Justice Department Proposes Weakening Social Media's Legal Shield

[BlueTex]

Censoring for only "obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith." would be a good start.
Censoring for ideas wasn't the way to go.
Censoring based on the sensitivities of the algorithm developers was never the way to go.

Is this the start of your wish list? What would you say the odds of any of this becoming law within the next 2-3 years?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Then they shouldn't require the special protections in Section 230.

They require it if you want it to exist.

Understand, back in the BBS days it was hard enough when we were monitoring our very regional sites used by local users on standard POTS lines (dial up).

National and international boards would require hands on to the point they’d make no sense to own or operate without 230. They’d disappear.

‘I’m not talking illegal activity but if you want these entities to censor “offensive content”, taking into account how readily some are offended these days, don’t expect to see innovation take place in these markets. Expect them to either die out or, worse, become throughly automated with soulless algorithms doing the massive part of the moderating.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[BlueTex]

The blue text is an edit of the original content which adds content created by Twitter. There’s no TOS violation - Twitter did not agree with the content so it edited the content to link to a source with a different point of view than that expresses by original content provider.

BS... Twitter has the right to display the content however they desire, including adding additional content... This is no different than a site that suggests links to related content based on the text of the post. The irony is, if 230 went away, they would likely have DELETED that tweet since the could have been sued for providing false information to voters.

 

[roguenuke]

Censoring for only "obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith." would be a good start.
Censoring for ideas wasn't the way to go.
Censoring based on the sensitivities of the algorithm developers was never the way to go.

Its their site. They have every right to provide further information that doesnt change what people post (then others are free to believe whichever) or keep certain content they find wrong off their site.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Napoleon]

BS... Twitter has the right to display the content however they desire, including adding additional content... This is no different than a site that suggests links to related content based on the text of the post. The irony is, if 230 went away, they would likely have DELETED that tweet since the could have been sued for providing false information to voters.

Sure, they do have a right to add content if they want to. BUT once they start doing that they lose immunity under 230 and they are accountable for that content. The only question that has never been answered in court is how much of the content they are liable for when they edit content provided by another to add their own content to it. And that can go in a bunch of different directions.

 

[BlueTex]

Sure, they do have a right to add content if they want to. BUT once they start doing that they lose immunity under 230 and they are accountable for that content.

In the real world, they don't lose immunity under 230, only in your fantasy world... I suggest giving it a try... take them to court and see how it turns out....

 

[Napoleon]

In the real world, they don't lose immunity under 230, only in your fantasy world... I suggest giving it a try... take them to court and see how it turns out....

Companies have been taken to court for the content they post and were found not to have immunity under 230 for obvious reasons. I provided an example of that earlier. The only thing unique about this that has never been litigated is how much liability a company has for edited content where they insert their own content. At minimum, Twitter is liable for the blue text under existing court precedent.

But because the content is not entirely separate a judge might reach a broader conclusion. For example, a judge might decide that “content” is the entire tweet package so the last party to edit it owns all of it, i.e. when Twitter edits it to add its own content then it’s liable for the whole kit and caboodle. Or, again, the judge might find that each party is separately liable for their own contribution to the content.

 

[BlueTex]

Companies have been taken to court for the content they post and were found not to have immunity under 230 for obvious reasons. I provided an example of that earlier. The only thing unique about this that has never been litigated is how much liability a company has for edited content where they insert their own content. At minimum, Twitter is liable for the blue text under existing court precedent.

But because the content is not entirely separate a judge might reach a broader conclusion. For example, a judge might decide that “content” is the entire tweet package so the last party to edit it owns all of it, i.e. when Twitter edits it to add its own content then it’s liable for the whole kit and caboodle. Or, again, the judge might find that each party is separately liable for their own contribution to the content.

What are you waiting for? Twitter has pretty deep pockets, sounds like a great plan to both test the strength of 230 and take home a nice big settlement. Post your own tweet and file a lawsuit...

 

[Ikari]

What are you waiting for? Twitter has pretty deep pockets, sounds like a great plan to both test the strength of 230 and take home a nice big settlement. Post your own tweet and file a lawsuit...

I think it's quite clear that this is just retaliatory behavior from Trump because he feels slighted by social media. There was that Tic-Tok think about over-inflating the numbers at Trump's rally...all of a sudden Tic Tok is under fire from Trump. Trump had posts edited or called out as being fake, and now we have this huge push against social media.

This has never been anything other than about Trump. He feels like he got pushed by social media, and now he'll use the power of government to exact revenge. And the so-called "conservatives" will cheer.

