Should Congress Pass H.R. 8922 "the Break Up Big Tech Act of 2020?"

[Bullseye]

Reps. Gabbard & Gosar Introduce ‘Break Up Big Tech’ Bill to Remove Legal Immunity from Big Tech Who Censor Users | Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (house.gov)

We have seen that a few men and women who own/run a few Social Media and Information Technology companies currently control how the majority of end users (citizens of the world like you and I) receive and perceive information.

We have also seen how they can guide/influence our views and actions via their control and manipulation of the information stream. In other Forum discussions issues have been raised about their current immunity from any form of liability under Section 230 as it now stands. This proposed Act clarifies such immunity, removing it from any Social Media organization that ceases to be a mere "platform" of views/ideas. That if it acts like an "editor/purveyor" turning it into a "publisher" it can be subject to standard civil/criminal liability.

The question is simply this: Should Congress pass H.R. 8922 which would allow Big Tech Media outlets to be subjected to civil/criminal liability if they act like publishers rather than neutral media platforms?

Yes.
No.
Other.

I’m not sure that breaking up would be the right course. We may just end up with a bunch of FB, Twitter, etc. clones still doing the say things - I don’t think break up will kill the Masters of the Universe mindset.
What’s need is a more restrictive Communications Decency at that restricts Social Media to censoring only indencies, profanity, threats, etc, as defined in the act and forbids editorializing or blocking for policitical or social reasons.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Making social media responsible for what users say will eliminate the platform. Is that what you want?

The platform should (would) not be lose it’s Section 230 protection if the site allows user content to be presented unedited based on the opinion (political point of view?) presented. The hard part is defining that (legal) concept clearly - such that is not too hard (or easy) to lose Section 230 protection for sites allowing user content to be presented/shared.

 

[MSgt]

Lies according to whom? The politically biased and politically driven social media so called 'fact checkers'?

According to general consensus, common sense, and fact. Anybody who expresses a personal need for an "alternate" fact should be watched for anything that vomits out of their mouths.

If you have an actual gripe against social media, it should not be about how Trump and his GOP can't get away with lying and spreading misinformation in such a way that it reduces national security and harms American society. You know, like injecting yourself with disinfectant or that a new widely-spreading and deadly virus is a hoax. You, as a proper American, should actually give a shit about what that does to your country and fellow dimwitted countryman.

No, your gripe should be about how these companies have built algorithms that cater to sponsors who wish to sell goods. If you choose to check out a far-left or a far-right Tweet or site, you will be bombarded with like material, pushing you further towards radicalism and irrationality. As you 'click' or whatever, you get more and more information about hate, simply because the algorithm assumes to know what you like to see. ALL because some company wants to sell you a pair of socks.

 

[iguanaman]

The platform should (would) not be lose it’s Section 230 protection if the site allows user content to be presented unedited based on the opinion (political point of view?) presented. The hard part is defining that (legal) concept clearly - such that is not too hard (or easy) to lose Section 230 protection for sites allowing user content to be presented/shared.

The hard part is that a private business is responsible for making it's own rules about how to run itself. Unless you want the Govt. to take over the means of production this is pretty well a moot point. Does that sound like a good idea to you? What is REALLY hard is defending the propagation of lies to the American people as a Govt. policy. Our nation was built on Truth above all.

 

[eohrnberger]

Lies are lies and it means they are not true. Stop the insanity of "alternate facts". They do not exist. Please give me an example if you want to claim bias. Like the insane claims of election fraud you are using alternate facts which prove nothing. You are welcome to have any lies by any side flagged as lies but it seems they are all by supporters of the biggest liar in history, the one term mistake.

Twitter, NPR, and many other so called 'news' outlets that refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story. Twitter most notably blocking the source news paper's account for weeks, demanding they delete the tweet (they could have removed it themselves no doubt but wanted to establish the news paper's compliancy and subservience to themselves) as well as blocking any re-tweeting of that article. Clearly politically biased in protecting Biden.

Twitter even went so far as to having Kayleigh McEnany Twitter account suspended for tweeting out information from the New York Post story.

Isn't the idea that these are platforms and that their job is to provide an open forum for people to disseminate information, particularly if the information is not overtly false?

'Hacked materials' policy you say?
Doesn't Twitter currently allow leaked and hacked materials from other sources, including WikiLeaks, to be shared, as has been reported?
How much hack material did they take down from Edward Snowden or WikiLeaks? The answer is none.

