the content published on their sites. They should be fine as long as they're providing a true neutral platform that allows for freedom of speech.
Good luck on these companies getting sued by the feds once a user post child porn, copyrighted content, gore, or terrorist threats on their servers and they're forced to keep it hosted for fear of being sued "for censoring".
Or they could do the sensible thing at that point and disallow all online discussion by third parties.
Section 230 allows companies to remove obscene content. They'll still be able to enforce their rules. They just won't be able to use algorithms and moderation to shape content beyond that. This would be a total win for anyone that want to see freedom of speech on social media platforms.
Society finds racism obscene, POTUS doesn't, now what?
Social media companies are allowed to set and enforce their own rules. I've got not problem with them removing content posted by Trump if he breaks their rules. What I've got a problem with is when they don't apply their rules evenly to everyone in an attempt to shape the content published on their sites.
I've said it all throughout this thread, companies should lose their Section 230 immunity if they're actively engaged in shaping the content published on their sites. Now Gabbard and others in Congress are saying the same thing.
you miss my point. What I'm saying is politicians in power can say "racism talk is ok" and protected speech and thus not removeable, but now comps. are liable to prosecution if they're also upheld to obscenity laws violated by their users. So Baron & others like him can choose to fight litigation by free speech fighters of every post removed that violates his terms of service and obscenity laws or choose to shut down to avoid bankruptcy.
This is literally the "big government overreach" cons. claim to loathe.
I can't really argue with you until the actual language of the bill is released, but I'll be shocked if social media companies aren't allowed to remove hate speech. I know that it's protected by the First Amendment, but I just can't see that happening.
Last edited:
It's an untenable position. If I unleash an army of trolls or bots on twitter spamming Obama's picture w/a bone through his nose, railing on blacks w/the infamous 13/52 statistics, or being a bigot about "chinese" virus and conspiracies, you're asking for humans to take on all this garbage when I'm automated, you're asking them to be arbiters of what goes and doesn't and risk litigation if they fuck it up. Youtube will just go back to the old days of no comments as so will every news outlet (I'd much prefer it personally). FB and twitter will end up like the dodo.