Section 230

[bluesmoke]

Your... right to use a computer system you have never owned, maintained, or paid for?

Can you show me where that was written in the constitution? Where does it say you have a right to use someone else's property?

Can you show me, but for 230, that all "this" would be allowed? The only reason for 230 was to allow for the expansion of the internet such that accommodated the profit incentive to do so. It was to allow startup. Well, they done startup. Now, they are all billionaires. They were given the right of sword and shield. But they rarely use the sword. Except on the little dude. The big players get through all the time. Those big players incl themselves, who sell your private info to foreign "enemy" countries. Yeah. And everybody else, too. They own that info, not you. You couldn't get that info if you wanted. I could go on...

 

[Visbek]

Can you show me, but for 230, that all "this" would be allowed? The only reason for 230 was to allow for the expansion of the internet such that accommodated the profit incentive to do so. It was to allow startup.

Incorrect.

Section 230 wasn't done for startups, and it doesn't have a sunset provision.

The purpose is to allow any site to moderate its content, using whatever criteria it wants. It's a recognition that a site which allows users to post directly are a platform, not the author or publisher.

If a Christian web forum wants to ban discussion advocating homosexuality, they can do that.

If a Shirley Temple web forum wants to ban all discussion of politics, they can do that.

And so on.

they rarely use the sword. Except on the little dude. The big players get through all the time.

Hello? Trump had 8 million followers, and got tossed. Pewdiepie is a huge social media star who got suspended from Twitter. Rihanna, Courtney Love, Chelsea Handler were suspended.

Rich people generally avoid suspensions not because they get cut slack, but because they have PR people who stop them before doing anything ban-worthy.

 

[bluesmoke]

You understand that what you think should be true is directly contrary to the purpose of Section 230?

The purpose of Section 230 is to allow for content moderation.

And to shield platform providers if they don't moderate whatsoever. It's a sword and shield law. What the providers care about, whatever you may say the purpose is, is the shield. Because, their purpose is to make money. The shield gives them the regulatory protection to do that, hand over fist.

 

[bluesmoke]

It is not them taking responsibility for what you say. It is them saying they don't approve of what you have posted. There is a difference. You can disapprove of something people are posting, saying without having any responsibility for it. You can even ban/stop people from saying it (if your property) without having any sort of legal responsibility for it.

Example: I throw a party. I invite about 50 people. Two of those people start having a discussion about religion that makes others uncomfortable. No one at that party could sue me or even them for having such a discussion (not successfully), but that doesn't mean I can't ask them to leave and then call the cops, essentially ban those two people from my party and future parties. It doesn't matter if I allowed others to talk about religion or other things, nor that I had no responsibility affiliated with their discussion, only that I did not approve of their conversation, what they were saying. It could be a single person, two people, or several people.

The platforms under 230 are set up for people to come in and say what they do. It's not a party of others sorts where people might have a discussion like you describe. They get online to exactly have that discussion. The platform users should have the same protection as the platform. If a given platform can't perform their "sword" duties to prevent bad actors from abusing the platform, the either take away their shield or, if the industry doesn't, that's when, as in the past, the govt steps in and does the policing. I don't think anybody wants that.

 

[roguenuke]

The platforms under 230 are set up for people to come in and say what they do. It's not a party of others sorts where people might have a discussion like you describe. They get online to exactly have that discussion. The platform users should have the same protection as the platform. If a given platform can't perform their "sword" duties to prevent bad actors from abusing the platform, the either take away their shield or, if the industry doesn't, that's when, as in the past, the govt steps in and does the policing. I don't think anybody wants that.

No, just as you don't have the same protections as stores have, as private business owners have within their own stores, own businesses. You don't have a right to say what you want to say, anything you want to say on other people's property.

What no one wants is for the social media platforms to go away due to lawsuits or more because some people don't like how private platforms operate. If they are doing something actually illegal, fine, address that. But Sect 230 and the complaints about it in relation to this issue aren't about illegal actions by social media platforms, but rather "beliefs" on how someone else should be forced to run their business.

 

[bluesmoke]

Why shouldn't you have to setup your own site? If it's your party, you get to control what may or may not be said there, but if it is someone else's party, they have that control.

Your phone conversations are not open to the public, what you post on someone else's privately owned platform is.

I'm saying 230 should cover users of the platform as well as the platform/site itself. The site should use the sword on abusers as would be under US law and the shield works for the user to the full extent it does for the site.

By teleconference, I can make my phone conversation as open to the public as the technology allows and I want it to be. What's posted on a privately owned platform can be as restricted to the public as the site wishes it to be, as long as the restriction is legal.

 

[bluesmoke]

They used to serve as places of larger communication, some still very much do. Trying to make this about numbers of people communicating is never going to work because that is always going to change. Small sites should not be treated differently than larger sites.

Larger business is treated diff than smaller business. So, to that extent, a larger site is treated diff than a smaller one. Talk to Zuckerberg about anti-trust.

