Nancy Pelosi Joins Ted Cruz And Louis Gohmert In Attacking CDA 230
from the not-great dept
Well, it appears that the attacks on Section 230 of the CDA are now officially bi-partisan. Following the path of Republicans Rep. Louis Gohmert and Senator Ted Cruz, now we have Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi deciding it’s time to attack Section 230 of the CDA, by completely misrepresenting what it does, why it does that, and what it means to the internet. In a podcast with Kara Swisher, Pelosi said the following:
?230 is a gift to them, and I don?t think they are treating it with the respect that they should,? she said. ?And so I think that that could be a question mark and in jeopardy. … For the privilege of 230, there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it, and it is not out of the question that that could be removed.?
This is wrong on so many levels. Section 230 is not a “gift” to the tech companies. It’s a gift to the public and their ability to speak freely on the internet. Section 230 is what enables all of these websites out there that allow us to speak out without having to get what we want to say approved.
And to argue that companies don’t “respect” Section 230 is weird, given that internet companies have spent basically the past 20 years fighting for Section 230 and explaining why it was so important, while almost everyone else downplayed it, didn’t care about it, or didn’t understand it. The only internet company right now that doesn’t seem to “respect” Section 230 would be Facebook, which caved in and supported chipping away at Section 230’s important protections.
Look, it is completely fair to argue that the big internet companies have lots of very real problems — including questions about how they treat their users, and about privacy. But the focus on Section 230 is bizarre and misguided. And attacking it in this way will literally do the opposite of what Pelosi seems to think it will. Removing Section 230 won’t help bring about more competition. It won’t help make the companies “act better.” Rather, stripping 230 protections means that you won’t get smaller companies building competing services to Facebook and Google, because it will be way too risky on the liability side. Facebook and Google can afford the fight. Others cannot.
Stripping 230 protections won’t encourage companies to act better. It will encourage them to either not accept any user-generated content (removing the key communications function of the internet) or to stop moderating entirely, meaning that you end up with just the worst parts of the internet — spam-filled, troll-filled garbage. Anyone who knows the first thing about Section 230, and why it was put in place, understands this. Unfortunately, there’s the idea out there that Section 230 was a “gift” to the internet companies. It is not. It’s a gift to the internet itself, meaning to all of us as users of the internet.
But, given that it’s now a bi-partisan thing to misrepresent and attack CDA 230, perhaps we’re reaching the end of the open internet experiment.
Filed Under: cda 230, free speech, intermediary liability, internet, nancy pelosi, responsibility, section 230
Comments on “Nancy Pelosi Joins Ted Cruz And Louis Gohmert In Attacking CDA 230”
Think about this....
"Facebook and Google, because it will be way too risky on the liability side. Facebook and Google can afford the fight."
…the more the giants spend on lawyers and paying fines, the lower their taxable income is at the end of each quarter…
Even Pelosi doesn’t want that…
Re: Think about this....
More than made up for by payroll taxes at the law firms, whose employees make good livings, and spend that money.
It’s a trifecta of stupid. Too bad the odds were even for that combination. No big winners in the DC Derby today.
Unless the US goes down the EU road, and makes website owners responsible for all content on their site. (Guess which industries with great lobbying power want that).
MM says Section 230 is to promote "free speech" by The Public
then asserts that corporations get to CONTROL all access:
"And, I think it’s fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content-free-speech.shtml
Does anyone except masnicks in a hurry believe that users on Facebook / Twitter are speaking with the corporation’s authority? Or that the corporations are supportive of the views? HMM? Anyone want to claim that? — NO ONE MISTAKES users for the corporation. There is NO such association in anyone’s mind.
NO ONE is mistaking a user’s opinion for the "platform". There is NO direct or implied "association" that justifies the unilateral control of American’s speech by mega-corporations as masnicks want.
When you keep a site private and comments FIRST go through editorial control, only THEN do you have editorial control. If you accept the Section 230 protections and have immunity, then you must NOT exercise editorial control. — Again, for the few who can’t understand: sites are REQUIRED to remove comments that violate common law / statute terms, that part is NOT to be optional, but that does not empower absolute and arbitrary control to remove comments that are within common law.