Anyone pretending that Twitter and Facebook aren't politically biased against the right and for the left is just demonstrating their hyper partisanship and willful ignorance.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Reps. Gabbard & Gosar Introduce ‘Break Up Big Tech’ Bill to Remove Legal Immunity from Big Tech Who Censor Users | Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (house.gov)

We have seen that a few men and women who own/run a few Social Media and Information Technology companies currently control how the majority of end users (citizens of the world like you and I) receive and perceive information.

We have also seen how they can guide/influence our views and actions via their control and manipulation of the information stream. In other Forum discussions issues have been raised about their current immunity from any form of liability under Section 230 as it now stands. This proposed Act clarifies such immunity, removing it from any Social Media organization that ceases to be a mere "platform" of views/ideas. That if it acts like an "editor/purveyor" turning it into a "publisher" it can be subject to standard civil/criminal liability.

The question is simply this: Should Congress pass H.R. 8922 which would allow Big Tech Media outlets to be subjected to civil/criminal liability if they act like publishers rather than neutral media platforms?

Yes.
No.
Other.

I would perhaps support it if the criteria were limited to (and modified from the original in ALLCAPS):

• Selling and displaying personalized as well as contextual advertising without user’s KNOWLEDGE
• Collecting data for commercial purposes FROM OUTSIDE THE PLATFORM.
• Acting as a publisher by using algorithms to moderate or censor content without opt-in from users.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The hard part is that a private business is responsible for making it's own rules about how to run itself. Unless you want the Govt. to take over the means of production this is pretty well a moot point.

OK, but why should only some private (internet) businesses enjoy special federal protection from civil lawsuits? Why can Fox News, MSNBC or CNN be sued yet not Facebook, YouTube or Twitter?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Other since it is unclear whether the bullet points are to be construed as and vs. or. If ands then the last (fifth in the OP) bullet is easily defeated by simply requiring users to accept content editing as a user TOS requirement. If ors then many sites could likely be said to meet the second to the last (fourth in the OP) bullet - what website (internet service) is not designed to get users to frequently visit that site?

I like the idea of limiting Section 230 protections, but care must be taken when crafting a bill not to make the law either too easy (or hard) to get/keep such protection.

IMO the "Terms of Service" argument is problematic.

1. Such terms are usually written to (IMHO) conceal. That is they are so lengthy and convoluted the average citizen cannot read through them, or competently understand them without legal counsel.

2. The TOS should not be allowed to contain "owner rights" to enforce their own biases via editorializing or other tools of control. IMO the only restrictions they should be allowed to put on content fall into two categories:

1. Criminal Content. That content which is forbidden by law like child pornography, overt threats, etc.
2. Adult Content. That which can be restricted to those considered legal adults, i.e. pornography, etc.

Otherwise IMO there should be NO "content editing."

As for the point regarding getting users to frequently visit? It depends on how "invasive" these tactics are.

I have no problems with businesses seeking clients. I do have a problem with businesses who treat client's in prejudicial ways. Much like when I was a child and places could still "pick and chose" based on things like "race." I'd have the same issue with things like "political opinions" unless the website was "open and notorious" and did not use hidden measures to prevent users from realizing they were not getting views. YouTube "shadow banning" is a good example.

 

[eohrnberger]

According to general consensus, common sense, and fact. Anybody who expresses a personal need for an "alternate" fact should be watched for anything that vomits out of their mouths.

If you have an actual gripe against social media, it should not be about how Trump and his GOP can't get away with lying and spreading misinformation in such a way that it reduces national security and harms American society. You know, like injecting yourself with disinfectant or that a new widely-spreading and deadly virus is a hoax.

Debunked. That's how badly the media distorts what Trump actually said. This has been on ongoing tactic of their since before his election.

You, as a proper American, should actually give a shit about what that does to your country and fellow dimwitted countryman.

No, your gripe should be about how these companies have built algorithms that cater to sponsors who wish to sell goods. If you choose to check out a far-left or a far-right Tweet or site, you will be bombarded with like material, pushing you further towards radicalism and irrationality. As you 'click' or whatever, you get more and more information about hate, simply because the algorithm assumes to know what you like to see. ALL because some company wants to sell you a pair of socks.

And the rest of your post doesn't address the obvious social media's political bias in the least.

 

[iguanaman]

OK, but why should only some private (internet) businesses enjoy special federal protection from civil lawsuits? Why can Fox News, MSNBC or CNN be sued yet not Facebook, YouTube or Twitter?

