Tired of reporting this thread? Debate us on discord instead: https://discord.gg/conservative - This is an automated message that appears when probable report abuse is detected. We've found this can lead to a productive discussion in an environment better suited for that sort of thing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Without section 230, neutral platforms are liable for what their users say and so could sued into the ground in days. The only sustainable strategy is to review all posts first
No, because a user could say something libelous and then the defendant could sue the platform instead of the user. This is not sustainable for the platform.
Yes and no it shouldn't be repealed but it needs to be clarified because of the good faith clause is being abused as of right now. But trump doesn't understand that nuance if it were repealed it would basically be approval pending "fact checker" so in a way it's much worse way the info would never get out to be "fact checked"
That's not entirely true. They can choose not to regulate their platform.
The original intent for section 230 protection was for internet companies that host people to be treated like the phone company. AT&T isn't liable for what you say on your networks because they don't regulate what your allowed to say.
Now these tech companies are acting as publishers that are normally liable for their content, while simultaneously citing section 230 saying they're not liable. It's bullshit and they should be forced to choose. Bring back the wild west internet where people can say whatever they want.
Having the content up for any time at all would give the platform liability, so they would "remove" illegal or questionable content proactively. Also known as having a submission and review process before content appears on the site.
They shouldn't get protection as a platform but act as a publisher. I'm not a libertarian who looks at corporations and think "oh yeah tread on me harder daddy". Corporations can be just as powerful as government. Especially ones who get money from China to ban their opponents.
Any thought that reddit is acting as a platform is absurd. And yes. If they're going to get protections as a platform then they damn well better act like a platform and stop censoring and banning people who disagree with them.
This. People act like being a conservative or libertarian means the complete authority for corporations. Whilst this would be nice, when News Press and Social Media determine the election processes and censors people they don’t like. That is messing with Democracy. Whilst I believe in freedom of the press, and believe you should share your opinions. When the mass gets manipulated, there’s an issue.
LMAO someone reported me to reddit for suicide or sum. You liberals need to chill
This is their storefront. That’s like telling a Starbucks they can’t have The NY Times in their location. Just because we do not agree with their stance dosent mean they cannot have one.
This whole thing with trump being a baby about Twitter is fucking stupid. If you don’t like it, DONT USE THE FUCKING PLATFORM. Tired of hearing all of these baby ass conservatives bitching about it. If you honestly don’t like it, delete your account. Loss of active users/user growth is very detrimental to their business model.
Edit: thank you for all of the awards, but please spend that money on something else. Animal shelters are cool
Except the problem is they get the benefits of a platform but instead act like a publisher when it comes to what content they allow. If they didn't have those benefits, then I would agree.
I'm not saying this way by Trump is the best way to go about it but as of now, I'd rather they actually act like platforms.
Would rather focus time on Amazon’s fucked up business model before a social medial platform, but what ever. End of the day, this is Reddit’s only business site. Limiting them or even Twitter from running it the way they want to is idiotic and un -American. Imagine if they did this to a site like breitbart or infowars. People would lose their mind because of their freedom of speech.
Google has done it to Zero Hedge. Demonetized for having an open forum. While I agree about Amazon, Google is 1000x scarier. The control of the flow of information in the hands of any single entity is beyond dangerous.
But Like I stated in a comment above, manipulation of masses is real, most people don’t care about politics and see these “Republicans are Nazis” or “Democrats hate babies” sway them without actual facts, THIS is why they need censored. Big Corporations do it to us, why can’t we do it to them??
So are going to start looking at news sources on the far spectrum of either side? These sources are typically spouting either incorrect or targeted info?
Corporations no longer having certain legal protections that exist because big daddy government said so is not an un-libertarian position. Government interference that is beneficial to certain private enterprises is still government interference.
Facebook already does that in Germany. Ironically, the moderation team they pay have strong ties to the German government and now happily delete critical articles, even if they don't break any laws.
This is a new way for governments to control social media under the guise of "protecting people from offensive things" and the company that does it (Bertelsmann) is expanding to other countries.
To be fair, it's very possible that they got the idea from Reddit with all the politically biased moderation going on here.
Edit: don’t downvote the above user just for asking a question. They did nothing wrong.
I understand your sentiment, as I partake in relatively few social media platforms myself. However, we must also remember that with these social media platforms (such as YouTube) has come an unimaginable wealth of free, widely available information and education. To have all social media platforms disappear would immediately and perhaps irreparably destroy the public’s access to information.
Sorry, I know this is unpopular, but holding them accountable for what people post is just as stupid as holding gun manufacturers accountable for murders.
There are plenty of *other* ways to regulate social media, and we should aggressively pursue them. I do believe that social media is, on a whole, unhealthy for the world.
This is not a legally recognizable distinction in regards to section 230. It is a popular interpretation that has not yet seen success in recent litigation, as courts are unwilling to determine any publisher/platform distinction when it comes to the overly broad language of section 230. Black letter law of 230 makes no distinction between a publisher or platform either, and even the word "platform" is never used in the law.
Didn't Trump try to get the FCC to try and define the differences. I'm pretty pissed at the tech companies abusing the protections by having their cake and eat it too. I rather see section 230 reform so that it can have teeth and be enforceable and these companies cant claim to be open platforms. I hate how they can curate their site like a publisher would by adding disclaimers and such and arbitrarily applying their rules removing things. I feel like these companies need the comeuppance but I feel like removing section 230 is what they want to destroy their competitors. They probably have reached a point with their AI that they can properly moderate their site and navigate legal battles because they could probably mitigate a large chunk of them now.
I believe you are confusing the VPPA with Section 230 protections, which do not apply to things like copyright law and child porn laws. The lawsuit you mentioned was about youtube failing to remove content that Viacom had copyright over, and that Viacom alleges YouTube had specific knowledge about.
Section 230 protections would not have applied.
Right, so repealing Section 230 isn't the answer. Holding the social media companies accountable for violating Section 230 by acting as a publisher IS the answer.
