Community >> View Post
Post By
Prefer to stay private

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
Late Great Donald Blake 

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563
Subj: Re: It's all about Section 230, my friend.
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 at 05:23:12 am EST (Viewed 195 times)
Reply Subj: It's all about Section 230, my friend.
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 at 11:18:11 pm EST (Viewed 291 times)

    Yeah, I added confusing by combining these.

Don't sweat it, happens to everybody.   I got the main point.

    LGDB: yeah but I'd argue one, in sheerly economic terms this growth hasn't been even somewhat equitable. And more to the point, while that's clearly in the company's interest it isn't in society best interest.

I would definitely agree with that

    LGDB: Okay, so this is key: these media company's are platforms, not publishers... especially according to them. The fact that they're platforms and not publishers is why they're protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency act. It's what among other things gives them protections from being sued for things like defamation and slander and so on, which a publisher would be liable for. They're not responsible for the content that their users share. Basically you can go either way with it here, platform or publisher, their are arguments for both, but their protection by Section 230 is basically mutually exclusive from the the beneficial implications of publication. In other words, legally speaking, their being "forced" to platform someone isn't akin to a publishing house being compelled to publish something.

That is sort of a complicated element.  True they are not bound by the same obligations as publishers, but that does not mean their first amendment right would disappear.

Also, are allowed to turn people away, as long as it is not discriminatory in practice.   Does what they did count?  Line.

As I typed earlier, I don't think the mass blocking was specifically to silence conservatives, just overreaction.

You have made me wonder though.  I would say it lands in a grey area... and since I don't agree with their choices, and have issues with Big Tech, I can;t say I would be sorry to see their attempts to skirt responsibility in one way bite them on the ass.

Still, the line is fine.  I would say this will likely become a very interesting legal case in the future.

    I am all for boycotts of Twitter an Facebook, since these changes are legal, but I do not agree with them. This could render that unnecessary. Break it apart and everyone can have their own set standards, determine d be personal philosophy, or the market.

    LGDB: I'm not sure what's you're saying here. I think perhaps I'm getting lost in what "it" and "them" refers to in a few places. Can you explain this to me?

This is admittedly a somewhat theoretical outcome.

With things like societal free speech, Twitter and more notably Facebook, get of a lot or pressure put upon them due to their monolithic status.

More is both expected and assumed by them.  Remember the hearings over fake news?  A lot of Republicans at the time  were straying off asking about anti-conservative bias specifically.  It might be worth noting if it exists, but the point of the hearing was for something with more broad appeal.

If it is broken up into more, with a wider array of specificity the actual issue would have been stuck to, and the fallout in perception among some would not have happened.

Either way, it leads to some type of performative compensation to keep people happy.

Also, every-time someone of note gets banned or blocked, they get bad publicity in some circles.  It is worth noting, often they very clearly broke the agreed upon rules, but other times it is grey and you have to wonder if some slack should be cut.

Advertisers, patrons, or whomever,  get angry, and do something performative of their own against one of the companies.  There also always seems to be talk of a new rival popping up...which ends up not becoming much.

However, all of these things can hurt their bottom line, whether it be direct elements like advisors, or through stock,  So, they say or do something to appease.

Break them apart all kinds of ones will pp up.  One just for movies, one just for sports,  and of course ones for the political elements.  Most likely both would attract aggressors from the opposing side, who sometimes will deserve to be blocked and sometimes won't.

This would clear out a lot of extreme views,both political and whatever.  This would leave what remained to be discussed on Twitter to be more moderate, and allow less putting up with behavior they find objectionable.  Therefore, less having to do things to look good, and having to make choices that don't seem political.