Law Trump issues EO to reclassify social media as publishers, legally liable for user content

[Long Branch]

You think private companies have the right to censor their platforms as they themselves determine in China?

Xi is smiling at you because you continue to promote the agenda that weakens a country, makes it susceptible to Chinese takeover and or strengthens China's position.

He wants you to move further left.

 

[Quipling]

What it does do is take a law that was aimed at ISP's and broad internet platforms that granted a privilege, immunity from liability for content posted by users, in cases where those ISPs or platforms did not censor protected speech. The spirit of the granting of that immunity was that it would free social media platforms and sites that host blogs, etc from needing to be worried about censoring the people who used their sites. Essentially, it was "Hey just let people say whatever they want, and we won't hold you liable for the things they say." Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube haven't upheld their end of that bargain, because they aggressively censor viewpoints they disapprove of.

It's their right to do so, but they aren't owed immunity from liability for it. The next time a Twitter mob bays for someones career and life to be ruined, Twitter should hope the mob has their facts right.

This is an entirely fictional interpretation of 230. 230 doesn't have an express or implied political neutrality requirement, nor is one reflected in it's legislative history. Your statement that it isn't meant to apply to protected speech is expressly contradicted by c2a of the liability shield subsection. Your statement that it was meant to apply to "isps and broad internet platforms" (as opposed to other entities) is contradicted by the definitions subsection, which define "interactive computer service" broadly, c1 of the liability shield subsection, and b1-4 of the policy subsection.

 

[Quipling]

Well that would be true about any EO, no?

I'll try again:

The EO would be a sea-change in how the internet works. It definitely has teeth. The reason it is unlikely to cause the sea-change is that it is very easy to challenge. It undermines the stated purpose of 230 (see my recent post in the thread) and the sea change would result from that.

Not all big regulatory changes or exec orders have their effect by undermining a statute - sometimes they change something in the executive's discretion. They have teeth and are hard to challenge.

This one changes something by undermining an enacted statute - something that is supposed to be limited to the legislature. It has teeth, but is easily challenged.

 

[JimmyKey v1.6]

C. I thought you guys were about small government not intruding on the free market. Guess that goes out of the window when the President care about feelings, not facts.

Hey, I thought this was interesting so I quoted you. The thing that you said that made think was interesting that the government already does impose on the free market here. after all section 230 is a government entity. so it's really just modifying the existing relationship than scrapping the whole thing. in other words, it's neither no more nor no less interfering in the free market. thanks

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I didn't realize Joe Biden had already come out in favor of scrapping section 230 of the law entirely.

"And you know, from my perspective, I’ve been in the view that not only should we be worrying about the concentration of power, we should be worried about the lack of privacy and them being exempt, which you’re not exempt. [The Times] can’t write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued. But he can.
The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says that online platforms aren’t held liable for things their users post on them, with some exceptions. "

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nytimes-interview.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 

[Low Test With da Best]

Orange man bad

Interesting. Curious to see how the propaganda from both sides evolves here.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Man deserves an award for free speech IMO
Feel that freedom

If this guys gets banned from Twitter the tantrum will be epic. I would give odds that furniture is broken in the process.

 

[calavera2]

The EO is not aimed only at Twitter. To show the platform is unneutral will be easy, because examples of unneutral behavior are consistent enough to be considered a reflection of internal policy. If Twitter decides to litigate, which I hope they do, discovery will be bad for them.

Discovery would be hilarious...all they would have to do is put up Trumps tweets. Point is there are no neutral platforms and being neutral is not a requirement. This is plain ol Chinese style government overreach to curb criticism.

 

[Magooglie]

If this guys gets banned from Twitter the tantrum will be epic. I would give odds that furniture is broken in the process.

He's getting banned if he doesn't win re-election.

 

[7437]

The Cancel Culture leftists on here are mad about this? Oh, the irony. It's not an attack on free speech at all. You're mistaking fairness for oppression, and I couldn't care less about your hurt feelings considering you shrugged your shoulders at the mass censorship of conservative viewpoints across many platforms. Maybe instead of shutting down and censoring people just because they have different viewpoints than you, you can learn to rationally debate your position like an adult or, at the very least, learn how to agree to disagree.

??? This requires them to shut down more people, not less.


I hate Jews.

That is a statement supported by sherdog? It is published on their site. Shercog hates Jews now? Seems unlikely.

 

[MVelsor]

Shercog hates Jews now? Seems unlikely.

<{chips}>

I'd say Jews are actually quite competitive with blacks, muslims, gays and trannies tbh. They're definitely part of the permanent rotation.

 

[TUFNewb]

I believe even if 230 were to go away tomorrow there are still other things that protect them and limit liability. For example a terms of service will usually state you hold them harmless from and against all damages of any kind, and you will even indemnify them for any losses they incur based on your actions... Yep, you signed a legally binding contract and they can SUE YOU if you cause them harm. In the past Facebook has done so mercilessly for what they consider severe tos violations and have been awarded huge judgements.

 

[ThulsaDooom]

All this because he's a giant fucking baby. This is your hero, alt-right Sherbros SS? This manchild?

 

[hillelslovak87]

<{chips}>

I'd say Jews are actually quite competitive with blacks, muslims, gays and trannies tbh. They're definitely part of the permanent rotation.

You mean "globalists", don't you?

 

[the_winding_way]

The far Left never ceases to amaze me. So easily controlled and programmed to promote and love their own enslavement.

You can say that again, except replace Left with Right.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Imagine supporting, defending, and voting for a pussy like Trump. <45><Lmaoo>

 

[AndroidRage]

If this guys gets banned from Twitter the tantrum will be epic. I would give odds that furniture is broken in the process.

Only if that fat fuck pays someone else to break the furniture. I just don't see Trump being able to physically exert himself to do much of anything besides tweetering.

 

[Low Test With da Best]

WTF are you talking about? Who do they disagree with? If you think they disagree with the right, note that there are literally millions of right-wing accounts on Twitter, including some of the most widely viewed ones. And that includes all subgroups within the "right." What got Trump in a tizzy here is that they corrected some misinformation he put out, but they didn't remove his post. The only way you think that they're opposing free speech is if you think that also hosting non-right-wingers is an infringement on "free speech" of right-wingers.

Did they correct it? I thought it was just a flag suggesting people fact check it or something. Could you post a link to the correction?

 

[vengeful]

Orange man bad

2 s

I'll try again:

The EO would be a sea-change in how the internet works. It definitely has teeth. The reason it is unlikely to cause the sea-change is that it is very easy to challenge. It undermines the stated purpose of 230 (see my recent post in the thread) and the sea change would result from that.

Not all big regulatory changes or exec orders have their effect by undermining a statute - sometimes they change something in the executive's discretion. They have teeth and are hard to challenge.

This one changes something by undermining an enacted statute - something that is supposed to be limited to the legislature. It has teeth, but is easily challenged.

How did the Feds shutdown Backpage and charge the owners for content posted by users on their platform with C230 fully in effect?

 

[Low Test With da Best]

Desperately defending their social engineering apparatus.

When so many news stories in print, on radio, and on tv are based on twitter evidence/gossip it's hard to deny its influence on societies across the world. When was the last day you heard news about "Earlier today on Facebook, so and so said such and such" vs the last day you heard the same about something occuring on Twitter? How many stories originating from Twitter do you hear about through other media per day?

As pan pointed out, this will make a long journey to an unlikely fruition. Unfortunately many replies in here treat it as a immediate dictate.

*edit*
not pan, @Quipling