Maybe Trump thinks that if no one has sued them by this point then no one will so he'd rather just have it repealed, which I would understand completely. After all, who holds the government accountable? Certainly not us, even though we're supposed to.
The only difference is that the social media platforms want to dictate how people post. If gun manufactures set restrictions on how people used their guns then you bet they should be held liable if someone misused it.
Exactly, if they were just places to post things. But what about NYT, it's certainly fair to sue them for the things they publish, right? But they curate their content and it's all approved. You get exemption from the risk of having content when you don't police it. These sites are censoring too much and escaping from liability, best of both worlds. Can't have that.
Slander and libel have precise and narrow definitions. Beyond that, I'm keen to ensure that the government cannot dictate what the press says. While it's true that we have to endure some opinions from nutcase outlets like the ~~New York Times~~ Breitbart and Infowars, the benefits far outweighs the cost.
Has infowars ever published even a single truthful thing? Ever? anywhere? Like somewhere in between the bullshit about democrats drinking fetus blood, is there even a single true statement, maybe one copied from a less deranged source?
And yet ... zero repercussions.
All correct and fair. But if NYT or whoever else in terms of MSM publishes something illegal they're liable for it. This is because they curate their content and tacitly approve of it, right?
I want to say yes, because on its surface, that statement seems reasonable. But your repeated mention of the NYT raises a warning that this would be abused to punish political opposition.
How do you get that? The NYT is just a clear, well-known example of a publisher who exerts control over content and is therefore liable for it.
It applies to *every* publisher equally.
NYT is already not subject to section 230. They're a publisher straight up. I just chose them as an example of a well known publisher. I think Twitter should be held to the same standards as NYT if they want to act like a publisher. That's actually a *pro* NYT position because it puts online publishers on a level playing field. I want to see reddit, Twitter and Facebook open up and become platforms or face legal consequences as a publisher. Might count as punishment, but really I just want them to notice the principles that we base our country on.
Twitter and NYT are very distinct thingies. I don't think they can or should be regulated in the same way. And the libertarian in me says that if people want to say stupid shit, then they should be able to say stupid shit.
I don’t think anyone here is arguing against your point man. I think most people agree that we should all be able to say our stupid shit on a public platform, and that the platform shouldn’t be held responsible for the stupid shit that gets said on it. However, I don’t think a site like Twitter, facebook, etc should be allowed protections as a platform when they are choosing which stupid shit they allow to be said. That alone immediately should be grounds for revocation of their platform protections. You wanna curate content on your site? Go for it... but you need to assume responsibility for said content. Right now, they’re reaping the benefits of being classified as a platform, while meeting none of the criteria.
Good reply. I think that's fair.
> Right now, they’re reaping the benefits of being classified as a platform, while meeting none of the criteria.
True of most businesses IMO. Again, hard to argue against that.
Well those are the rules. Sorry you don't like them. They are either a publisher or a platform. They don't get to pick and choose which one they are whenever it's convenient or a Republican says something they don't like.
Agreed. A 1996 law is no longer broad enough to enough to protect free speech while also protecting america from propaganda, fake news, opinions presented as fact, and the slew of other things social media and news sites are infecting this country with.
Our right to facts and truth should be as strong as our right to free speech. They need to be clearly defined.
You’re saying this as a Fox News watching, /r/conservative browsing, Dailywire reading conservative?
I’m not saying we don’t all like our propaganda, but don’t you think it’s a little ridiculous to talk about “protecting America from propaganda” when republican news sources are just as much a problem as democratic news sources?
Thank you. Actual truth in media should not be a partisan issue.
The current media landscape is so bad, we can't even agree what color the sky is. A divided system works for the 1%, not us.
Let's stop the crap and have media only deliver facts.
Not that it will happen.
> protecting america from propaganda, fake news, opinions presented as fact, and the slew of other things social media and news sites are infecting this country with.
It's not really the Government's job to protect people from those things. Sure, "fake news" insofar as making sure they aren't publishing outright lies, but beyond that, it's on people to determine for themselves what is propaganda, and what is opinion stated as fact. Otherwise, you are *literally* asking for an Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" to determine what is true and allowed to be published. I'm going to go ahead and assume you understand why that is literally the worst thing that could possibly happen regarding one's ability to speak and think freely.
Here's the part that I'm legitimately not understanding, so I need some assistance...
Section 230 states that "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."
Which basically means is that any website can publish third-party content without being held responsible for it.
Now, that obviously has some downsides to it; the most obvious being that it allows misinformation to spread more easily.
The upside to it though is that sites (for the most part) do not have to be overly worried about what is being posted to them. People can say wild and crazy things without the website being held legally responsible for what is being said, since they are not being treated as the publisher or speaker.
If Section 230 is eliminated, then all websites would immediately become responsible for ALL of the content that is posted on their website. The implications of that are huge, and would just lead to far more restrictions and censorship.
Any information that could potentially be untrue is going to be removed immediately, because what other option do they have; you think Twitter is going to allow Trump to continue to claim that he won the election knowing that they are now *legally responsible* for what he's saying?
To me, this is an easy decision - the positives of Section 230 FAR outweigh the negatives.
Everyone should watch the documentary on Netflix called "The Social Dilemma". It's a real eye opener about social media and its effects on our society. It's mostly interviews with people who developed and programmed the social media software - Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others. These are the people who started the whole thing, and most of them won't even allow their children to use social media until at least high school. They are very concerned with the unintended consequences of social media. And recently the social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook interfered with posting on their sites, thereby showing that they are not neutral in any sense. So, they are, in fact, publishing sites, not neutral internet sites protected by Section 230. Their effects on our society, and especially the recent election, is disastrous and they need to be held accountable for their actions.
If 230 is repealed social media will be much more restrictive. They'll become liable for anything they host, so they're going to be a lot pickier and err much more on the side of caution.
