Trump threatens to veto major defense bill unless Congress repeals Section 230, a legal shield for tech giants

[OscarLevant]

Section 230 is a vital part of the internet, it protects ISPs, YouTube, Facebook, and thousands of content providing hosting sites against liability of the content provided by their contributing members.

There is no way in hell Trump is going to get away with this. 230 isn't about shielding media sites on how they police their sites, it protects them from liability of content from subscribers to their platforms. At least that is my understanding of it when I was investigating FOSTA. a few years back.

See, if you get rid of 230, it will white wash the internet, they'll stop allowing any one or biz who has a modicum of controversy. There are 1st amendment issues here, I suspect.

this is what happened to Craiglist, because FOSTA was an end run around 230, as it applies to 'personal ads' (where a few sex traffickers trafficked) What did CL do? instead of more closely monitor personal ads, the objective of FOSTA, CL just killed the section altogether, so the millions of innocent posters are denied access because of it.

Something similar will happen, but on a much grander scale, of 230 is repealed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/01/trump-repeal-section-230-ndaa

President Trump on Tuesday threatened to veto an annual defense bill authorizing nearly $1 trillion in military spending unless Congress opens the door for Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites to be held legally liable for the way they police their platforms.

 

[Antiwar]

Defund the military machine.

 

[Ikari]

**** that guy, a month and a half then he's gone.

 

[Bullseye]

Section 230 is a vital part of the internet, it protects ISPs, YouTube, Facebook, and thousands of content providing hosting sites against liability of the content provided by their contributing members.

There is no way in hell Trump is going to get away with this. 230 isn't about shielding media sites on how they police their sites, it protects them from liability of content from subscribers to their platforms. At least that is my understanding of it when I was investigating FOSTA. a few years back.

See, if you get rid of 230, it will white wash the internet, they'll stop allowing any one or biz who has a modicum of controversy. There are 1st amendment issues here, I suspect.

this is what happened to Craiglist, because FOSTA was an end run around 230, as it applies to 'personal ads' (where a few sex traffickers trafficked) What did CL do? instead of more closely monitor personal ads, the objective of FOSTA, CL just killed the section altogether, so the millions of innocent posters are denied access because of it.

Something similar will happen, but on a much grander scale, of 230 is repealed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/01/trump-repeal-section-230-ndaa

President Trump on Tuesday threatened to veto an annual defense bill authorizing nearly $1 trillion in military spending unless Congress opens the door for Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites to be held legally liable for the way they police their platforms.

When they interpose themselves the don’t deserve protection. 230 protects them from being held culpable for content from posters. And it’s a good thing. When the make value judgments or censure contrent they have to accept responsibility for it.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Trump seems to really hate the military.

 

[PosterPolitic]

No way this happens.

He takes out 230 and not only does he kill our tech sector and our world wide revenue for social media platforms and our information collection and sale businesses as well as cripples online device service pricing and appeal but he will literally be destroying the lingering fragments of net neutrality that might let us bring it back.

Also he's claiming he will veto a bill to extort Congress and the Military by forcing them to operate without annual funding until Congress gives him what he wants.

One is not connected to the other except that he is making demands. It is insane and will be contested. The military cannot operate with such a deficit and it leaves us and our troops vulnerable.

Everyday and every action this despicable person takes while in office makes me more and more certain he is the first traitor to hold presidential office.

When they interpose themselves the don’t deserve protection. 230 protects them from being held culpable for content from posters. And it’s a good thing. When the make value judgments or censure contrent they have to accept responsibility for it.

Except that is not what he is doing. He is threatening all of them unilaterally and destroying any platforms ability to operate that way and not targeting specific companies for any breach of the law. If he was just calling out those who broke with 230 then they can be pursued in litigation and punished accordingly with either fines, loss of protection or being subject to suits on the individual actions against those they wronged.

Instead he is going to destroy the free speech of everyone on the internet allowing everyone to be censored by companies or the government should they post material that they don't like in order to protect against the illegal censoring of a few posts by those who should have known better.

He trying to swat a couple flies by nuking the area.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Section 230 is a vital part of the internet, it protects ISPs, YouTube, Facebook, and thousands of content providing hosting sites against liability of the content provided by their contributing members.

There is no way in hell Trump is going to get away with this. 230 isn't about shielding media sites on how they police their sites, it protects them from liability of content from subscribers to their platforms. At least that is my understanding of it when I was investigating FOSTA. a few years back.