 

[Napoleon]

What are you waiting for? Twitter has pretty deep pockets, sounds like a great plan to both test the strength of 230 and take home a nice big settlement. Post your own tweet and file a lawsuit...

I don’t use Twitter and I have no intention of ever using it.

 

[Napoleon]

I think it's quite clear that this is just retaliatory behavior from Trump because he feels slighted by social media. There was that Tic-Tok think about over-inflating the numbers at Trump's rally...all of a sudden Tic Tok is under fire from Trump. Trump had posts edited or called out as being fake, and now we have this huge push against social media.

This has never been anything other than about Trump. He feels like he got pushed by social media, and now he'll use the power of government to exact revenge. And the so-called "conservatives" will cheer.

Search engines and social media have been under fire for a long time. Trump may be the highest profile member on the bandwagon but he’s certainly not the first.

 

[BlueTex]

I don’t use Twitter and I have no intention of ever using it.

Awwww.... Use it just enough to get a tagged tweet and file your lawsuit... What's wrong? No confidence in your ability to win a lawsuit?

 

[Napoleon]

Awwww.... Use it just enough to get a tagged tweet and file your lawsuit... What's wrong? No confidence in your ability to win a lawsuit?

No, there would be plenty of court precedent on my side. I just don’t need to sign up for a service I don’t want to prove a point to you.

 

[TomFitz]

Trump Warns Social Media As Justice Department Aims To Weaken Tech's Legal Shield

The Justice Department's proposal would hold Facebook and Twitter more accountable for users' posts. One critic says the Trump administration is "trying to work the refs ahead of the election."

www.npr.org

Looks like Trump is getting upset that private companies were able to set rules and limits for what they allow to be posted on their apps. I don't think this is a good move, it's clearly just reactionary nonsense and Trump's desire to bring the hammer of government against the free exercise of rights.

Funny how the Trump team wants laws to regulate social media now that they no longer have free reign for thier surrogates to scam Twitter, FB and the rest with Russian propoganda and made up right wing conspiracy theories.

Before that, when the FSB flooded FB with Trump propoganda from St. petersburg, they were all for it, and stood in the way of trying to regulate it.

I see that the Chinese aren’t playing ball with Trump on Tik-Toc either.

 

[Ikari]

Search engines and social media have been under fire for a long time. Trump may be the highest profile member on the bandwagon but he’s certainly not the first.

They've been criticized, but Trump is trying to bring the power of government to bear on this. We're not supposed to be China.

 

[Ikari]

Funny how the Trump team wants laws to regulate social media now that they no longer have free reign for thier surrogates to scam Twitter, FB and the rest with Russian propoganda and made up right wing conspiracy theories.

Before that, when the FSB flooded FB with Trump propoganda from St. petersburg, they were all for it, and stood in the way of trying to regulate it.

I see that the Chinese aren’t playing ball with Trump on Tik-Toc either.

Yeah, this has stench of retaliation on it. This is something Xi would do.

 

[Napoleon]

They've been criticized, but Trump is trying to bring the power of government to bear on this. We're not supposed to be China.

A lot of people have called for more government regulation of these entities over the years. In my view it’s entirely warranted because of the vast unregulated power accumulated by Google and Facebook. Look up a Ted Talk by Jaron Lanier or watch The Creepy Line documentary if you’re interested in more information about this.

 

[Ikari]

A lot of people have called for more government regulation of these entities over the years. In my view it’s entirely warranted because of the vast unregulated power accumulated by Google and Facebook. Look up a Ted Talk by Jaron Lanier if you’re interested.

And we weren't pushing it. Jaron Lanier ain't a congressman. But Trump, who is President, is actually trying to use the force of government here. I don't care what citizens say, they can say whatever they want. But government force is a different ball game. This is China level BS here, just communist tactics at forcing control over speech.

 

[CaughtInThe]

let's pause.

won't it be good that companies will shut down places like Hannity (message board), comments on news sites and KKK/Q places??

 

[Napoleon]

And we weren't pushing it. Jaron Lanier ain't a congressman. But Trump, who is President, is actually trying to use the force of government here. I don't care what citizens say, they can say whatever they want. But government force is a different ball game. This is China level BS here, just communist tactics at forcing control over speech.

It boils down to whether or not you want a behemoth tech company out there that is literally in the business of mass behavior modification without any legal regulation or oversight over what they do with that power. I tend to agree with Jaron Lanier that it is a very bad idea. If the government is finally coming to that realization then good!

 

[Ikari]

It boils down to whether or not you want a behemoth tech company out there that is literally in the business of mass behavior modification without any legal regulation or oversight over what they do with that power. I tend to agree with Jaron Lanier that it is a very bad idea. If the government is finally coming to that realization then good!