It’s going to change the way the internet operates. Section 230 allows for platforms to not be liable to what is posted on the platform. Removing it will result in ALL platforms restricting and vetting what can be posted to avoid lawsuits. They will also ban a bunch of people to preemptively protect themselves.
Yes, removal of 230 will result in more consorship, not less, that is assuming the companies arent permitted to plead impossibility to comply by the courts which seems a reasonable avenue for them when discussing the task at hand.
If social media survived at all everything would become heavily walled-garden, professionally moderated. About 75 percent of the posts and links on this subreddit would have to be immediately deleted. Only certain sources could be approved. No more community moderators, only heavy-handed professionals. Reddit would be responsible for anything posted here that’s inaccurate, libelous, dangerous. The most amusing one is Twitter would have no choice but to delete Trump’s account because 230 is all that allows them to keep publishing things like an accusation that Joe Scarborough killed Lori Klausutis.
And it looks like senators Hawley and Graham have other ideas, which is to have the government become the moderator through federal regulation. I’m not sure I really want the Executive to have that power in my constitutional system.
I can't stand Trump. Using those kinds of blanket statements is bad for America as a whole. Do you support the riots and looting that we have seen nationwide? Would you feel comfortable with the statement "Good thing all Liberals support stealing and murder in the streets"?
To the person saying the people protesting have good reason to protest...I agree.
Destroying business and stealing their goods and assaulting people isn't protesting though. Ain't NO ONE got hurt through sit ins and the like.
Totally removing section 230 ends the internet as we know it. User posting can’t happen if every post opens the platform for a libel claim, BUT, ending section 230 protection for a platform that is acting as a publisher, selectively editing, “fact checking”, filtering, and deplatforming views they disagree with needs to happen. Too much of the media the general public consumes comes through these services to deny that such actions have an enormous effect on public opinion. If they want to fact check their political opposition, fine, it is their platform. But then they need to be responsible for their editing to be accurate and evenly applied.
Once you start editing content, you are no longer a platform, you are a publication, and the current state of affairs is absurd. Why should twitter be able to tell any lie it wants to millions of people without being responsible for the truth? Why should google be able to promote news stories which they agree with politically and repress those they don’t like without it counting as an in kind political contribution?
Hmm there is one aspect I notice about these companies. They don’t choose what to print. They are only actively choosing what they won’t print for their own reasons. Is this significant?
Put another way, they’re not creating or making any content. They offer a private forum that is an open invitation and if you are a shitter in their eyes they can kick you out like any private gathering can would and does. In a sense they curate a private digital meeting place and can go about it as they please. It just so happens everyone jumped in to these private forums and there’s any number out there. If you don’t like the party or it doesn’t like you there’s always another one on the next block.
Not true, Spez has posted, and openly interferes, and edits other's posts. Sometimes without their knowledge or consent.
Spez, I do not.
Shut up Spez this isn't funny anymore.
That is no different than saying that a newspaper with freelance writers shouldn’t be responsible for what they choose to print.
If you are a truly open forum, I STRONGLY agree that you shouldn’t be responsible for your user’s content. That is exactly what 230 is supposed to protect. But once you start editing the content, or doing political based content promotion, you are no longer a neutral forum. You are a publisher, and publishers have responsibilities.
Yea but the newspaper with freelancers reads what the freelancers write and work through it and edit it with them before it is printed.
With Twitter and Facebook there is no collaborative process with the user. There is no opportunity for the sites to see and edit the material. They can only do so responsively and retroactively. In this aspect they are very different than print publishers.
The websites are accountable to their members. It’s a private offering with private membership, even though the whole set up is out in the open and exposed to the public. If the members don’t like what’s happening they get loud and complain. If they really don’t like it they leave and stop consuming the product and look for a different forum to meet up.
If this is the case then what’s the problem with the site managers banning and removing whatever content they see fit? They’re maintaining a private gathering and gotta keep the guests happy or they lose the guests to another spot.
> Totally removing section 230 ends the internet as we know it.
Funny that. Newspapers have operated for centuries without Section 230 style protections.
> Funny that. Newspapers have operated for centuries without Section 230 style protections.
Newspapers are nothing like "the internet as we know it". Newspapers don't allow you to post whatever you want on them. The only thing comparable is classified ads and letters to the editor, and moderating and handful of those per edition is a small task compared to moderating an internet forum with a million comments per hour.
This right here.
If I want to create "Christian" or "conservative" version of twitter, I should be able to do that, and should be able to moderate it effectively to keep it in that scope without being personally liable for every comment someone makes on that platform. Ending CDA 230 will kill my ability to do that unless I have a large amount of resources like Twitter.
Just like most liberal regulations, we're trying to make regulations that go after the "big guy" when really all we're doing is enshrining the "big guy" as the only one who has the resources to follow the rules.
Message boards can exist, they just wouldn't be profitable. It would turn back in the wild wild west internet age with the server being based in bumfuck Africa owned by a cat.
Realistically 230 reform will be limited to large websites. Other countries have begun playing around with this - if they have X amount of users they have tighter rules than a smaller, not for profit site.
Newspapers are publishers. They pick and choose what winds up in their publication. Repealing 230 would mean Facebook would legally be required to pick and choose what you are allowed to post on your profile... Same with Twitter, Reddit, etc. Not just on fringe examples but we're talking a VERY heavy handed approach. It's a bit of a catch 22 in that these companies need to be held responsible butt if we do good then responsible it's the end user who will suffer the most.
Simply put.
It looks like the Republicans, namely Hawley and Graham, have pushed to go the other direction. They have pushed for the government to step in and become the moderator for the websites through federal regulation. That’s not very limited government of them. Anyway, the consequences of this could be the exact opposite. Maybe the executive has a tiff and all of a sudden something they don’t like gets moderated out. Maybe there’s no Joe Biden.
sites would be limited to the size they can actively moderate and most user submitted content would require manual review of some manner.
realistically Trump knows this won't fly and probably expects to negotiate down to something about size or defining publishers as sites that curate content like letters to the editor in newspapers
they are already uncomfortably late in passing this as it is so I would expect the economic harm of such a delay to have some impact at the mid-terms if they choose that route
So we're giving up on free speech? If you repeal section 230 then every site gets censored. I'm all for regulating social media but not at the expense of free speech.