Re: MM says Section 230 is to promote "free speech" by
In arguing that Section 230 empowers corporations, Techdirt relies heavily on the "freedom of association" notion, BUT HERE when it comes to the advertising spots inserted as apparent stories, then a disclaimer is adequate: "The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team." — Similarly, any site can add text to a page to disclaim. — As I think lawmakers intended. Section 230 is the practical way for "natural persons" to have a site, but the hosts are explicitly immunized, that’s THE DEAL. — But instead, sites assert total arbitrary control against those they regard as political opponents which is simply corporate censorship.
_s_u_b_s_t_i_t_u_t_e _h_o_r_i_z_o_n_t_a_l _r_u_l_e
Of course Masnick here dodges to a slant that he wants, especially as supported by the anti-Republican fanboys he supports through use of "hiding".
By the way, for Masnick’s corporate-favoring view of law:
He simply DELETES the "in good faith" requirement! — And then blows it off as not important:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190201/00025041506/us-newspapers-now-salivating-over-bringing-google-snippet-tax-stateside.shtml#c530
Re: Re: MM says Section 230 is to promote "free speech"
Will you shut up about the natural persons argument already? If you’re so all fired ready to use that as a gotcha, then tell me, genius, how do you run a for-profit social media site WITHOUT establishing it as a business/corporate entity? Because it’s literally ILLEGAL to do otherwise.
Re: Re: …fine, I’ll bite.
Yes, that is true. The company that owns Twitter can revoke your access to Twitter if it so desires. You are not owed a platform for your speech by anyone else, least of all Twitter.
Now, if you want to discuss the idea of ISPs, domain registrars, and hosting companies “control[ling] all access”, that would be a discussion worth having.
Three things.
By this logic, no privately-owned platform that is open to the public could moderate for anything other than nakedly illegal content, since moderating otherwise-legal speech that the owners/operators do not want on the platform would amount to “editorial control”. A forum for Black Lives Matter supporters, for example, would have no power to erase White supremacist propaganda from the forum out of the fear that doing so would be “editorial control”.
Please show me the law, statute, or court ruling (i.e., common law) that says a platform cannot remove legally protected speech for arbitrary reasons. Be sure to offer the necessary citations required for the verification of facts. (Note: An answer that contains only your opinion on the matter is playground horseshit that has no place in this discussion.)
Most platforms and social media services already have such disclaimers, even if they are not front-and-center on the main page. That fact does not revoke a platform’s 230 immunity and prevent it from policing speech on the platform.
No. Just…no. Section 230 is the practical way for platforms such as Twitter, Imgur, DeviantArt, and other UGC-heavy sites to stay open for “business” without facing legal liability for what users (and only users) do on those platforms. If you have a website that does not allow for UGC, you would have no reason to invoke Section 230, for you would be the sole publisher and user of your site. (Of course, that would also mean you carry all the legal liability for what shows up on your site.)
If’n you hate the moderation of a specific platform, find another one or make your own. 8chan, for example, became the new home of the worst parts of 4chan after that wretched hellsite started banning Gamergaters. Nobody asserted that they had an unalienable right to use 4chan, nobody sued to have their bans undone, and nobody said the government should shut down 4chan over so-called “viewpoint discrimination”. If 4channers/8channers can understand this concept, I have to wonder how you cannot.
To quote Mike:
If you can cite any law, statute, or court ruling that says a platform cannot moderate speech on that platform based on what the platform’s owners/operators do and do not want showing up on that platform…well, you would be the first.
Re: MM says Section 230 is to promote "free speech" by The Publi
Me Grok, live in cave, worship shiny…
Grok think OPEN BAD… cave OPEN, not safe,OPEN BAD. Grok like close… close safe, nobody get to Grok, nobody talk to Grok. CLOSED GOOD.
Grok want closed cave. You grok?
Re: MM says Section 230 is to promote "free speech" by The Publi
Yes they are. These are all the people who are suing or calling for the platforms to be held liable for the actions users on their platform take.
Well, that depends. Can Americans generally say whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want in public or in their own private homes/spaces? Yes. Are PRIVATE platforms required to host any and all user speech? Nope. That is their RIGHT under the First Amendment to allow or disallow whatever they want on their PRIVATE property.