See, if you get rid of 230, it will white wash the internet, they'll stop allowing any one or biz who has a modicum of controversy. There are 1st amendment issues here, I suspect.

this is what happened to Craiglist, because FOSTA was an end run around 230, as it applies to 'personal ads' (where a few sex traffickers trafficked) What did CL do? instead of more closely monitor personal ads, the objective of FOSTA, CL just killed the section altogether, so the millions of innocent posters are denied access because of it.

Something similar will happen, but on a much grander scale, of 230 is repealed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/01/trump-repeal-section-230-ndaa

President Trump on Tuesday threatened to veto an annual defense bill authorizing nearly $1 trillion in military spending unless Congress opens the door for Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites to be held legally liable for the way they police their platforms.

What Mr. Trump and the members of "Claque Trump" want is NOT to control the content that DOES GO ON the Internet, but to prevent people from insuring that content DOES NOT GO ON the Internet.

Mr. Trump and the members of "Claque Trump" want to make it illegal to prevent spreading deliberate falsehoods, hatred, and incitements to commit criminal activity on the Internet.

 

[Athanasius68]

What Mr. Trump and the members of "Claque Trump" want is NOT to control the content that DOES GO ON the Internet, but to prevent people from insuring that content DOES NOT GO ON the Internet.

Mr. Trump and the members of "Claque Trump" want to make it illegal to prevent spreading deliberate falsehoods, hatred, and incitements to commit criminal activity on the Internet.

The thinking is that if the owners, who claim the legal protection, wish to take responsibility for content posted upon their sites they should not have the legal protection from "deliberate falsehoods, hatred and incitements" they presently have.
Its perfectly reasonable, if regrettable the course of action is needed.

 

[BlueTex]

When they interpose themselves the don’t deserve protection. 230 protects them from being held culpable for content from posters. And it’s a good thing. When the make value judgments or censure contrent they have to accept responsibility for it.

Do firearms manufacturers deserve protection from liability?

 

[PosterPolitic]

The thinking is that if the owners, who claim the legal protection, wish to take responsibility for content posted upon their sites they should not have the legal protection from "deliberate falsehoods, hatred and incitements" they presently have.
Its perfectly reasonable, if regrettable the course of action is needed.

That is not perfectly reasonable.

Twitter as a private social media company and has the right to remove objectionable content as laid out in 230 using their own discretion, but the main issue that brought this about is that they didn't remove any of Trump's tweets but instead added a link to the bottom of Trump's tweets that were proclaiming that mail in ballots were far more prone to fraud. This added link which led to a listing of other tweets made by figures of authority that disagree with this statement stating that evidence does not show more fraud due to mail in ballots. They only used people who had some authority to speak on the subject because Trump's word to those who believe that he is truthful, despite all evidence to the contrary, made that seemingly false message like all his other suspect tweets ring with the authority of the office of the president, which we are all supposed to be able to trust and not have to question the truth on whether or not the one occupying it may be lying about our ballots and sowing distrust without ANY PROOF.

They linked to other posters tweets than Trump and let him say his peace but called him indirectly on his claims being valid or not by showing multiple other sources by people that would know who claimed otherwise.

They didn't say directly he was lying but that his claims were suspect. They didn't write any articles on the presidents claims or their validity themselves but instead directed his readers who clicked the link to others who disagreed. They tried to stop it from being an echo chamber but never forced anyone to click the link nor did they with their own words try to disprove the President's claims were false only putting others stating the opposite and siting sources for an opposing view.

But if you want to let the people who are in charge lie and not be called on it that doesn't make sense. You don't hire these people with your votes to lie to you nor should you defend them for it. And you can claim there is a conspiracy all you want but without proof a conspiracy theory is all you have.

 

[bluesmoke]

The likes of Facebook can allow or block anything on their platform as long as they do not edit the content, in which case they are subject to restriction like that of traditional media, like any newspaper or television news program, for the content. As a “platform”, they are as a stage on which a speaker stands with a mic saying whatever they want as free speech to whomever wishes to listen. And you don’t have to attend.

 

[Taylor]

I don't know whether it needs to be scrapped entirely, but certainly there's no reason for companies that choose to editorialize their content to receive the sort of blanket protections of those who choose not to.

 

[roguenuke]

The thinking is that if the owners, who claim the legal protection, wish to take responsibility for content posted upon their sites they should not have the legal protection from "deliberate falsehoods, hatred and incitements" they presently have.
Its perfectly reasonable, if regrettable the course of action is needed.

No the action is not needed and you are presenting it wrong.

They are not taking responsibility for what is put on their site. They are saying they don't want certain things put on their site. They are a private business. Just as a store can refuse to allow certain flyers on their bulletin board, while still allowing others to go up. They don't have to allow you to advertise for your mystical healing crystals or "I hate Trump" club just because they allow the lady down the street to advertise her willingness to babysit, the local theater group to showcase their next production, or the guy next door to tell you all about real estate opportunities.