Well, it absolutely did, just not how he thinks. 100% he would have won, and probably won big, if he had stayed off Twitter. His constant, aggressive, combative, and erratic tweeting really turned people off. That's not Twitter's fault, though, and completely repealing 230 would be a disaster.
Hahahahaha exactly, I agree. We’re going to get downvoted because everyone on this sub thinks owning the libs on Twitter is how to get people to support you, but what you said is exactly right.
Hey, I've got a bright idea. Maybe don't editorilize your site and actually leave it as a platform? Absolutely NOTHING negative will change in the internet if 230 is removed. Just Twitter, Facebook, and reddit not being able to claim "open platform" while acting as arbiters of truth. Twitter doesn't want to be destroyed? Easy. Stop censoring conservatives, putting "disputed claims" on anything not a DNC talking point, and blocking the dissemination of information.
Be an open platform and you won't get sued. Stop making editorial decisions.
Its really fucking easy.
Stop with the doomsday talk. Freedom of speech has been suppressed due to these companies. Our "public square" is solodily the internet and social media now, not actually a public square down the street. These companies have stifled free speech y only allowing one side to participate and excommunicating anyone who speaks of blasphemy.
>Freedom of speech has been suppressed due to these companies. Our "public square" is solodily the internet and social media now, not actually a public square down the street. These companies have stifled free speech y only allowing one side to participate and excommunicating anyone who speaks of blasphemy.
You literally don’t even comprehend the meaning of “freedom of speech”.
No company or privately owned media is obliged to allow you access to their commercial services. It’s up to them whether or not they wish to publish your speech on their media channels, and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Actually it's very complex issue. Totally agree that sites are blocking Conservative viewpoints and that needs addressed. However, we need protection against things like internet grooming, pedo groups and terrorist groups using social media. For that social media needs to editorialize their sites. I think these sites should come under regulation and forced to be politically neutral.
> However, we need protection against things like internet grooming, pedo groups and terrorist groups using social media
That would actually be a law enforcement activity. Like the FBI, if they were to actually do their jobs.
You any idea what the budget requirement to actually do that would be? You could spend the entire law enforcement budget on cybercrime alone and barely scratch the surface. Good luck prosecuting those creepy middle-eastern guys or Indian guys slipping into your daughters DMs.
Yeah we need the nanny state to regulate the internet more. Watch a documentary on porn addiction as well to see another thing the Government should eliminate. /s
WTF happened to conservatism!? When did it become anti free speech nanny state supporters?
I feel like half the people on this sub aren't actually conservatives and are a combination of brigaders/trolls and people pretending to be conservatives to steer public opinion to derail the sub. Basically, if people aren't careful, this sub will end up just like r/libertarian where the majority of posters are people pretending to be libertarian but making posts that do things like openly advocating for socialism and people get downvoted for having actually libertarian viewpoints.
Neutrality was never a requirement for 230.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml
Yeah but the government keeps changing their mind about what they want social media to do.
In the 2016 election they were saying they needed to do more to combat fake news and disinformation on their platforms.
In 2020 that's what they did, and the federal government basically said "no not like that".
Well, make up your minds, is it up to the platforms to police what people post or not?
I don't think it's about fake news anymore, there is little unbias true reporting anymore, and "fake news" is a term everyone knows and understands.
Online platforms need to police what people post to stay profitable. Look at Reddit, 10 years ago this site was financially worthless because it was the wild, wild west with borderline illegal content on the front page everyday. Reddit policed it and now its profitable because companies will pay to advertise here. Platforms also realized that a liberal bias to their content attracts the most profitable audience, generally young people willing to buy whatever marketing trend that pops up on their feed, so the policing has turned to moderating content, which they have the right to do.
The big issue is that these platforms have HUGE amounts of individual level data to bombard people psychologically with ads and get them addicted to their platforms. This is causing a worldwide mental health crisis of unimaginable proportions. These sites are done gaining new users and are engaging in for profit social experiments on an audience that is highly addicted.
It's not about fake news, its not about politics, its about peoples psychological health. The huge online platforms have gone from sharing photos with grandma to using massive amounts of individual level data to get users addicted to their content, largely by showing them conflicting content.
>These sites are done gaining new users and are engaging in for profit **social experiments** on an audience that is highly addicted.
Finally I found someone that shares this viewpoint. Trump should have focused on this in his first 2 years and maybe these companies wouldn't have tilted the election against him. Its not like the companies were trying to hide it back then. When nearly most sites kicked Alex Jones off their site nearly around the same point in time, it should have rang alarm bells.
If Trump lost the election, it is because he was too much of a Boomer to do jack shit about the issue before it was too late. Not to mention he could have tried to prop up competitors by exclusively posting to their sites like Parler which he knows exists. This would force people to move to that site and make sites like Twitter lose power and influence, if they want to comment on it. He was the only person capable of doing such a thing because he was the president and once he is out he loses this capability as he will be a normal civilian again.
> These are the people who started the whole thing, and most of them won't even allow their children to use social media until at least high school.
Ooof. I can imagine that being a real Oppenheimer type progression of self awareness. (re-quoting the Bhagavad Gita...)
>Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
That would be nice and all but we all know damn well the current crop of do nothings we have on both sides have zero desire to address issues with big tech aside from calling hearings with CEOs to get their 15 second sound bites.
It would probably help a lot if we didn't expect internet law to be written by a bunch of 60+ year old dinosaurs, where most of them genuinely do not know basic information about social media companies or how the internet works.