Or when you tell users "in order to use our site, you have to agree to these rules and if you break these rules, we’re going to kick you out or remove your stuff". That’s how it works. You can’t take off your shirt in a restaurant and expect to not get kicked out.
This isn’t editorial control. It’s enforcing your terms of service and use.
No, they are only required to remove illegal content that they have been made aware of.
Yeah, it is. Show me the law that says otherwise. Meanwhile, say hello to the First Amendment.
Yes it does. See the First Amendment.
Re: Re: MM says Section 230 is to promote "free speech"
I see that as your key assertion.
You are a corporatist believing that the fictional entities We The People allow are then to Rule over us. You set corporations up as royalty, when they’re mere machinery. — You take the very statute which is supposed to easily enable Free Speech and turn it into an instrument of CONTROL
There can be no arguing with you here: you are against The Public.
I can only hope that our representatives pull back from the obvious bad results of present — and worse to come if your view obtains.
Here you simply tangle yourself. You’re fine with corporations abrogating 1A, then demand that I figure it out. You are crazy. And a corporatist because your view empowers amoral fictions to do away with 1A even while you appear to embrace it.
Re: Re: Re: MM says Section 230 is to promote "free speech&
Maybe not key but relevant.
I don’t even know how you arrived at that massive projected conclusion but it’s not true in any way.
No, I’m for the public. But that public includes business owners, whom you are quite eager to exclude.
I tangled nothing. How can an individual operate a business how they want if the government infringes on that individual’s rights by telling them how to run their business?
And I never demanded you to figure it out, I demanded proof of your assertions which you have not provided. Show me the law that says you are correct. Because I’ve read some laws and they say you’re wrong.
This is hilarious coming from you.
First Amendment protections only apply to the government moron. There is nothing that says a private entity (individual or business) can’t restrict what people say or do on or with their private property.
Or do you really think you can just go start smoking in a hospital and expect to be left alone?
Why can restaurants and other places of business who offer specific services dictate what their users/customers can do/say but it’s somehow not ok if it’s social media? Hm?
Re: Re: Re:
“Figuring it out” is simple: Tell us what law, statute, or court ruling says Twitter owes you a platform to post whatever legally-protected speech you want without being able to moderate your account (up to and including banning you) if you post something the company behind Twitter does not want on the platform.
Re: Re: Re: You have to take the pills EVERY day
Hey bro how was your forced three day staycation provided by the nice men in white coats?
Re: MM says Section 230 is to promote "free speech" by The Publi
So how does that apply to sites like Reddit, where you have subreddits which are moderated by people other than Reddit, or Blogger.com, where the site hosts various blogs, and the blog owners (who aren’t Blogger.com) moderate each blog? Can the individual mods/bloggers remove content as they see fit, since they aren’t the corporation, or do they have to allow all comments since they’re being hosted by corporations?
Re: Re: MM says Section 230 is to promote "free speech"
"Can the individual mods/bloggers remove content as they see fit"
If you spent any time at all on reddit you would know the answer to this.
Re: MM says Section 230 is to promote "free speech" by The Publi
Also, what about non-profits, which are a form of corporation. If a Christian non-profit runs an online forum, do they have to let Satanists and atheists comment? If a scientific literacy non-profit runs a forum, do they have to let flat-Earthers comment?
Re: Re: MM says Section 230 is to promote "free speech"
If someone opens a restaurant, do they have to serve those lacking shirt and/or shoes?
Re: MM says Section 230 is to promote "free speech" by The Publi
That is literally the opposite of what the law says. You haven’t even read it, have you? You really should, it’s not that long and not hard to understand (if you actually intend to understand it that is). The entire purpose of section 230 is to make sure that platforms are not held liable for their users’ speech even if they decide to moderate.
Re: Re:
Not just opposite of what the law says, it’s the opposite of what the law was for, as pointed out by cpt kangarooski. The entire point of the law is to allow sites/platforms to moderate content posted without fearing liability for doing so.
Their hallucination of what they think the law is isn’t just kinda wrong, it’s directly opposite of what the actual law is and the reason behind it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah I mentioned that. 🙂
TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
that if the RESULT of CDA Section 230 reduces the Public’s exercise of First Amendment then it’s NULL and VOID. — To claim that it allows corporate control of the Forums it specifically creates for 1A speech is position only of the most extreme corporatists!
