Section 230

[Mark Elliott]

Can someone explain to me the fascination with Section 230? I must be reading it wrong.. To my eye, it protects the platform from liability of what gets posted on the platform. Changing or scrapping 230 would turn platforms into publishers, and would make them potentially liable for what gets posted. Which would make them even more vigilant about editing, marking and deleting user posts. Please tell me how I must be wrong.

[audiophile]

Section 230 was designed to protect public Utilities (Phone, Gas, Electric Companies, etc) from liability when people that use their services for illegal or damaging conversation. For example, you can't sue AT&T if you plot to over throw the Gov't. And in consideration, AT&T can't restrict what you say on their Phone system.

The Commie Tech Media wants to restrict your conversation and enjoy the "no liability" portions of the Section 230 Law.

It comes down to, the Tech Media wants it both ways. If they want to restrict conversation, then the protection needs to be gone. OR....if they want the protection, then they can't restrict speech.

Ding!

[Mark Elliott]

Section 230 was designed to protect public Utilities (Phone, Gas, Electric Companies, etc) from liability when people that use their services for illegal or damaging conversation. For example, you can't sue AT&T if you plot to over throw the Gov't. And in consideration, AT&T can't restrict what you say on their Phone system.

The Commie Tech Media wants to restrict your conversation and enjoy the "no liability" portions of the Section 230 Law.

It comes down to, the Tech Media wants it both ways. If they want to restrict conversation, then the protection needs to be gone. OR....if they want the protection, then they can't restrict speech.

That certainly now makes more sense. HOWEVER all the Public Utilities you mention are govt. regulated. They are also subject to other rules concerning rates, availability etc - they use public property (easements) for delivery of their product, or public airwaves. In exchange, they agree to make their product available to everybody within their service area.

Facebook and Twitter aren't govt. regulated - don't need a license or an application to do business. They do not pay for use of any public property or airwaves - the user does that. It's almost like a real estate company, leasing out part of their property and allowing others to use it. Can not an apartment complex stop someone from walking out to their pool area and making a speech, or putting up a banner? As a communicator, you aren't forced to use Twitter to reach anyone - there are a number of other avenues. If Twitter feels that your actions could injure their relationships with the bulk of their customers, can't they stop that customer's actions and delete their account?

You also can't use a phone to harass, threaten or stalk others. Can a tweet be illegal under the same rules?

And last of all, are we comfortable with senior citizen Senators still using flip phones making decisions about these issues?

[Rate This]

Section 230 was designed to protect public Utilities (Phone, Gas, Electric Companies, etc) from liability when people that use their services for illegal or damaging conversation. For example, you can't sue AT&T if you plot to over throw the Gov't. And in consideration, AT&T can't restrict what you say on their Phone system.

The Commie Tech Media wants to restrict your conversation and enjoy the "no liability" portions of the Section 230 Law.

It comes down to, the Tech Media wants it both ways. If they want to restrict conversation, then the protection needs to be gone. OR....if they want the protection, then they can't restrict speech.

They can restrict any speech they want to. They are private companies and they own the platforms. If you remove that section then every tweet and post will be subject to approval before it is made public. It will essentially end social media entirely which is probably not a bad thing. It’s a cancer on society in many ways.

[zzand]

I agree Rate This. Most of us are old enough to remember time before social media. It has become a cancer and to me the best way to cure it is to kill it all. Now we know that isn't going to happen but it would be nice. People constantly bitching about being censored on social media cracks me up. You gave up your right to free speech the minute you agreed to their terms of service.

[Mark Elliott]

You gave up your right to free speech the minute you agreed to their terms of service.

Nailed it

[Deleted User 14896]

I agree with everything said by both Rate This and zzand. These are private entities. Trying to tell them what to do and not do, is like telling Kroger what they can and cannot stock.

[zzand]

Why?

[Bryce]

Well, being as the Internet, which is now accessed by most people via the World Wide Web, was originally funded by the U.S. Government, namely the Department of Defense, shouldn't a modicum of First Amendment rights be projected onto companies that place their business upon and profit from it?

Does anyone remember the phrase, "You didn't build that."

[Mark Elliott]

Tech Commies being private

Would we call that an oxymoron? Can they really be Commies AND private?

[Matt]

Well, being as the Internet, which is now accessed by most people via the World Wide Web, was originally funded by the U.S. Government, namely the Department of Defense, shouldn't a modicum of First Amendment rights be projected onto companies that place their business upon and profit from it?

Does anyone remember the phrase, "You didn't build that."

A little off topic, but isn't it interesting to think that people who hate Trump think that the quoted person is NOT a complete piece of shit?

[Mark Elliott]

Well, being as the Internet, which is now accessed by most people via the World Wide Web, was originally funded by the U.S. Government, namely the Department of Defense, shouldn't a modicum of First Amendment rights be projected onto companies that place their business upon and profit from it?

That, in fact, is an argument that does have some validity. Who actually funds the Internet these days? Does anything built and paid for with taxpayer funds require it to follow govt. rules?

The airwaves are public, but do you have a First Amendment right to get on the air and say anything?
Federal and state government built and maintain the highways where paper is delivered to the printer and newspapers are delivered to the customer. Do you have a First Amendment right to force the editor to print your letter in its entirety?

I also have a problem with this previous statement after thinking about it for a while...

the Tech Media wants it both ways. If they want to restrict conversation, then the protection needs to be gone. OR....if they want the protection, then they can't restrict speech.

With liability protection gone wouldn't that cause the Tech Media to restrict conversation even more?

[TC Talks]

My kids are having a fit that Trump was banned on Twitter. They hate the guy but feel it was a violation of their rights. They also pointed out that the Arab Spring was entirely about over throwing governments using the platform yet when a few landscapers stormed the US Capitol, twitter jumps in and bans the President.

I keep going back to the reality that Twitter can do what ever they want when ever they want. They seem to forget this and reject it.

If any platform needs regulation, it's the HAM frequencies. Unlike iHeartless or Cumless with the AM talkers, there is no filter to what goes on there.

[bmw]

If any platform needs regulation, it's the HAM frequencies. Unlike iHeartless or Cumless with the AM talkers, there is no filter to what goes on there.

Yeah, because HAM radio is where it's at....where millions of people congregate and plot

I keep going back to the reality that Twitter can do what ever they want when ever they want.

That's not true. As I pointed out in another thread, they are a publicly traded company. That means that the CEO is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to always act in the best interest of the shareholders. The fallout will be fun to watch. If enough high-profile people boycott out of protest and the stock price tanks (speaking of which, I don't think it is any coincidence that they waited until shortly after trading concluded Friday to announce their decision - I think the decision was actually MADE earlier), then it could be argued that the CEO violated his responsibility in this regard.

[TC Talks]

If any platform needs regulation, it's the HAM frequencies. Unlike iHeartless or Cumless with the AM talkers, there is no filter to what goes on there.

Yeah, because HAM radio is where it's at....where millions of people congregate and plot

I keep going back to the reality that Twitter can do what ever they want when ever they want.

That's not true. As I pointed out in another thread, they are a publicly traded company. That means that the CEO is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to always act in the best interest of the shareholders. The fallout will be fun to watch. If enough high-profile people boycott out of protest and the stock price tanks (speaking of which, I don't think it is any coincidence that they waited until shortly after trading concluded Friday to announce their decision - I think the decision was actually MADE earlier), then it could be argued that the CEO violated his responsibility in this regard.

No CEO is going allow what Trump was doing. Shareholders are often pension funds with morals too. If anything, Twitter was going to take a hit once Trump was out of office anyway. Now the CEO has protection from the board (not shareholders btw) because he morally had to remove Trump.