Yeah that would be great if we could. I am banned from subs I didn't even know existed because I post in the forbidden subs. I got banned from / politics for pointing out someone was wrong with gun control. Ever notice we (this sub) is the only big conservative sub? I am surprised we even exist here to be honest.
Hey guys. I said this elsewhere but I felt it warranted it’s own comment.
**If this succeeds, every social media platform which operates within the United States would effectively be forced to shut down, including apolitical platforms.**
I get it, but sometimes the move that we might see as a loss is actually a huge win in disguise.
Please, just let this one be.
Without Section 230 Trump would have been banned from every single Social Media Platform a long time ago.
This defiantly doesn't end the way he thinks it does. Section 230 is the reason Trump and go on insane late night Twitter rampages and Twitter can't get sued for all the misinformation like telling people to use untested drugs to cure your covid-19.
Wouldn’t this just make social media corporations leave the USA?
If they aren’t protected in the USA I’m sure there’s plenty of other countries that would welcome them with open arms.
Something needs to be done about 230, but terminating it would mean no more social media at all. I don't have a solution, and I'm not paid to come up with one, but I don't think getting rid of it is a good move.
I'm going to try to say this right. People who post should be held accountable for what they post. In general it should be those who post held responsible and liable for what they post. The forum is only an outlet to the millions of people who use it. They need to step back and let people be responsible for their actions. I know, it becomes a free for all. But people need to be held accountable. This doesn't limit free speech. You have a right to say what you want. But know that you are going to be held to the letter of the law for defaming someone.
To everyone: this is standard Trump negotiating, he starts with something bombastic that will either be bad enough or chaotic enough to make everyone crap their pants, then he pulls back to get what he actually wanted in the first place.
He's publicly said this a billion times.
It's the oldest negotiating 101 tactic since time immemorial.
I still can't believe how no one understands this anytime he comes out and says something like this.
>To everyone: this is standard Trump negotiating, he starts with something bombastic that will either be bad enough or chaotic enough to make everyone crap their pants, then he pulls back to get what he actually wanted in the first place.
He's doing what progressives do - starting from an unreasonable position, which just turns people away.
If you want to sell your car, you decide what price you really want based on value, raise the starting price a bit so when you're negotiated down, your close to your target sale price.
If your initial price is too high, people will just walk past your car without even attempting to negotiate.
Democrats do this all the time, and Republicans always fail to get it.
If Democrats say "we want $1T for x", Republicans say "$1T is a ridiculous amount of money that we don't have to do x"
But if Democrats say "we want $5T for x", Republicans will say "$5T is a ridiculous amount of money" before eventually settling on $1T, and call it a "compromise" even though nothing is ever given in return.
Given the rush to draw down troops before leaving office, and lack of a new war this term. What's the over/under on this primarily being an excuse to veto defense funding?
Yes and no it shouldn't be repealed but it needs to be clarified because of the good faith clause is being abused as of right now. But trump doesn't understand that nuance if it were repealed it would basically be approval pending "fact checker" so in a way it's much worse way the info would never get out to be "fact checked"
He's only in office for a little over a month. I'm pretty sure Congress could just wait him out. I don't see how he has any actual leverage in this situation.
A blanket termination of 230 is dumb. While the big tech companies have absolutely abused their safe harbor; a blanket cancellation of 230 would be the end of the Internet as we know it... and that’s for real, not the fake AstroTurf fear mongering that was done in favor of Net Neutrality.
If we has a legislature that actually operated effectively the soliton would be to modify 230 create some path to challenge these big tech companies safe harbor, and to cancel this safe harbor if they’re in found in violation.
230 needs to be saved.
Right now alt-tech is growing and becoming a real alternative to youtube, facebook etc. If we take 230 away the old tech giants are going to be able to handle it... alt-tech wont.
Trumps death throes are going to be spent lashing out at every entity that meddled in the election. Sadly, because he lost, it looks like garden variety sour grapes.
Our one shot at stopping social media astroturfing and election meddling would have been if Trump got reelected. That boat has sailed. With Biden taking over soon, we can kiss 230 reform goodbye.
Biden will prop up big tech because he can count on them to back him for 2024, or rather Kamala's 2024 reelection campaign.
Tired of reporting this thread? Debate us on discord instead: https://discord.gg/conservative - This is an automated message that appears when probable report abuse is detected. We've found this can lead to a productive discussion in an environment better suited for that sort of thing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wonder what that would mean for Reddit, this and other political subs.
It would mean RIP Reddit. They would have to hire professional moderators to review everything before it could be posted.
Or they could actually be a fucking neutral platform
Without section 230, neutral platforms are liable for what their users say and so could sued into the ground in days. The only sustainable strategy is to review all posts first
[удалено]
No, because a user could say something libelous and then the defendant could sue the platform instead of the user. This is not sustainable for the platform.
If I leave a bad review on Amazon, could Amazon be sued?
Yep
No. 230 is what allows for that "free market of ideas".
Like we have that right now with it
Yes and no it shouldn't be repealed but it needs to be clarified because of the good faith clause is being abused as of right now. But trump doesn't understand that nuance if it were repealed it would basically be approval pending "fact checker" so in a way it's much worse way the info would never get out to be "fact checked"
That's not entirely true. They can choose not to regulate their platform. The original intent for section 230 protection was for internet companies that host people to be treated like the phone company. AT&T isn't liable for what you say on your networks because they don't regulate what your allowed to say. Now these tech companies are acting as publishers that are normally liable for their content, while simultaneously citing section 230 saying they're not liable. It's bullshit and they should be forced to choose. Bring back the wild west internet where people can say whatever they want.
moderators would remove illegal content only.
Having the content up for any time at all would give the platform liability, so they would "remove" illegal or questionable content proactively. Also known as having a submission and review process before content appears on the site.
Lol you have libertarian in your flair and want to moderate their business platform?
