Quote:
Originally Posted by midgetwaiter
In case anyone actually cares what this is actually about more than they do chucking feces at each other perhaps I can provide some context. Back in the 90s there were some high profile lawsuits having the potential to stifle any sort of social interaction online, people were trying to hold service providers liable for messages posted by users.
Say I decide one day to come here on AO and post “all Ruger rifles are garbage and will probably blow up and kill you”. Ruger might be understandably upset with that but under today’s laws they would have to come and find me to deal with it. Without section 230 of the Communications Decency Act they don’t have to bother with that, they just sue AO. Does anyone see a potential problem with that?
What is at issue is referred to as the “26 words that made the internet”:
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.
Now this has never been absolute, there are provisions where content like child pornography, copyright infringement and other things that would be illegal in a physical medium should also be removed by service providers. Some service providers choose to go a bit further, Reddit removing incel specific boards for example but others do not or rely on community moderation. On one hand this gives service providers some protection and flexibility but it has also landed them squarely in the middle of this new culture war unfolding in the US. Personally I was delighted when scumbags like Alex Jones and Gavin McInness got booted off of the major platforms in 2018 until I gave it some consideration. In my view both of them were absolutely using their positions on those platforms to incite hate and violence but making that call left the service providers open to a challenge on section 230 and now here we are.
This is the justification for today’s EO but it’s not the first swipe the Republicans have taken at it. They’ve been trying to pass legislation for a couple years, the Justice Department has been reviewing it and trying to make recommendations for months as well. Similarly there have been several calls from Democrats to increase the obligation on service providers to police hate speech more like our framework or the ones in Europe. Nobody is happy with the current balance.
However let’s not pretend this has been a well thought out compromise or something. Donnie got called out misrepresenting a concern as fact and he had himself a fit, I don’t think this is going to go well at all. Trump has called for expansion of US libel laws in a manner similar to what’s in the UK for years. He basically wants to legalize barratry so he can sue anyone who dares bring attention to his constant lying and misrepresentation. The inevitable result of which will place these companies in a position where they MUST censor their user’s content or open themselves up to an almost limitless liability that shareholders cannot abide. There could be grave consequences to this.
|
One intelligent post in this whole thread and everybody just keeps bickering back and forth. I am sure you have realized that by now, but a platform for intelligent discourse this forum is not. All crave for that one moment where they can bash each other's posts rather than dive into the meat of the issue at hand. Your post gives me a glimmer of hope for democracy and for civilization as a whole.
Cheers