Maybe because the nature of their business is free expression by users and in what world would that make them liable for what others say? They can on the other hand decide to police certain posts that they deem harmful to their business and society. Things like hate speech and lies. Why would you defend the posting of hate speech and lies?

 

[ttwtt78640]

IMO the "Terms of Service" argument is problematic.

1. Such terms are usually written to (IMHO) conceal. That is they are so lengthy and convoluted the average citizen cannot read through them, or competently understand them without legal counsel.

2. The TOS should not be allowed to contain "owner rights" to enforce their own biases via editorializing or other tools of control. IMO the only restrictions they should be allowed to put on content fall into one of two categories:

1. Criminal Content. That content which is forbidden by law like child pornography, overt threats, etc.
2. Adult Content. That which can be restricted to those considered legal adults, i.e. pornography, etc.

Otherwise IMO there should be NO "content editing."

As for the point regarding getting users to frequently visit? It depends on how "invasive" these tactics are.

I have no problems with businesses seeking clients. I do have a problem with businesses who treat client's in prejudicial ways. Much like when I was a child and places could still "pick and chose" based on things like "race." I'd have the same issue with things like "political opinions" unless the website was "open and notorious" and did not use hidden measures to prevent users from realizing they were not getting views. YouTube "shadow banning" is a good example.

The hard part is when “fact checking” is done based political considerations - allowing “politically correct” content but censoring “politically incorrect” content. Most media bias is accomplished by simple omission - its hard to sue someone (like Fox News or MSNBC) for what they did not elect to say (or allow to be said).

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Break up won’t do anything. Just pass a simpler version of GDPR and enforce it against them.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Maybe because the nature of their business is free expression by users and in what world would that make them liable for what others say? They can on the other hand decide to police certain posts that they deem harmful to their business and society. Things like hate speech and lies. Why would you defend the posting of hate speech and lies?

The NY Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop/emails was neither hate speech or a lie, yet it was deemed politically (socially?) unacceptable until after the election. Why are you defending that type of nonsense?

 

[iguanaman]

Debunked. That's how badly the media distorts what Trump actually said. This has been on ongoing tactic of their since before his election.

And the rest of your post doesn't address the obvious social media's political bias in the least.

We all heard first hand what the one term mistake said in that task force meeting. You can't deny that but you still try. Lies are not opinions either. You can believe lies if you want but you cannot force a business to publish them. It's beyond understanding.

 

[iguanaman]

The NY Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop/emails was neither hate speech or a lie, yet it was deemed politically (socially?) unacceptable until after the election. Why are you defending that type of nonsense?

LOL The FBI warned Americans not to take anything Rudy says or any "evidence" he has seriously because he was colluding with Russian agents. They also have the REAL data from the laptop. You are mad that we are more aware of the dangers of Russian interference in our elections? That is really sad but I guess it has been proven that the one term mistake cannot win without Russian help.

Intelligence officials warned President Trump that his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was the target of an influence campaign conducted by Russian intelligence, The Washington Post reported Thursday.
Four former officials familiar with the matter told the Post that the intelligence officers were worried that the president’s personal lawyer was being used to pass Russian misinformation to Trump.
The intelligence community reportedly learned of the campaign through multiple sources, including intercepted communications, that determined Giuliani was communicating with people tied to Russian intelligence during his 2019 trip to Ukraine.
National security adviser Robert O’Brien led efforts to warn Trump about the campaign, saying information provided by Giuliani after trips to Ukraine should be considered to be tainted by Russia, one former official told the newspaper.

https://thehill.com/policy/national...ials-warned-trump-that-giuliani-was-target-of

 

[MSgt]

Debunked. That's how badly the media distorts what Trump actually said. This has been on ongoing tactic of their since before his election.

No, this is what you all told yourselves to help you avoid the national traitor you all so enthusiastically followed and blindly supported. "What Trump actually said:"

"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
"So it'd be interesting to check that."

Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: "I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what."

No, Mr. bankrupt-prone idiot. You absolutely do not have a good you-know-what.


And here your special man is....



But you know all of this, don't you? You are a big boy with a good you-know-what. You only choose to be obtuse. And how pathetic that you would purposefully lower yourself for this piece of shit.

And the rest of your post doesn't address the obvious social media's political bias in the least.

Because your idea of bias is anything outside of radical right-wing propaganda. Crazy how in the end, all the world's media simply became "bias," huh? What else to expect when Trump brands center-right sources "fake" and chastises FOX News for refusing to support him anymore. No, everything outside of the radical right-wing is "bias" only to those who see only radical right-wing propaganda as truth. Goebbels!