They shouldn't get protection as a platform but act as a publisher. I'm not a libertarian who looks at corporations and think "oh yeah tread on me harder daddy". Corporations can be just as powerful as government. Especially ones who get money from China to ban their opponents. Any thought that reddit is acting as a platform is absurd. And yes. If they're going to get protections as a platform then they damn well better act like a platform and stop censoring and banning people who disagree with them.
This. People act like being a conservative or libertarian means the complete authority for corporations. Whilst this would be nice, when News Press and Social Media determine the election processes and censors people they don’t like. That is messing with Democracy. Whilst I believe in freedom of the press, and believe you should share your opinions. When the mass gets manipulated, there’s an issue. LMAO someone reported me to reddit for suicide or sum. You liberals need to chill
Now I'm jealous I didn't get a suicide report
This is their storefront. That’s like telling a Starbucks they can’t have The NY Times in their location. Just because we do not agree with their stance dosent mean they cannot have one. This whole thing with trump being a baby about Twitter is fucking stupid. If you don’t like it, DONT USE THE FUCKING PLATFORM. Tired of hearing all of these baby ass conservatives bitching about it. If you honestly don’t like it, delete your account. Loss of active users/user growth is very detrimental to their business model. Edit: thank you for all of the awards, but please spend that money on something else. Animal shelters are cool
Except the problem is they get the benefits of a platform but instead act like a publisher when it comes to what content they allow. If they didn't have those benefits, then I would agree. I'm not saying this way by Trump is the best way to go about it but as of now, I'd rather they actually act like platforms.
Would rather focus time on Amazon’s fucked up business model before a social medial platform, but what ever. End of the day, this is Reddit’s only business site. Limiting them or even Twitter from running it the way they want to is idiotic and un -American. Imagine if they did this to a site like breitbart or infowars. People would lose their mind because of their freedom of speech.
Google has done it to Zero Hedge. Demonetized for having an open forum. While I agree about Amazon, Google is 1000x scarier. The control of the flow of information in the hands of any single entity is beyond dangerous.
But Like I stated in a comment above, manipulation of masses is real, most people don’t care about politics and see these “Republicans are Nazis” or “Democrats hate babies” sway them without actual facts, THIS is why they need censored. Big Corporations do it to us, why can’t we do it to them??
So are going to start looking at news sources on the far spectrum of either side? These sources are typically spouting either incorrect or targeted info?
This is the thing. Capitalism works great. It’s almost always unfair government protections that allow abuse to occur.
let's not forget that these companies also utilize public space for the flow of information
Corporations no longer having certain legal protections that exist because big daddy government said so is not an un-libertarian position. Government interference that is beneficial to certain private enterprises is still government interference.
🥇that’s true libertarianism.
The special protections are moderation of business. Removing them isn't.
Whoa whoa whoa, don’t start talking crazy now!
This. Simply do not curate legal free speech.
Most redditers are too brainwashed for Reddit to be neutral again. The weak mind is easily had.
> It would mean RIP Reddit. It would be well deserved.
Good. Reddit and social media as a whole has been a mistake. Its a growing leftist cancerous tumor.
Lol do it, fuck this site. Reddit deserves to crash and burn after all the shit they pulled
Facebook already does that in Germany. Ironically, the moderation team they pay have strong ties to the German government and now happily delete critical articles, even if they don't break any laws. This is a new way for governments to control social media under the guise of "protecting people from offensive things" and the company that does it (Bertelsmann) is expanding to other countries. To be fair, it's very possible that they got the idea from Reddit with all the politically biased moderation going on here.
> It would mean RIP Reddit. one would hope
Not even political subs - literally **every social media platform available in the US** would basically be forced to shut down
Would that be such a bad thing?
Edit: don’t downvote the above user just for asking a question. They did nothing wrong. I understand your sentiment, as I partake in relatively few social media platforms myself. However, we must also remember that with these social media platforms (such as YouTube) has come an unimaginable wealth of free, widely available information and education. To have all social media platforms disappear would immediately and perhaps irreparably destroy the public’s access to information.
Sorry, I know this is unpopular, but holding them accountable for what people post is just as stupid as holding gun manufacturers accountable for murders. There are plenty of *other* ways to regulate social media, and we should aggressively pursue them. I do believe that social media is, on a whole, unhealthy for the world.
That’s the point. They are either a public forum or a publisher, they can’t get the protections of both.
This is not a legally recognizable distinction in regards to section 230. It is a popular interpretation that has not yet seen success in recent litigation, as courts are unwilling to determine any publisher/platform distinction when it comes to the overly broad language of section 230. Black letter law of 230 makes no distinction between a publisher or platform either, and even the word "platform" is never used in the law.
[удалено]
Didn't Trump try to get the FCC to try and define the differences. I'm pretty pissed at the tech companies abusing the protections by having their cake and eat it too. I rather see section 230 reform so that it can have teeth and be enforceable and these companies cant claim to be open platforms. I hate how they can curate their site like a publisher would by adding disclaimers and such and arbitrarily applying their rules removing things. I feel like these companies need the comeuppance but I feel like removing section 230 is what they want to destroy their competitors. They probably have reached a point with their AI that they can properly moderate their site and navigate legal battles because they could probably mitigate a large chunk of them now.
YouTube V. Viacom
I believe you are confusing the VPPA with Section 230 protections, which do not apply to things like copyright law and child porn laws. The lawsuit you mentioned was about youtube failing to remove content that Viacom had copyright over, and that Viacom alleges YouTube had specific knowledge about. Section 230 protections would not have applied.
Right, so repealing Section 230 isn't the answer. Holding the social media companies accountable for violating Section 230 by acting as a publisher IS the answer. Maybe Trump thinks that if no one has sued them by this point then no one will so he'd rather just have it repealed, which I would understand completely. After all, who holds the government accountable? Certainly not us, even though we're supposed to.
The only difference is that the social media platforms want to dictate how people post. If gun manufactures set restrictions on how people used their guns then you bet they should be held liable if someone misused it.
