"Big Tech" silencing conservative voices

[Sparko]

Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.

A case might be made that not applying their standards fairly or equally would violate the "in good faith" requirement.

I'm not really clear on exactly how they were applying their standards unfairly or unequally, though. (Not that I really have to know. Whoever suffered damage could always sue them and claim that they had violated that requirement, and the courts could decide.)

Part of the problem with section 230 is when a platform starts editing and adding information to a person's post. Not talking about removing cuss words or things like that. It protects mostly the restriction or censoring of objectional material. But when they start "fact checking" posts and inserting information that counters the post and influences how readers interpret the post, then they become publishers. At that point they no longer are protected by section 230.

It's a bit of a gray area where being a provider ends and a publisher begins though, and that is where the legal battle would be if someone wanted to take twitter and facebook to court about it.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
---------------
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

(a) The Congress finds the following:

(1)The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.

(2)These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.

(3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

(4)The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.

(5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.


(b) Policy - It is the policy of the United States—

(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;

(2)to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;

(4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and

(5)to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.


(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material(1) Treatment of publisher or speakerNo 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.


(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

(d) Obligations of interactive computer serviceA provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

[firstfloor]

His younger disciples call him GEOTUS.
God Emperor .....

[Mountain Man]

His younger disciples call him GEOTUS.
God Emperor .....

And the really fanatical ones can him "Maud'Dib".

[firstfloor]

And the really fanatical ones can him "Maud'Dib".

Very cultish.
I hear he is going to set up camp in Florida and try to be as annoying as possible from there.

[Stoic]

Part of the problem with section 230 is when a platform starts editing and adding information to a person's post. Not talking about removing cuss words or things like that. It protects mostly the restriction or censoring of objectional material. But when they start "fact checking" posts and inserting information that counters the post and influences how readers interpret the post, then they become publishers. At that point they no longer are protected by section 230.

It's a bit of a gray area where being a provider ends and a publisher begins though, and that is where the legal battle would be if someone wanted to take twitter and facebook to court about it.

So it's okay for them to delete posts and accounts, but not okay for them to tag posts as containing falsehoods, and provide links to explanations of why they are falsehoods?

If that's true, then maybe the law should be changed.

[Cow Poke]

Very cultish.
I hear he is going to set up camp in Florida and try to be as annoying as possible from there.

Try?

[firstfloor]

Try?

With any luck he will be too busy answering for his crimes.

I thought you might be interested in this, brief history of tear gas in America:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/podca..._martinepowers

[Sparko]

So it's okay for them to delete posts and accounts, but not okay for them to tag posts as containing falsehoods, and provide links to explanations of why they are falsehoods?

If that's true, then maybe the law should be changed.

Section 230 protects websites from being responsible for what other people post on their sites. Otherwise every time someone posts something criminal, or libelous they could be sued. On a large forum there is no way they can be aware of every situation, so this law protects them, and fosters free speech. If it did not exist, web forums would have to shut down or moderate every post. The law allows for the site to control what sorts of information they allow, and to edit out stuff not allowed or profane, etc. That way say, a Christian website wouldn't have to allow other religions to take over their site, or say a forum dedicated to automobiles would not have to allow political discussions if they didn't want to. But once a forum starts editing posts to change the meaning, adding "fact checks" and so on, then they might be crossing the line from platform to publisher. More like a newspaper or a person's blog. And then they would not be covered by section 230. If you started a blog at blogger you would be responsible for your own words, but google, who owns blogger would not be. They are only providing you a place to host your blog. But if they started changing your blogs, editing out things they disagreed with and adding in stuff they did agree with, then they are a publisher.

Like I said, it's a gray area where one stops and one begins. Which is where a court would come in.

I think when a platform becomes a defacto monopoly, like Facebook or Twitter is, where the entire world relies on them, that they probably need more regulation than a site like Theologyweb. If you don't like the way we run Theologyweb, there are dozens of other sites available to you that are just as popular or more popular than we are. But when Twitter or Facebook censors you, you are pretty much out of luck, especially when they are actively shutting down any competition or alternatives.

[Cow Poke]

With any luck he will be too busy answering for his crimes.

I thought you might be interested in this, brief history of tear gas in America:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/podca..._martinepowers

Thanks, but no.