 

[lemmiwinx]

I'm not for breaking up big tech just because they're rich and I envy them. Although that Facebook guy looks like a space alien pretending to be human.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Break up won’t do anything. Just pass a simpler version of GDPR and enforce it against them.

I’m not sure that breaking up would be the right course. We may just end up with a bunch of FB, Twitter, etc. clones still doing the say things - I don’t think break up will kill the Masters of the Universe mindset.
What’s need is a more restrictive Communications Decency at that restricts Social Media to censoring only indencies, profanity, threats, etc, as defined in the act and forbids editorializing or blocking for policitical or social reasons.

I'm not for breaking up big tech just because they're rich and I envy them. Although that Facebook guy looks like a space alien pretending to be human.

I think the given title is a bit misleading by whomever posted the report I cited.

The actual listing of actions is designed to remove their liability protections from civil/criminal actions in how they handle "expression" and "information gathering/access" on their services.

I think the idea is to break their monopolies by forcing them to either conform to looser free expression requirements, or face civil action which could affect their financials and open the door to competitors.

Examine the provided bullet points, then make your poll decision on those.

 

[Rexedgar]

Every one of those NEWS organizations is subject to civil action. Or did you forget the Covington Kids (successful) civil suits?

On the other hand Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, etc. seem to be immune under Section 230.

Your post seems to conflate NEWS organizations and Twitter, FB, YT, Google etc. Is it intentional?

 

[NatMorton]

LOL The FBI has had the real info from the laptop for months and their only comment was that nothing Rudy is involved with should be trusted because he was been colluding with Russian GRU agents. Twitter had every right to take the word of our law enforcement authorities. You should try it sometime.

You should try to understand what I am saying.

 

[NatMorton]

You keep missing the point. No one is arguing that Twitter cannot "conduct it's affairs in as 'politically biased' a manner as they wish."

The point is that since they ARE doing so, they are no longer (if they ever were) a "neutral platform for ideas and free expression." They are a PUBLISHER like any other agency/organization which does so, and thus should not be given special protection from civil/criminal liability for how they do so.

I don’t disagree with your argument. I have trouble with the argument being made in the link you cited. These services are being declared “monopolies.” They are not, and I find any argument using (or perhaps relying on) a false premise to be suspect.

 

[BrotherFease]

Here's your answer folks: What would Teddy Roosevelt do? (WWTRD)

 

[Captain Adverse]

I don’t disagree with your argument. I have trouble with the argument being made in the link you cited. These services are being declared “monopolies.” They are not, and I find any argument using (or perhaps relying on) a false premise to be suspect.

Well people seem to think there is only one kind of "monopoly," i.e. one that has complete control over and access to some product, service, commodity, or other resource. I.e. an "Absolute Monopoly."

But there are actually several types; including but not limited to:

1. Natural Monopolies, "A natural monopoly exists when a variety of factors make competition unworkable, financially unfeasible or impossible."

2. Geographic Monopolies, " When only one business provides products or services to a local area, that business is a geographic monopoly."

3. Technological Monopolies, " A business that's first to market a product or service may get a patent or copyright. That legal protection makes the business a technological monopoly."

There are actually several other forms as well.

IMO Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are natural monopolies. They all have minor competition, but simply dominate the markets each represent as the most recognizable, easily accessed, and well-established.

 

[NatMorton]

Well people seem to think there is only one kind of "monopoly," i.e. one that has complete control over and access to some product, service, commodity, or other resource. I.e. an "Absolute Monopoly."

But there are actually several types; including but not limited to:

1. Natural Monopolies, "A natural monopoly exists when a variety of factors make competition unworkable, financially unfeasible or impossible."

2. Geographic Monopolies, " When only one business provides products or services to a local area, that business is a geographic monopoly."

3. Technological Monopolies, " A business that's first to market a product or service may get a patent or copyright. That legal protection makes the business a technological monopoly."

There are actually sever others as well.

IMO Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are natural monopolies. They all have minor competition, but simply dominate the markets each represent as the most recognizable, easily accessed, and well-established.

Why do you think Facebook, for example, makes competition unworkable in its market?

 

[The AntiDonald]

I just don't see how this statement is justified. What news source can't you access without Facebook or Twitter?

I totally agree. I have never been a member of FB or Twitter. I get my news from many other sources. I use Google for searches and that's it. As far as Amazon (And they are certainly big tech), I fear any legislation will effect consumer pricing and I use Amazon for most of my business materials.