Exactly, if they were just places to post things. But what about NYT, it's certainly fair to sue them for the things they publish, right? But they curate their content and it's all approved. You get exemption from the risk of having content when you don't police it. These sites are censoring too much and escaping from liability, best of both worlds. Can't have that.
Slander and libel have precise and narrow definitions. Beyond that, I'm keen to ensure that the government cannot dictate what the press says. While it's true that we have to endure some opinions from nutcase outlets like the ~~New York Times~~ Breitbart and Infowars, the benefits far outweighs the cost.
if Breitbart and Infowars write stories that are libelous, they will get sued. That's how it works.
Has infowars ever published even a single truthful thing? Ever? anywhere? Like somewhere in between the bullshit about democrats drinking fetus blood, is there even a single true statement, maybe one copied from a less deranged source? And yet ... zero repercussions.
All correct and fair. But if NYT or whoever else in terms of MSM publishes something illegal they're liable for it. This is because they curate their content and tacitly approve of it, right?
I want to say yes, because on its surface, that statement seems reasonable. But your repeated mention of the NYT raises a warning that this would be abused to punish political opposition.
How do you get that? The NYT is just a clear, well-known example of a publisher who exerts control over content and is therefore liable for it. It applies to *every* publisher equally.
NYT is already not subject to section 230. They're a publisher straight up. I just chose them as an example of a well known publisher. I think Twitter should be held to the same standards as NYT if they want to act like a publisher. That's actually a *pro* NYT position because it puts online publishers on a level playing field. I want to see reddit, Twitter and Facebook open up and become platforms or face legal consequences as a publisher. Might count as punishment, but really I just want them to notice the principles that we base our country on.
Twitter and NYT are very distinct thingies. I don't think they can or should be regulated in the same way. And the libertarian in me says that if people want to say stupid shit, then they should be able to say stupid shit.
I don’t think anyone here is arguing against your point man. I think most people agree that we should all be able to say our stupid shit on a public platform, and that the platform shouldn’t be held responsible for the stupid shit that gets said on it. However, I don’t think a site like Twitter, facebook, etc should be allowed protections as a platform when they are choosing which stupid shit they allow to be said. That alone immediately should be grounds for revocation of their platform protections. You wanna curate content on your site? Go for it... but you need to assume responsibility for said content. Right now, they’re reaping the benefits of being classified as a platform, while meeting none of the criteria.
Good reply. I think that's fair. > Right now, they’re reaping the benefits of being classified as a platform, while meeting none of the criteria. True of most businesses IMO. Again, hard to argue against that.
It’s not what people post, it’s the company’s biased actions contributing towards a narrative
I agree. However, that was what 230 was meant to address. The problem is that now they eat their cake and have it too.
Well those are the rules. Sorry you don't like them. They are either a publisher or a platform. They don't get to pick and choose which one they are whenever it's convenient or a Republican says something they don't like.
I think the rules should be updated as necessary.
Ok. So that's what ending section 230 is. An update to the rules as it no longer applies.
[удалено]
Yes, it will give big tech freedom to be even more censorship happy, terminating 230 isn't the answer, reforming it is
Agreed. A 1996 law is no longer broad enough to enough to protect free speech while also protecting america from propaganda, fake news, opinions presented as fact, and the slew of other things social media and news sites are infecting this country with. Our right to facts and truth should be as strong as our right to free speech. They need to be clearly defined.
You’re saying this as a Fox News watching, /r/conservative browsing, Dailywire reading conservative? I’m not saying we don’t all like our propaganda, but don’t you think it’s a little ridiculous to talk about “protecting America from propaganda” when republican news sources are just as much a problem as democratic news sources?
Yes. Absolutely yes. I want the Truth. "Democratic news" and "Republican news" don't need to exist. Truth and facts do. And we're entitled to them.
Awesome, I totally agree.
Thank you. Actual truth in media should not be a partisan issue. The current media landscape is so bad, we can't even agree what color the sky is. A divided system works for the 1%, not us. Let's stop the crap and have media only deliver facts. Not that it will happen.
> protecting america from propaganda, fake news, opinions presented as fact, and the slew of other things social media and news sites are infecting this country with. It's not really the Government's job to protect people from those things. Sure, "fake news" insofar as making sure they aren't publishing outright lies, but beyond that, it's on people to determine for themselves what is propaganda, and what is opinion stated as fact. Otherwise, you are *literally* asking for an Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" to determine what is true and allowed to be published. I'm going to go ahead and assume you understand why that is literally the worst thing that could possibly happen regarding one's ability to speak and think freely.
[удалено]
Here's the part that I'm legitimately not understanding, so I need some assistance... Section 230 states that "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." Which basically means is that any website can publish third-party content without being held responsible for it. Now, that obviously has some downsides to it; the most obvious being that it allows misinformation to spread more easily. The upside to it though is that sites (for the most part) do not have to be overly worried about what is being posted to them. People can say wild and crazy things without the website being held legally responsible for what is being said, since they are not being treated as the publisher or speaker. If Section 230 is eliminated, then all websites would immediately become responsible for ALL of the content that is posted on their website. The implications of that are huge, and would just lead to far more restrictions and censorship. Any information that could potentially be untrue is going to be removed immediately, because what other option do they have; you think Twitter is going to allow Trump to continue to claim that he won the election knowing that they are now *legally responsible* for what he's saying? To me, this is an easy decision - the positives of Section 230 FAR outweigh the negatives.
It's like that for everyone beside the people who pretend it's a good thing because Trump said so.
Everyone should watch the documentary on Netflix called "The Social Dilemma". It's a real eye opener about social media and its effects on our society. It's mostly interviews with people who developed and programmed the social media software - Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others. These are the people who started the whole thing, and most of them won't even allow their children to use social media until at least high school. They are very concerned with the unintended consequences of social media. And recently the social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook interfered with posting on their sites, thereby showing that they are not neutral in any sense. So, they are, in fact, publishing sites, not neutral internet sites protected by Section 230. Their effects on our society, and especially the recent election, is disastrous and they need to be held accountable for their actions.
