CDZ Section 230 is the foundation of speech on the internet and would hardly exist without it

[colfax_m]

People get section 230 wrong all the time. This is a good explainer for why it came to be.

Why the internet’s most important law exists and how people are still getting it wrong

Talking to the author of a new book on Section 230.

www.theverge.com

Social media companies need to have authority to moderate their own forums at their discretion. To not allow them to do so, would degrade the user experience and lead to the internet being awash in abusive behavior, and ultimately impair the free exercise of speech.

 

[progressive hunter]

People get section 230 wrong all the time. This is a good explainer for why it came to be.

Why the internet’s most important law exists and how people are still getting it wrong

Talking to the author of a new book on Section 230.

www.theverge.com

Social media companies need to have authority to moderate their own forums at their discretion. To not allow them to do so, would degrade the user experience and lead to the internet being awash in abusive behavior, and ultimately impair the free exercise of speech.

as long as hey apply those rules equally I have no problem,, but they dont and clearly have a one sided approach to it which makes them a publisher not a social media platform,,
because of that they shouldnt have 230 protections,,

anymore comments you would like to make??

 

[martybegan]

People get section 230 wrong all the time. This is a good explainer for why it came to be.

Why the internet’s most important law exists and how people are still getting it wrong

Talking to the author of a new book on Section 230.

www.theverge.com

Social media companies need to have authority to moderate their own forums at their discretion. To not allow them to do so, would degrade the user experience and lead to the internet being awash in abusive behavior, and ultimately impair the free exercise of speech.

This is what Section 230 actually says:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

That means simply that they can't be held liable for the postings of others, unless they don't remove copyrighted materials or sex trafficking materials, as required under amendments.

You provided an opinion piece, not your opinion.

 

[colfax_m]

That means simply that they can't be held liable for the postings of others, unless they don't remove copyrighted materials or sex trafficking materials, as required under amendments.

It says they aren’t to be held liable.

Your insertion of “unless” doesn’t exist in the law. If you think there are amendments that say that, please post them.

 

[martybegan]

That means simply that they can't be held liable for the postings of others, unless they don't remove copyrighted materials or sex trafficking materials, as required under amendments.

It says they aren’t to be held liable.

Your insertion of “unless” doesn’t exist in the law. If you think there are amendments that say that, post them.

Section 230 - Wikipedia

Section 230 protections are not limitless, requiring providers to still remove material illegal on a federal level such as copyright infringement. In 2018, Section 230 was amended by the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (FOSTA-SESTA) to require the removal of material violating federal and state sex trafficking laws.

 

[colfax_m]

That means simply that they can't be held liable for the postings of others, unless they don't remove copyrighted materials or sex trafficking materials, as required under amendments.

It says they aren’t to be held liable.

Your insertion of “unless” doesn’t exist in the law. If you think there are amendments that say that, post them.

Section 230 - Wikipedia

Section 230 protections are not limitless, requiring providers to still remove material illegal on a federal level such as copyright infringement. In 2018, Section 230 was amended by the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (FOSTA-SESTA) to require the removal of material violating federal and state sex trafficking laws.

You’re right, my mistake. I had misread your post.

Section 230 is necessary for the internet to exist the way it is now. To do away with it would hamper the ability for normal people to engage in speech on the internet. Social media websites must have the ability to moderate their websites as they see fit.

 

[colfax_m]

as long as hey apply those rules equally I have no problem,, but they dont and clearly have a one sided approach to it which makes them a publisher not a social media platform,,

They’re always publishers in reality, just that the law doesn’t treat them as publishers.

Social media websites put speech into a form for wide consumption and distributed it which is basically the definition of a publisher in my opinion. But making them liable as a publisher makes zero sense. The number of postings on social media sites exceeds the capacity to monitor all postings, unlike a typical publisher of a book or newspaper, who can go through the speech before disseminating it.

Social media websites are different than anything we’ve had before. We shouldn’t try to force them into the regulations designed for other systems.

 

[progressive hunter]

as long as hey apply those rules equally I have no problem,, but they dont and clearly have a one sided approach to it which makes them a publisher not a social media platform,,

They’re always publishers in reality, just that the law doesn’t treat them as publishers.

