So, as I understand it, the above sentence is the full contents of Section 230. It serves to allow content hosts to not be legally liable for what is posted on their website. Why are Trump and the Republicans fighting so hard to repeal this? What would it serve? They talk a lot about free speech protections, but I'm having a disconnect about how being able to sue content hosts would protect speech.
Simple . . . Twitter, Facebook & the like are protecting the speech they want to protect, and suppressing that which they don't want to be heard. In a nutshell, that's publishing.
Trump's tweets are almost ALWAYS lies, and have been fact checked as such. Also these are private businesses.
They are public business that have crossed a line, in the same manner that the railroads crossed a line in decided who's goods they would take to market back in the late 1800's.
So I get that allegation, where I'm lost is how making them able to be sued for the content fixes this. Won't that force them to be more censoring because if they aren't someone could sue them?
While they may end up censoring a bit more than they presently do, it should be far more even-handed than it presently is.
I just don't see this working out the way Trump seems to think it will. Instead of flagging his content, he's likely just going to get banned. Maybe people on both sides see him getting banned from Twitter as a net gain though haha
That doesn't really matter .. . in fact, this is really not about Donald Trump at all. It's about all of us. The law reads, "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." In other words, if those services and their affiliates are freed from accountability for what is posted by others, then they must universally refrain from influencing how their services are used by others. If they cannot refrain universally, if they must exert influence over how their platform is used, they must not be freed from accountability for what is posted by others.
But repeal of this won't bring accountability. As it's written, it doesn't say they have to universally allow content just because they're not responsible for it. It says nothing about influencing the content on their platform. The big media companies are only trying to do this now because they were threatened after they did nothing in the 2016 elections and foreign bot farms spreading conspiracies ran rampant. I'm not necessarily saying there isn't a problem with how content is currently moderated, just that I don't think repeal of section 230 is the solution.
It sure will. It will allow civil suits to be brought against these behemoths, from which Section 230 presently shields them.
Okay, but it shields them from litigation against content they host, not content they choose not to host. Hence the language saying they are not considered the "publisher" So you could sue them for hosting someone else's views potentially if they cause you damage, but not for them choosing not to host your views. Another thought, let's assume you're 100% right and bringing civil suit against them gives more freedom on their platform. Wouldn't that put us in a position where only massive corporations and the super rich are allowed to have a voice on the internet? Who else is going to be able to bring suit against Facebook or Twitter?
That is what will hobble them. In order to avoid legal action, they will have to create new rules that will alienate much of their market. Ultimately, they will lose much of their influence. They would have been much better off not meddling in politics. It will cost them dearly. Have you never heard of a class action? Those platforms are purrrfect targets for that.
Wait, so you want to hobble them not make them more fair? Be honest, is this whole thing just the older generation railing against social media?
By hobble, I mean keep them from straying from their declared market mission, not eliminate their core business model. They have no business in politics, unless they want to formally enter that arena. In that case they would lose a lot of their operating freedoms.
Thanks for clarifying. How would that look in action? A random person on Twitter says something mean about Trump that is untrue so he sues twitter? Unfortunately they have to be part of it because it's an important tool used for political action globally. Should they ban all posts remotely political in your opinion? What of places like PL? The site owner here could be sued for what's written if someone should feel like it.
No, individual posters bear primary responsibility for their posts. This is less about what people say on Twitter than about Twitter's unbalanced handling of posted material. A platform which markets itself as transparent, and then fails to conduct itself in that manner needs to be held to that standard. Originally, Twitter's censorship was surreptitious in nature, simply blocking account activity, so that the censorship would not be obvious to the general public. If it's not there . . . they won't know it's not there. Bad press, despite being from very few, but credible media outlets made sure that practice was not long-lived, although it did come at an unfortunate time. Personally, I think it would be best for all if Twitter and Facebook simply outed themselves as blatantly liberal platforms and made their agendas known, thus avoiding legal entanglements. Instead, fearing the loss of a major share of the market having different political leanings, they continue to quietly censor members who undermine their agenda, while purporting to be neutral platforms. Again . . . individual posters bear primary responsibility for their posts. All sites decide what their rules are, and how they enforce them. I think the rules are there to protect the sites first and their visitors second, but I could be wrong about that. Without spending a lot of time that might be more productively spent otherwise, it's tough to truly get into the minds of others. We at Partisan Lines hurl insults back and forth regularly, yet we seem to pretty consistently drive between the lines drawn for us. I think of it in almost the same way as the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea. While we bring very different views to the site, we know where we are, that all views are tolerated, if not welcome, and we are generally mindful of that.