It's always about the numbers. There's the common excuse that Facebook is too big to expect them to moderate content. That's about the numbers. They can't effectively use "the sword". But they can easily afford twice or more as many moderators as they have sitting on all the cash they sit on and all the more that keeps piling up. That's about the numbers. Smaller sites can more easily moderate their content due to the smaller numbers. But affordability is more difficult. Because of the $ numbers.

 

[bluesmoke]

Are you familiar with the first amendment of the US constitution?

Don't be so condescendingly coy. Debate what I said forthrightly.

 

[roguenuke]

Larger business is treated diff than smaller business. So, to that extent, a larger site is treated diff than a smaller one. Talk to Zuckerberg about anti-trust.

It's always about the numbers. There's the common excuse that Facebook is too big to expect them to moderate content. That's about the numbers. They can't effectively use "the sword". But they can easily afford twice or more as many moderators as they have sitting on all the cash they sit on and all the more that keeps piling up. That's about the numbers. Smaller sites can more easily moderate their content due to the smaller numbers. But affordability is more difficult. Because of the $ numbers.

Section 230 and antitrust laws are very different.

And antitrust laws in this case would be about breaking up the different parts of Facebook, Google, etc., not breaking up the social media sites themselves. So for instance, WhatsApp and Facebook may have to be separated from being owned by the same people, company. But they aren't going to break up Facebook (the app/social media site) or get rid of Section 230 for potential monopoly violations of the whole company.

 

[bluesmoke]

The sites are private sites. The only thing that 230 requires of them is for them to show they have a method to try to "police" their site when it comes to illegal content. Nothing else is required. You stated above, to the post of yours that my quoted post here was in response to, that any site should not be able to control or restrict what you post on that site. This site does, as does pretty much every site in existence because there is nothing about Sect 230 that restricts any site from controlling content and even users on their sites.

As for what I mean, you cannot compare LEO protections and any sort of reciprocated protections to the public (which should not be the case because the circumstances between the public and law enforcement are the same) with online protections given to either sites or people using those sites. The situations are not the same at all. You don't opt in, sign up for law enforcement protection in the US, for good reason. You do opt in, sign up to use other people's websites to post your own comments. They allow you to use their space, so they get to control it.

“…230 requires of them is for them to show they have a method to try to "police" their site when it comes to illegal content”

I’m saying that their method isn’t working as it should, or they’re not working the method enough or as they should. They are not exercising enough control where it is most meaningful.

Thanks for the clarity. But, yes, I can compare protections to do with fairness, regardless of how diff those protections or what they protect may be. I believe the protections to be unfair, or unfairly used, or not fairly used.

 

[bluesmoke]

Incorrect.

Section 230 wasn't done for startups, and it doesn't have a sunset provision.

The purpose is to allow any site to moderate its content, using whatever criteria it wants. It's a recognition that a site which allows users to post directly are a platform, not the author or publisher.

If a Christian web forum wants to ban discussion advocating homosexuality, they can do that.

If a Shirley Temple web forum wants to ban all discussion of politics, they can do that.

And so on.



Hello? Trump had 8 million followers, and got tossed. Pewdiepie is a huge social media star who got suspended from Twitter. Rihanna, Courtney Love, Chelsea Handler were suspended.

Rich people generally avoid suspensions not because they get cut slack, but because they have PR people who stop them before doing anything ban-worthy.

Sec 230 helped create the modern internet by providing protection from liability that would have been an unaffordable threat to the startup of the industry. Regulation is the #1 concern of any startup. The entire industry was a startup. Too much risk for little initial reward with no protection from threat inherent in the nature of the peculiarities of the business. Without Sec 230, it’s doubtful the internet would be as far along as it is now.

As to how many individuals are banned, which would incl those suspended for even a brief period of time whereupon the “ban” is lifted, the vast majority are everyday people. It’s those with large public followings, the “stars”, that get the publicity when banned/suspended. You can rationalize that the followers were effectively banned from following the likes of Trump or whomever, but that’s not what I’m saying.

 

[BlueTex]

Sec 230 helped create the modern internet by providing protection from liability that would have been an unaffordable threat to the startup of the industry. Regulation is the #1 concern of any startup. The entire industry was a startup. Too much risk for little initial reward with no protection from threat inherent in the nature of the peculiarities of the business. Without Sec 230, it’s doubtful the internet would be as far along as it is now.

As to how many individuals are banned, which would incl those suspended for even a brief period of time whereupon the “ban” is lifted, the vast majority are everyday people. It’s those with large public followings, the “stars”, that get the publicity when banned/suspended. You can rationalize that the followers were effectively banned from following the likes of Trump or whomever, but that’s not what I’m saying.

There is NO question we would not have the internet we take for granted today without section 230...

 

[roguenuke]

“…230 requires of them is for them to show they have a method to try to "police" their site when it comes to illegal content”

I’m saying that their method isn’t working as it should, or they’re not working the method enough or as they should. They are not exercising enough control where it is most meaningful.