"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary." – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
The purpose of having a government is to protect The Public from ALL types of criminals and ALL forms of control. Whenever, however, and whatever conditions don’t serve The Public are inherently illegal: it’s just a matter of gettng OUR representatives to take action against the usurpers and tyrants. We The People united against TYRANNY is the founding principle of America. — Yes, results are imperfect. — But no person or entity has any inherent right to rule over the rest: that’s royalism. Corporations TOO must be good citizens and more or less on equal basis, or be taken apart.
Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
Even inside your quotes it looks pretty obvious that they are talking about laws and government action. It’s almost like your best example of your flawed view still comes up short despite all the time in the world to scrub through the body of all law. What is next, single-word citations?
I think Elkhurst V. Calvin Bottling sums it up. "….dumb…."
Re: Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
CDA IS STATUTE WHICH IS GOV’T ACTION.
There can be NO end-runs around Rights. Period. That’s literally Nazi-ism which you endorse, the empowering of corporations to do what gov’t is forbidden. And it’s ILLEGAL under American principles.
Re: Re: Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
Tell that to the HSA and ICE.
Re: Re: Re:2 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
Let’s BOTH tell them!
But it’s likely that I differ from you whether the US Gov’t should protect the border against foreign invaders: since you take a slam at ICE, then seems you are for abrogating a key point of the very existence of gov’t. — That’s going to affect the view of what’s Constitutional, isn’t it?
Now, there are many details of legalities at borders, but you clearly don’t agree with the mere existence of US border control Your basic position is want foreign invaders to swarm in and take over MY country because you think it evil (and/or you’re a globalist). We can’t possibly discuss on that basis.
Borders are not Constitutional (or normal rights) zones for ANY country, else it ceases to be a country.
Re: Re: Re:3 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
I don’t have a problem with immigration enforcement. I have a problem with breaking laws and the violating the constitution in the process of supposedly enforcing those laws.
Bullshit. Borders are borders and the constitution and its amendments state exactly nowhere that the constitution doesn’t apply at the border. It’s pretty clear in stating that it applies everywhere within the US.
Re: Re: Re:4 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my
So? Doesn’t state that you have a right to oxygen, either. You’re attempting an extreme that every detail that rational people know as common knowledge must be explicitly state or not in least valid. — Common law covers all such details, kid. That’s common sense too.
Re: Re: Re:5 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support
Cite this "common law" that covers this example or stfu.
Re: Re: Re:5 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support
The venn duagram between common sense and actual good sense has very little overlap.
Re: Re: Re:4 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my
"I don’t have a problem with immigration enforcement. I have a problem with breaking laws and the violating the constitution in the process of supposedly enforcing those laws.t"
Re: Re: Re:3 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
Protecting the border from invaders and abusing innocent immigrants are two VERY different things. The US was founded on an open border/immigration policy. Hell, the founders of the US WERE immigrants.
He never said that. No one is saying that.
You don’t own the country moron. Other people live here to.
You’re right, because you haven’t said one single thing based in reality.
The Constitution says you’re wrong.
Re: Re: Re:4 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my
And look how well open arms and open borders worked out for the prior inhabitants.
We ain’t stupid.
Now, rest of your rant is just ad hom, and from tone you’re likely "A. Stephen Stone" without logging in.
How about YOU state directly that the US gov’t has a duty to protect us from unlimited immigration? You won’t make such statement, only attack, because once have the idea that must be some limits, all else follows, even if the details are messy. But we’re not obliged to commit national suicide for foreigners who’d wreck the Constitution with chaos.
Re: Re: Re:5 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support
False equivalence and logical fallacy.
Well apparently the founders of the US were since they are the ones who INSTITUTED THE DAMN OPEN BORDERS IMMIGRATION POLICY TO BEGIN WITH.
No, there are specific things you could reply to, like how I said the Constitution literally says you are wrong.
It does not and never has. Show me what law or section in the Constitution that says unlimited immigration shall not be allowed. And remember, unlimited does not mean unregulated.
I won’t make it because it isn’t true.
Unlimited immigration can be regulated and still allow unlimited amounts of immigrants. I’m not saying how they immigrate should not be regulated, only that they should be allowed to. Nothing else follows other than your insanity and unstable mind.