Behemoth tech companies are out for a profit. It's not "behavior modification", lol. They own the servers, they can make the rules of their platform. If you don't like it, make your own damned company and do something about it. Free Market, yes? That's the problem with the right. They try to name these lofty ideals such as freedom and capitalism, but they can't keep to them if it goes against their rule.

Trump felt slighted by social media, and he has launched a new war against them and is bringing the guns of government to bear over them. That's the end all be all. You may be OK with commie level tactics like that, I'm not.

 

[TomFitz]

Online platforms want government protection. Perhaps they should surrender those protections and get the government out of the equation, all together? We all know that won't happen...lol

Nonsense!

Zuckerberg does not want government protection. He was perfectly happy taking the money from the Russians and sitting back and watching while the FSB diddled Trump supporters with made up nonsense designed to appeal to their weaknesses and fears.

His argument is that he owns the theater, but isn’t responsible for what parades across the stage, particularly if it’s loathsome, dishonest, and secretive.

 

[TomFitz]

Behemoth tech companies are out for a profit. It's not "behavior modification", lol. They own the servers, they can make the rules of their platform. If you don't like it, make your own damned company and do something about it. Free Market, yes? That's the problem with the right. They try to name these lofty ideals such as freedom and capitalism, but they can't keep to them if it goes against their rule.

Trump felt slighted by social media, and he has launched a new war against them and is bringing the guns of government to bear over them. That's the end all be all. You may be OK with commie level tactics like that, I'm not.

Trump only feels slighted by social media, when the platform owners don’t give his Russian and right wing surrogates carte blanche to lie and spread divisive memes for the benefit of Trump himself.

Now he’s all against social media, because it stopped some of the worst of it ,and labeled some of it (including White House product) as obvious lies.

 

[Napoleon]

Behemoth tech companies are out for a profit. It's not "behavior modification", lol. They own the servers, they can make the rules of their platform. If you don't like it, make your own damned company and do something about it. Free Market, yes? That's the problem with the right. They try to name these lofty ideals such as freedom and capitalism, but they can't keep to them if it goes against their rule.

Trump felt slighted by social media, and he has launched a new war against them and is bringing the guns of government to bear over them. That's the end all be all. You may be OK with commie level tactics like that, I'm not.

Behavior modification is exactly what it is and, no, it is not just about profit. For example, Facebook engaged in a mood manipulation study in 2012 by altering the content of the newsfeeds of 700,000 users who were unwitting participants. The study involved filling their newsfeeds with either positive or negative content for one week then analyzing the subsequent posts by the users. What they found was that the user’s posts became a reflection of the content, positive or negative, they were exposed to. Proving that Facebook has the power to manipulate the mood of its users by exposing them to the content it selects.

There are all manner of studies which also demonstrate that Facebook changes the opinions of its users through selective exposure to content. And Facebook counts on that - its the intended purpose of its algorithm. That is how Facebook works. If two people want to communicate on Facebook’s platform then that communication is financed by a third person who wants to manipulate them using Facebook’s algorithm. And Facebook wants people to spend as much time as possible looking at the content it chooses for them so it’s algorithm operates on the behavior modification method of reward and punishment.

Facebook’s algorithm gives them the power to the manipulate the mood, change the opinion, and modify the behavior of 190 million US users. That it tremendous power and its currently wielded without regulation or oversight.

 

[Ikari]

Behavior modification is exactly what it is and, no, it is not just about profit. For example, Facebook engaged in a mood manipulation study in 2012 by altering the content of the newsfeeds of 700,000 users who were unwitting participants. The study involved filling their newsfeeds with either positive or negative content for one week then analyzing the subsequent posts by the users. What they found was that the user’s posts became a reflection of the content, positive or negative, they were exposed to. Proving that Facebook has the power to manipulate the mood of its users by exposing them to the content it selects.

There are all manner of studies which also demonstrate that Facebook changes the opinions of its users through selective exposure to content. And Facebook counts on that - its the intended purpose of its algorithm. That is how Facebook works. If two people want to communicate on Facebook’s platform then that communication is financed by a third person who wants to manipulate them using Facebook’s algorithm. And Facebook wants people to spend as much time as possible looking at the content it chooses for them so it’s algorithm operates on the behavior modification method of reward and punishment.

Facebook’s algorithm gives them the power to the manipulate the mood, change the opinion, and modify the behavior of 190 million US users. That it tremendous power and its currently wielded without regulation or oversight.

Well make your own company then, and set the rules as you like. Free Market.