Thanks for the clarity. But, yes, I can compare protections to do with fairness, regardless of how diff those protections or what they protect may be. I believe the protections to be unfair, or unfairly used, or not fairly used.

It works quite well, but nothing is perfect.

 

[swing_voter]

In 1996, the Communications Decency Act was signed into law. In response to an increasing number of Americans using the internet, there was some fear that pornography would be easily accessible to children. To stoke those fears, congress passed this act. Within this act is section 230 which is essentially a safe harbor law. It protects platforms from being held liable for illegal content so long as they make good faith measures to remove said content (the speaker is responsible, not the publisher). The CDA was struck down by SCOTUS in 2004 but section 230 remained. Section 230 would then go on to be considered one of the most important laws regarding the internet, being considered the first amendment of the internet.

In recent years, section 230 has come under criticism for supposedly facilitating human trafficking, hate content, child porn, general harassment, and terrorism. Because of this, some have called for scaling back section 230 or even ending it altogether. In 2018, it was scaled back with the passage of FOSTA-SESTA which made an exemption for human trafficking. In 2020, there was an attempt to pass the EARN IT Act which would have weakened section 230. It was sponsored by Linsey Graham and was endorsed by President Trump. Now under Biden, there are more calls to scale back section 230.

Section 230 generally provides immunity for website platforms from third-party content. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

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.

Section 230 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is what keeps sites like debatepolitics alive.

Would you be willing to risk a million dollar lawsuit just so you could run an internet forum for politics?

We need to keep section 230


.

 

[bluesmoke]

No, just as you don't have the same protections as stores have, as private business owners have within their own stores, own businesses. You don't have a right to say what you want to say, anything you want to say on other people's property.

What no one wants is for the social media platforms to go away due to lawsuits or more because some people don't like how private platforms operate. If they are doing something actually illegal, fine, address that. But Sect 230 and the complaints about it in relation to this issue aren't about illegal actions by social media platforms, but rather "beliefs" on how someone else should be forced to run their business.

Protection of these sites assume they do a proper job of policing, which they are not doing. They keep getting called on that fact, and continue to fool Congress and the public by saying they’re doing better and better, while we keep learning the worst is getting worse. Somebody needs to do a proper job of policing. Private industry will only do so upon threat, not so on their own as they’ve keep lying about. Threaten taking away or diluting 230, or writing into the law stricter requirements of the industry, is what I recommend. I also think that it is only fair if the sites have protection from liability for what they post of what others say, then what others say should also have that protection to the extent of the exercise of free speech and in keeping with the concept of a free and open internet.

It isn’t about not liking the way a platform operates but that the platforms need operate with an effective method for policing their site as respects identified problems that need moderation, as is required by 230 but not being performed to an effective extent. What I don’t like is when given near absolute protection that contemplates self-policing, the sites don’t bother with the policing to any effective extent. Then, why should they have the protection and why shouldn’t I? If they can’t do their job for having been given such protection, then have the govt take over the role and see how they like it.

 

[bluesmoke]

Section 230 and antitrust laws are very different.

And antitrust laws in this case would be about breaking up the different parts of Facebook, Google, etc., not breaking up the social media sites themselves. So for instance, WhatsApp and Facebook may have to be separated from being owned by the same people, company. But they aren't going to break up Facebook (the app/social media site) or get rid of Section 230 for potential monopoly violations of the whole company.

Without Sec 230, the internet simply would not have started to have it where it is today. It would not have come so far along as it has because of 230. The internet contemplates it be free and open, but large ops like Google and Facebook make that not so, at all. Hence anti-trust as a relative subject of concern.

 

[roguenuke]

Protection of these sites assume they do a proper job of policing, which they are not doing. They keep getting called on that fact, and continue to fool Congress and the public by saying they’re doing better and better, while we keep learning the worst is getting worse. Somebody needs to do a proper job of policing. Private industry will only do so upon threat, not so on their own as they’ve keep lying about. Threaten taking away or diluting 230, or writing into the law stricter requirements of the industry, is what I recommend. I also think that it is only fair if the sites have protection from liability for what they post of what others say, then what others say should also have that protection to the extent of the exercise of free speech and in keeping with the concept of a free and open internet.

It isn’t about not liking the way a platform operates but that the platforms need operate with an effective method for policing their site as respects identified problems that need moderation, as is required by 230 but not being performed to an effective extent. What I don’t like is when given near absolute protection that contemplates self-policing, the sites don’t bother with the policing to any effective extent. Then, why should they have the protection and why shouldn’t I? If they can’t do their job for having been given such protection, then have the govt take over the role and see how they like it.

It only assumes that they do a reasonable job of enforcement.

 

[bluesmoke]

It works quite well, but nothing is perfect.

A gelatinous medium within which "far from perfect" can freely move through along with "doesn't work" and "nearly works" in company.

 

[bluesmoke]

It only assumes that they do a reasonable job of enforcement.

Which they are not doing. An assumption still requires proof.