That doesn’t mean we stop allowing immigration. Again, protecting borders from invasion is not the same as immigration.
Re: Re: Re:5 TWO ABSOLUTELY BONKERS PERSONALITIES
“We ain’t stupid.”
Yes you are. All one of you bro.
Re: Re: Re:2 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
Tell that to Health Savings Accounts?
Re: Re: Re:3 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
I meant DHS, pedant. Surely that was obvious.
Re: Re: Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
Including people who run businesses/corporations.
Individuals can do a lot of things that government is forbidden to do. Why should businesses run BY those same individuals be any different?
To restrict the owner of business from deciding how he is going to run his business is ILLEGAL under American LAW.
Re: Re: Re:2 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
HA, HA! You cannot actually believe that the whole corpus of commercial law doesn’t do EXACTLY that!
Are you even aware of that corpus? Of regulation / commercial law? — Either way, you win the award for most egregious obviously wrong comment of this year.
You’re just flailing trying to make a show of objectiion to pretend I’m answered, so are like "A. Stephen Stone" not logged in. Such sneakiness is his MO. — Or some other fanboy too chicken to use account name.
Re: Re: Re:3 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
I am quite aware. But you are a moron and a liar and are attempting to twist my words into something I did not say or intend. Remember, we’re talking about speech here.
To prove that, answer me this:
Why can restaurants and other places of business who offer specific services dictate what their users/customers can do/say but it’s somehow not ok if it’s social media? Hm?
Re: Re: Re:4 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my
I have asked him that same question over and over and his only response is to run away and hide as he does not have a valid answer and never will.
See also: bakery & gay couple
Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
CDA 230 isn’t what allows corporations to control their own forums. The fact that they’re private property does that.
Basic Property Law 101. Even a first-year law student knows this.
Re: Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
NO, corporations exist only after asking permission to exist. They are machine-like organizations that accept THE DEAL of immunity from what "natural" persons publish. They are not private property: they are business which are in OUR Marketplace under OUR terms. They are NOT persons no matter how many masnicks and mitts and other corporatist mattoids try to claim are persons.
Re: Re: Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
Wrong.
Cite a source for your assertion or stfu.
Re: Re: Re:2 TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
Wow – that person is really out there
Re: Re: Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
It doesn’t matter whether they’re persons or not. The physical property– servers, buildings, furniture, etc.– does not belong to the government.
There are two kinds of property– public property and private property.
Public property is property that belongs to the people and is owned by the government– parks, streets, sidewalks, government buildings, etc.
Private property is everything else and is owned by individuals or businesses.
There is literally no question seriously up for debate or dispute by anyone with an IQ above that of a rutabaga that Twitter and Facebook’s servers, computers, data, furniture, buildings, and land are private property since they certainly do NOT belong to the government.
Re: Re: Fractal wrongness
It’s almost impressive how wrong they are, ignoring a right that does exist(property right), and flat out hallucinating a right that doesn’t exist(the ability to use someone else’s platform without their consent), all based upon yet another delusion in what passes for their mind(‘Common law’).
Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
How very statist of you, comrade. "Individual rights must be subsumed to the needs of the people!"
Re: Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view
Oh, I SEE NOW. Upholding The Public against corporations is "statist". — Have you EVER heard of Nazi Germany? Because you are literally supporting Fascism in claiming that legal fictions called corporations can be empowered by gov’t to have rights over "natural" persons.
And again, businesses operate ONLY under Our rules, have no actual rights, that’s just shorthand term for use by lawyers.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next time you ask for your favorite corporations the RIAA and MPAA to be controlled, you let me know.
I won’t hold my breath.
Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES do not support your view
Hey, moron! Those two quotes from your cases say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about corporations. What they do say is that the GOVERNMENT can’t pass laws conflicting with the Constitution.
Do you even read the crap you post?
Then we should get rid of all speed limits and auto-regulations then right? Because that’s controlling the public.
Yes, tyranny, something specific to governments, not corporations.
True. But telling people "hey if you want to use our service you have to abide by these rules" is not ruling over anyone. I can tell people how I expect them to behave in my house and kick them out if they don’t.
Which INCLUDES being able to set the rules and terms of use for their places of business/services. Again, shirt/shoes requirement is perfect example of this. Though why they never say anything about pants has always puzzled me.