 

[roguenuke]

I don't know whether it needs to be scrapped entirely, but certainly there's no reason for companies that choose to editorialize their content to receive the sort of blanket protections of those who choose not to.

Yes there is a need, free speech and open market within these services that people want. They are a private company that is allowed to choose what guidelines, rules those using their site follow and how those rules are enforced.

 

[PosterPolitic]

I don't know whether it needs to be scrapped entirely, but certainly there's no reason for companies that choose to editorialize their content to receive the sort of blanket protections of those who choose not to.

They already don't.

230 only lets the company remove user created content not change any of the words or other things associated with what the user presented in that content. Editorial would be changing Trump's words while Promotion of other content that contrasts someones post with a differing opinion is simply informing users of other content related even if in opposition to content. Also saying content may not be factual again does not change the content only informs users viewing it that the person may not be speaking accurate or factually proven statements.

None of this is editing the contents of the original post. They added an optional button on their user interface on a case by case basis to warn users of questionable or possibly false content and give a link to gathered sources of other users that describe why they think their is cause to debate the validity of the questioned users content.

 

[Taylor]

Yes there is a need, free speech and open market within these services that people want. They are a private company that is allowed to choose what guidelines, rules those using their site follow and how those rules are enforced.

They are stifling free speech, not protecting it.

 

[roguenuke]

They are stifling free speech, not protecting it.

They have no obligation to protect free speech. They are not the government and they are running a private business. Just like a store can tell people they are not allowed to post certain signs that they don't approve of on the store's bulletin board or walls, while allowing others (even take down ones they disapprove of) so too can a private internet platform. Just as when in public, a person who is in charge of a particular public space may let you speak your crap but they can also bring in or simply themselves evidence that contradicts your claims to the people speaking you are speaking to. You have no freedom to not be contradicted. No freedom to use another person's or company's private site to voice any opinion you want.

The Internet is not limited. Free yourself. Build your own site. You have no "right" to have a certain number or percentage of any population (state, community, country, or world) hear or see what you have to say. Gaining that level of audience is on you. You are demanding that these more popular platforms must provide their audience to you simply because you feel they are stifling your free speech. They are merely telling you "no".

 

[Taylor]

They already don't.

230 only lets the company remove user created content not change any of the words or other things associated with what the user presented in that content. Editorial would be changing Trump's words while Promotion of other content that contrasts someones post with a differing opinion is simply informing users of other content related even if in opposition to content.

Censoring it and feeling the need to rebut claims themselves is editorializing, plain and simple.

Also saying content may not be factual again does not change the content only informs users viewing it that the person may not be speaking accurate or factually proven statements.

Cool. Put a disclaimer at the bottom of every page. But as soon as you start to selectively call out material, you are editorializing and don't deserve 230 protections.

 

[Taylor]

They have no obligation to protect free speech.

So what? We have no obligation to give them special legal immunities.

 

[roguenuke]

Censoring it and feeling the need to rebut claims themselves is editorializing, plain and simple.


Cool. Put a disclaimer at the bottom of every page. But as soon as you start to selectively call out material, you are editorializing and don't deserve 230 protections.

According to you and others who feel butthurt that certain platforms won't allow lies to be spread without some form of rebuttal. You don't get to make that decision. And lucky for us, neither does Trump.

 

[roguenuke]

So what? We have no obligation to give them special legal immunities.

But we do. And it is an Act of Congress that isn't likely to go anywhere, despite Trump's whining about it.

 

[Taylor]

But we do. And it is an Act of Congress that isn't likely to go anywhere, despite Trump's whining about it.

Which is all the left's argument boils down to. No real reasons other than the fact that they like to stifle the speech of their political opponents and don't think tbey can do anything about it.

The left's position on free speech becomes more and more like China's each day.

 

[roguenuke]

Which is all the left's argument boils down to. No real reasons other than the fact that they like to stifle the speech of their political opponents and don't think tbey can do anything about it.

The left's position on free speech becomes more and more like China's each day.

The real reason is that they should not be sued out of existence simply because they counter faulty information that certain people/groups are attempting to spread to the masses.

You and Trump are simply looking for a way to punish them (via lawsuits in this case) for talking back against bullshit, lies, and conspiracy theories, things Trump loves to spread.

 

[madman]

Some of you people do not know what the definition of free speech is. Or are you simply playing stupid for political purposes?

 

[Casper]

Some of you people do not know what the definition of free speech is. Or are you simply playing stupid for political purposes?

They are not Playing Stupid, just so ya know.