Social media websites put speech into a form for wide consumption and distributed it which is basically the definition of a publisher in my opinion. But making them liable as a publisher makes zero sense. The number of postings on social media sites exceeds the capacity to monitor all postings, unlike a typical publisher of a book or newspaper, who can go through the speech before disseminating it.

Social media websites are different than anything we’ve had before. We shouldn’t try to force them into the regulations designed for other systems.

and the law should treat them as a publisher since thats what they are acting like,,,

the rest of your word games are pure bull,, so save it for drones that believe it,,

 

[K9Buck]

Time Magazine is a publisher. Twitter is a publisher pretending to be a platform.

 

[colfax_m]

and the law should treat them as a publisher since thats what they are acting like,,,

It’s irrational to treat them as publishers of prior ages.

A publisher of a newspaper can read and approve every word before it goes out. Social media couldn’t do that, ever. Applying the same responsibilities to them is irrational.

 

[K9Buck]

Applying the same responsibilities to them is irrational.

All that matters to you is that they serve the party and, therefore, you'll go along with anything.

 

[progressive hunter]

and the law should treat them as a publisher since thats what they are acting like,,,

It’s irrational to treat them as publishers of prior ages.

A publisher of a newspaper can read and approve every word before it goes out. Social media couldn’t do that, ever. Applying the same responsibilities to them is irrational.

its rational to treat them as a publisher if they are behaving like one,, which they are,,

censoring speech based on their opinion is what a publisher does,,,

 

[colfax_m]

Time Magazine is a publisher. Twitter is a publisher pretending to be a platform.

Time magazine employs every person who writes in Time magazine. Twitter allows anyone to make an account anonymously.

They’re no where near the same.

 

[colfax_m]

and the law should treat them as a publisher since thats what they are acting like,,,

It’s irrational to treat them as publishers of prior ages.

A publisher of a newspaper can read and approve every word before it goes out. Social media couldn’t do that, ever. Applying the same responsibilities to them is irrational.

its rational to treat them as a publisher if they are behaving like one,, which they are,,

censoring speech based on their opinion is what a publisher does,,,

They’re not acting like any other publisher, as I’ve stated. Publishers review every word before publishing. Social media does not. They review basically nothing before it goes it.

 

[colfax_m]

Applying the same responsibilities to them is irrational.

All that matters to you is that they serve the party and, therefore, you'll go along with anything.

This is nothing more than an ad hominem.

 

[K9Buck]

Twitter allows anyone to make an account anonymously.

They do not. They censor and ban people who dare to express views contrary to the party. Hell, they were even caught shadow-banning Republican members of CONGRESS.

 

[K9Buck]

This is nothing more than an ad hominem.

It's the truth. You don't care about anything except the party. You're in agreement with Mussolini's statement in my signature.

 

[progressive hunter]

and the law should treat them as a publisher since thats what they are acting like,,,

It’s irrational to treat them as publishers of prior ages.

A publisher of a newspaper can read and approve every word before it goes out. Social media couldn’t do that, ever. Applying the same responsibilities to them is irrational.

its rational to treat them as a publisher if they are behaving like one,, which they are,,

censoring speech based on their opinion is what a publisher does,,,

They’re not acting like any other publisher, as I’ve stated. Publishers review every word before publishing. Social media does not. They review basically nothing before it goes it.

your playing word games,,

they censor based on their opinion and that is exactly what a publisher does,,

why did you start this in CDZ if youre not going to give an honest debate on the facts and lie instead???

 

[colfax_m]

Twitter allows anyone to make an account anonymously.

They do not. They censor and ban people who dare to express views contrary to the party. Hell, they were even caught shadow-banning Republican members of CONGRESS.

This is obviously untrue. There’s many conservatives on Twitter.

they censor based on their opinion and that is exactly what a publisher does,,

This is an baseless accusation. Publishers do choose what not to publish, but they also choose exactly what do publish before it’s published. They cannot be considered the same given the fundamental differences.

 

[phoenyx]

People get section 230 wrong all the time. This is a good explainer for why it came to be.

Why the internet’s most important law exists and how people are still getting it wrong

Talking to the author of a new book on Section 230.

www.theverge.com

Social media companies need to have authority to moderate their own forums at their discretion. To not allow them to do so, would degrade the user experience and lead to the internet being awash in abusive behavior, and ultimately impair the free exercise of speech.

Good read, thanks.