So, mister high and mighty, reconcile this for me:
Why can restaurants and other places of business who offer specific services dictate what their users/customers can do/say but it’s somehow not ok if it’s social media? Hm?
Re: Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES do not support your view
Common law. Often with visible notice given.
Those requirements in NO way infringe upon 1A Rights as the allegations made for Masnick’s view of Section 230 does.
1A is VASTLY more important in any case. Requires far more care and notice than just EULA.
You are incoherent, just flinging out crap.
Re: Re: Re:
Section 230 does not infringe upon 1A rights, either. If you are booted from Facebook, you are free to find and use another platform; Facebook cannot stop you from doing that. Your freedom of speech is not abridged or denied if Facebook bans you because being free to speak your mind does not obligate others to listen, nor does it guarantee you the right to use someone else’s platform.
And if you truly believe 1A does entitle you to someone else’s platform, please show me the law, statute, or court ruling that says a privately-owned platform that is open to the public must allow you to use it for posting any legally-protected speech that you wish.
I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES do not support your view
Google, Facebook and others are not government agents. 1A does not apply to any moderation they perform.
Posters here on TD have told you this many, many times and yet you refuse to accept it as though ignoring it will somehow prove you right. News flash: You’re still wrong.
Re: Re: Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES do not support your view
Show me the law or case law that says patrons of a restaurant can’t go topless inside. I DARE YOU.
Or if you want to get even more similar, tell me this, why can restaurants kick out someone for saying things they don’t like but not social media platforms? Hm? It’s both speech. Those restaurants MUST be infringing on individuals’ rights. Right?
And what is different about that than presenting a user with a VISIBLE NOTICE of the rules they will be expected to adhere to when using a given website? Hm?
Then PRIVATE platforms setting out the rules of what will and will not be allowed on their platforms is no different and does not infringe on First Amendment rights. Either neither of them do or they both do. You can’t have it both ways.
It’s the same damn thing. The First Amendment is what GIVES the restaurants the RIGHT to kick out whoever they damn well please (with some minor, narrow exceptions for race, sex, etc…). That same right extends to ALL businesses and corporations, including social media.
Then all restaurants should have to sit down each patron before serving them and tell them exactly what kind of speech will and will not be tolerated in their restaurant. Because after all, restaurants don’t even have EULA’s, so how in the hell are patrons supposed to know?
Yeah sure, monkey boy.
Too bad they don’t show the same respect for the law and the Constitution that they are demanding from tech platforms.
typical politician! gob spouting shit before brain is in gear!
Section 230 eliminated distributor liability for defamation, which was well-established, and why Prodigy lost its case.
Platforms and search engines are too easily weaponized to have this immunity.
Re: Re:
No it didn’t. Try again.
Without that immunity they would cease to exist because they would be liable for every single piece of illegal content on the internet THAT THEY DON’T EVEN HOST.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh boo hoo, yes, let’s have a pity party for these billionaire tech turds.
You’re a fucking idiot.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any proof that I"m wrong other than just slinging insults after declaring your hatred for all things technology?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To follow up on this, this isn’t something that just solely affects "billionaire tech turds". This affects ANYONE who wants to start up a web site/blog/service/platform that allows users to post comments/content/etc…
In the specific example, search engines, if Section 230 goes away, then I’m suddenly liable for every single solitary search result my engine returns, even though I don’t host any of it, my engine just crawled the web and spit up links to other sites.
But even further, let’s say I run a blog and I allow people to comment. Somebody posts something illegal in a comment and for whatever reason, I don’t see it. Maybe they posted it on a post from 15 years ago, maybe I don’t read my comment section all that often, maybe I’m on vacation.
Without Section 230, I am now liable for what that person posted in the comments section. In other words, I can go to JAIL and be fined HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS for something I DIDN’T DO, all because some internet rando decided to post something illegal in the comment section of my blog that I didn’t catch right away.
Do you really honestly think I’m going to allow user comments or content on my blog/site/whatever if anyone on the internet who happens to dislike my hairstyle can get me sent to jail for decades, break me financially, and absolutely DESTROY my life and I’m not guilty of actually doing anything? Hell no! I’m going to shut down all user submissions and not risk it.