[Stoic]

Section 230 protects websites from being responsible for what other people post on their sites. Otherwise every time someone posts something criminal, or libelous they could be sued. On a large forum there is no way they can be aware of every situation, so this law protects them, and fosters free speech. If it did not exist, web forums would have to shut down or moderate every post. The law allows for the site to control what sorts of information they allow, and to edit out stuff not allowed or profane, etc. That way say, a Christian website wouldn't have to allow other religions to take over their site, or say a forum dedicated to automobiles would not have to allow political discussions if they didn't want to. But once a forum starts editing posts to change the meaning, adding "fact checks" and so on, then they might be crossing the line from platform to publisher. More like a newspaper or a person's blog. And then they would not be covered by section 230. If you started a blog at blogger you would be responsible for your own words, but google, who owns blogger would not be. They are only providing you a place to host your blog. But if they started changing your blogs, editing out things they disagreed with and adding in stuff they did agree with, then they are a publisher.

Like I said, it's a gray area where one stops and one begins. Which is where a court would come in.

I think when a platform becomes a defacto monopoly, like Facebook or Twitter is, where the entire world relies on them, that they probably need more regulation than a site like Theologyweb. If you don't like the way we run Theologyweb, there are dozens of other sites available to you that are just as popular or more popular than we are. But when Twitter or Facebook censors you, you are pretty much out of luck, especially when they are actively shutting down any competition or alternatives.

I'm not against some regulation of Twitter and Facebook. But I do think there should be limits to what can be posted (or tweeted). And it seems reasonable to me that they should restrict a certain type of information; namely, false information that could be very harmful to our society if a large percentage of the population came to believe it. Removing such information entirely seems a bit drastic, so I kind of like the idea of simply indicating that it is false.

If it turns out that doing that would expose them to lawsuits, then I think the law should be changed to cover it with an exemption. If they abuse the power to tag certain information as false, that itself could be the subject of litigation.

[Sparko]

I'm not against some regulation of Twitter and Facebook. But I do think there should be limits to what can be posted (or tweeted). And it seems reasonable to me that they should restrict a certain type of information; namely, false information that could be very harmful to our society if a large percentage of the population came to believe it. Removing such information entirely seems a bit drastic, so I kind of like the idea of simply indicating that it is false.

If it turns out that doing that would expose them to lawsuits, then I think the law should be changed to cover it with an exemption. If they abuse the power to tag certain information as false, that itself could be the subject of litigation.

The problem is what one group thinks is true another thinks is a lie. That's the nature of politics. It isn't like science where you can have a true/false answer. And totalitarian governments have been using the whole "we are just stopping lies" and "it is harmful for society" excuse for censoring for centuries.
they should limit their moderating to following specific rules, like no violence, no profanity, no criminal activity. Stop treating people like they are stupid, they can police their own "facts" - When I see a friend on facebook spreading something I know is false, I will let them know. We don't need facebook hiding his post and displaying a message.

How would you like it if we did that here on Theologyweb? Whenever a liberal posts something that we think is false, we edit that post and replace it with a link to what we believe is the truth instead? That would not be good would it? Much better if people who disagreed with your post just replied to it and told you so, right?

[seer]

And it seems reasonable to me that they should restrict a certain type of information; namely, false information that could be very harmful to our society if a large percentage of the population came to believe it..

Like the whole "hands up don't shoot" meme that got downtown Ferguson reduced to ashes...

[Thoughtful Monk]

I remember when the Internet came into general use it was described as an information superhighway. All it seems to be now is a misinformation superhighway and a sales channel.

[Stoic]

The problem is what one group thinks is true another thinks is a lie. That's the nature of politics. It isn't like science where you can have a true/false answer. And totalitarian governments have been using the whole "we are just stopping lies" and "it is harmful for society" excuse for censoring for centuries.
they should limit their moderating to following specific rules, like no violence, no profanity, no criminal activity. Stop treating people like they are stupid, they can police their own "facts" - When I see a friend on facebook spreading something I know is false, I will let them know. We don't need facebook hiding his post and displaying a message.

I used to think that, but it seems pretty clear that "fake news" spreads much faster than truth on social networks.

https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-twit...e-stories-0308

How would you like it if we did that here on Theologyweb? Whenever a liberal posts something that we think is false, we edit that post and replace it with a link to what we believe is the truth instead? That would not be good would it? Much better if people who disagreed with your post just replied to it and told you so, right?

Even if everything posted on TWeb was false, that wouldn't have much influence on society as a whole.

[Stoic]

Like the whole "hands up don't shoot" meme that got downtown Ferguson reduced to ashes...

Good example.