YOU are the idiot here. Not me.
Re: Hey Crybaby Jhon
Nows the time to make your move. Blues super horny by the looks of it. Just tell him you want to slip your common law into his distributor liability.
DifferentUpsetSameResult
I see this as a natural reaction of human beings, not just the politicians, that can’t wrap their heads around what raw unsolicited digital communications looks like in all its unruly unsanitary form.
How I see it is that CD 230 lets those running servers where communications are stored not be held 100% liable for the content stored.
Conservatives don’t like the search result weighting of their brand of politics on display. They see negative angry diminutive comments linked to conservatives and think its a conspiracy that search results show conservatives in this light.
Nancy Pelosi doesn’t like weaponized pysOps applied to digital systems. As a result Nancy would like to find a tool to control those running servers where communications are stored to leverage what can or cannot be seen by the public because those results might have been tampered with by ‘foreign state actors’ and impact the public’s decision making.
Both Pelosi and Conservatives come after CD230 from different perspectives but actually want the same result – which is to control what communications can be viewed by the public.
And attacking it in this way will literally do the opposite of what Pelosi seems to think it will. Removing Section 230 won’t help bring about more competition.
lol what even?
Re:
If 230 protections are rescinded, only the largest and wealthiest platforms (e.g., Google, Facebook) will have the resources necessary to deal with the legal issues that would arise from continued operation. Smaller platforms would either close voluntarily or be bankrupted into closure by costly legal battles, the implementing of some sort of filter system, and the hiring of more moderators.
Re: Re: Re:
indeed, but my incredulity is directed more toward how, do they imagine eliminating 230 result in an increase in competition? This is underwear gnome territory.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You may be overthinking it, it’s all too possible that they’ve not got past ‘we can slam FB/Google over this for cheap PR, and since some of our larger ‘donors’ have hateboners for Google that’ll put us in good with them too’ stage, with nary a thought as to what happens after that.
What’s the bitch going to do?
Take it away and find herself kicked off one day for something because she’s not special just old and angry and the government does not own twitter?
The deep state is there
ashley.feinberg@huffpost.com
ashleyfeinberg@protonmail.com
HAS INSULTED JULIAN ASSANGE ON TWITTER AFTER HIS ABUSIVE ARREST.
SHE CALLED HIM "a piece of shit"
THE ONLY PIECE OF SHIT IS HER AND HER PIECE OF SHIT FAKE NEWS OUTLET THE HUFFPOST
Re: WOMP WOMP
With threads like this...
…I don’t need to watch comedy central anymore.
After short time up, I'm being censored again.
Okay, kids. You thereby prove your intent to keep dissent from even being seen.
Now, just last week Masnick had a piece about your precious porn being censored by corporate action under the circumstances / EULA mentioned above, but you all pitched a fit about that! — Where’s the difference with political speech, which is much more important?
And, by the way, have you read the topic piece that there’s action in Congress along the lines that I believe? And I’m the one who doesn’t understand first thing about The Law?
Sheesh. You’re such contrary little fiends that are eager to support corporations against even your own interests!
Re:
For starters, the porn is more entertaining.
Re: Re: Re:
And unlike what John has to say.
It is actually worth something.????
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know, political speech could be considered comedy. Not good comedy, but comedic no less.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A comedy of errors perhaps?
I’ll see myself out.
Re: After short time up, I'm being censored again.
Horace John you are not being censored. You run away like a coward full of contradictions. If anything having your spam hidden is actually quite merciful compared to the fairness doctrine like thing Nancy and her husband teddy are apparently eager to replace everything with. Because then you would just look like a dumbass AND you would have to defend your argument without being able to run away. Just like those two oblivious idiots.
Re: After short time up, I'm being censored again.
Dissent is dissent. Your posts are just shitposts, full of lies and deliberate abuse. But thanks for the opportunity to flag so much trash this morning.
Re: Re: After short time up, I'm being censored again.
The guy has more flags than the top of Mount Everest.
Re: After short time up, I'm being censored again.
No one said insanity was solely restricted to you.
Re: After short time up, I'm being spam filtered again.
Bro the best part about all your stupid bullshit. If section 230 goes. So do all the comment forums that haven’t already outright banned you. Meaning this one and WND.
This is absolutely correct and it’s sad to see politicians either display ignorance of the origins and purpose of 47 USC 230, or to just outright lie about it out of the idea that it will gain them some minor advantage (which it won’t).
To briefly recap, prior to the enactment of the safe harbor there were three applicable legal precedents. The first was the old rule that the publisher of defamatory content was responsible for it just as the author was, because they had the opportunity to review it and verify it. The second was Cubby, Inc. v Compuserve, Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135 (SDNY 1991), which held that online services that hosted defamatory content were not responsible for it if it was uploaded by the users without the knowledge or approval of the service. Basically, this gave sites protection so long as they didn’t moderate. The third was Stratton Oakmont, Inc v. Prodigy Services, Co., 1995 WL 323710 (NY Sup. Ct. 1995) which held that if the online service moderated anything at all, then it was liable even for things that it approved, ignored, or had been in error about.
The result was predictable: the only two safe options were to 1) not moderate anything, which would lead to ads, spam, defamation, hate speech, etc. proliferating, or 2) not allow posting, which would prevent even benign users from having a voice.
At about the same time, Congress decided it wanted online services to take voluntary steps to remove porn from online. But none of the services were stupid enough to try, since they couldn’t moderate everything perfectly, requiring them to either moderate nothing or not allow posting.
Exasperated, Congress gave the services protection — if they moderated imperfectly it wouldn’t be held against them, and as they couldn’t compel moderation, it would be up to each site to determine how much or how little to do. Thus, a site could remove porn and spam and malware but allow users to talk with one another without careful policing of every single post.
Cutting into this protection for any reason will just put us back to the earlier position of allow everything or allow nothing, with no in between.
Complaints of free speech, political bias, etc are totally ridiculous and should be ignored. That’s not what the issue is.
Re: Re:
I think we should just BAN POLITICS FROM THE INTERNET. Everything else is ok.. !!
Re: Re: Re:
What about religion?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Religion is protected by the constitution of the united states of America.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yes, religious freedom – the right to practice the religion of your choice is found in the bill of rights.
In addition, case law deals with freedom from religion.
This is existentially depressing...
We truly are at the end of days for the open internet and the information age. The powers that be find that it gves too much freedom to us peasants and now have decided that the internet must be locked down to put us into digital slavery under tyrannical rule. I am afraid that there is no stopping this attack on the internet and I highly doubt that we can win. Now that even Democrats are attacking our digital rights, I find that things will get even more suicidally depressing for me as we get closer to the end.
Re: This is existentially depressing...
Read up on the history of Europe between the Invention of the printing press and the various revolution that established democracies, as that was driven by a technology as revolutionary as the Internet. There may be ups and downs, but it is not possible to stop people using a technology that allows them to communicate ideas. I just hope it does not get as violent this time around a technology that changes the balance of power in society.
Re: Re: This is existentially depressing...
Nobody expects the Inquisition.
God that interview was so terrible I almost thought Kara was making love to her with those air balls.
Seems to be a lot of dumbfucks angry that Herrick vs CDA 230 lost on the merits.
Wonder why that is?
Nancy Pelosi..
Re: Re:
I think once you’ve said that, you’ve said it all.
Didn’t anyone else see this coming? The pure essence of what everyone began with in the internet was undoubtedly going to be shistered by corporations, lawyers and government regulations. It was just a matter of time before it got wrecked.
Be extraordinarily wary of those who would characterize core liberties as "gifts". This is the same class of activity as the taciturn but well-spoken men in black suits who, for a low monthly fee, will offer you the "gift" of not having your home or business burnt to the ground.
Re: Re:
“Core liberties” for corporations?
Re: Re: Re:
For every citizen and that includes corporations because citizens own and run them.
It’s all falling apart for Mike, Chelsea, Julian and the like. Slow motion collapse of multiple criminal organizations.
Fun to watch as my 401k continues to expand.
MAGA
Re: Re:
Wait until 402k collapses your 401k.
Re: Re:
Is this crybaby Jhon or 3% Hamilton? So hard to tell you nutters apart. Especially when you’re all wearing the Fran mask.
Re: Re:
I’m sorry, what the hell are you on about?
Neoliberal trash. The American "left" are right-wing authoritarians.