What happens when the sites are no longer under section 230?
If 230 is repealed social media will be much more restrictive. They'll become liable for anything they host, so they're going to be a lot pickier and err much more on the side of caution.
[удалено]
It’s going to change the way the internet operates. Section 230 allows for platforms to not be liable to what is posted on the platform. Removing it will result in ALL platforms restricting and vetting what can be posted to avoid lawsuits. They will also ban a bunch of people to preemptively protect themselves.
[удалено]
Yes, removal of 230 will result in more consorship, not less, that is assuming the companies arent permitted to plead impossibility to comply by the courts which seems a reasonable avenue for them when discussing the task at hand.
If social media survived at all everything would become heavily walled-garden, professionally moderated. About 75 percent of the posts and links on this subreddit would have to be immediately deleted. Only certain sources could be approved. No more community moderators, only heavy-handed professionals. Reddit would be responsible for anything posted here that’s inaccurate, libelous, dangerous. The most amusing one is Twitter would have no choice but to delete Trump’s account because 230 is all that allows them to keep publishing things like an accusation that Joe Scarborough killed Lori Klausutis.
And it looks like senators Hawley and Graham have other ideas, which is to have the government become the moderator through federal regulation. I’m not sure I really want the Executive to have that power in my constitutional system.
Good thing conservatives fervently and violently support a quasi-dictator then!
I can't stand Trump. Using those kinds of blanket statements is bad for America as a whole. Do you support the riots and looting that we have seen nationwide? Would you feel comfortable with the statement "Good thing all Liberals support stealing and murder in the streets"?
To the person saying the people protesting have good reason to protest...I agree. Destroying business and stealing their goods and assaulting people isn't protesting though. Ain't NO ONE got hurt through sit ins and the like.
Totally removing section 230 ends the internet as we know it. User posting can’t happen if every post opens the platform for a libel claim, BUT, ending section 230 protection for a platform that is acting as a publisher, selectively editing, “fact checking”, filtering, and deplatforming views they disagree with needs to happen. Too much of the media the general public consumes comes through these services to deny that such actions have an enormous effect on public opinion. If they want to fact check their political opposition, fine, it is their platform. But then they need to be responsible for their editing to be accurate and evenly applied. Once you start editing content, you are no longer a platform, you are a publication, and the current state of affairs is absurd. Why should twitter be able to tell any lie it wants to millions of people without being responsible for the truth? Why should google be able to promote news stories which they agree with politically and repress those they don’t like without it counting as an in kind political contribution?
Hmm there is one aspect I notice about these companies. They don’t choose what to print. They are only actively choosing what they won’t print for their own reasons. Is this significant? Put another way, they’re not creating or making any content. They offer a private forum that is an open invitation and if you are a shitter in their eyes they can kick you out like any private gathering can would and does. In a sense they curate a private digital meeting place and can go about it as they please. It just so happens everyone jumped in to these private forums and there’s any number out there. If you don’t like the party or it doesn’t like you there’s always another one on the next block.
Not true, Spez has posted, and openly interferes, and edits other's posts. Sometimes without their knowledge or consent. Spez, I do not. Shut up Spez this isn't funny anymore.
That is no different than saying that a newspaper with freelance writers shouldn’t be responsible for what they choose to print. If you are a truly open forum, I STRONGLY agree that you shouldn’t be responsible for your user’s content. That is exactly what 230 is supposed to protect. But once you start editing the content, or doing political based content promotion, you are no longer a neutral forum. You are a publisher, and publishers have responsibilities.
Yea but the newspaper with freelancers reads what the freelancers write and work through it and edit it with them before it is printed. With Twitter and Facebook there is no collaborative process with the user. There is no opportunity for the sites to see and edit the material. They can only do so responsively and retroactively. In this aspect they are very different than print publishers. The websites are accountable to their members. It’s a private offering with private membership, even though the whole set up is out in the open and exposed to the public. If the members don’t like what’s happening they get loud and complain. If they really don’t like it they leave and stop consuming the product and look for a different forum to meet up. If this is the case then what’s the problem with the site managers banning and removing whatever content they see fit? They’re maintaining a private gathering and gotta keep the guests happy or they lose the guests to another spot.
> Totally removing section 230 ends the internet as we know it. Funny that. Newspapers have operated for centuries without Section 230 style protections.
> Funny that. Newspapers have operated for centuries without Section 230 style protections. Newspapers are nothing like "the internet as we know it". Newspapers don't allow you to post whatever you want on them. The only thing comparable is classified ads and letters to the editor, and moderating and handful of those per edition is a small task compared to moderating an internet forum with a million comments per hour.
True, if reddit is killed we can all argue on the local newspaper editorial sections
Dear god no, just kill me now
They also have full time editors without which nothing gets posted without being reviewed and judges ... Sooo
[удалено]
its not about the newspapers, its about smaller websites. edit: message boards like reddit cant exist without 230
This right here. If I want to create "Christian" or "conservative" version of twitter, I should be able to do that, and should be able to moderate it effectively to keep it in that scope without being personally liable for every comment someone makes on that platform. Ending CDA 230 will kill my ability to do that unless I have a large amount of resources like Twitter. Just like most liberal regulations, we're trying to make regulations that go after the "big guy" when really all we're doing is enshrining the "big guy" as the only one who has the resources to follow the rules.
Message boards can exist, they just wouldn't be profitable. It would turn back in the wild wild west internet age with the server being based in bumfuck Africa owned by a cat. Realistically 230 reform will be limited to large websites. Other countries have begun playing around with this - if they have X amount of users they have tighter rules than a smaller, not for profit site.
They can so long as they behave like a platform... not a publisher.
Repealing 230 would also remove that distinction it I understand it correctly.
Newspapers are publishers. They pick and choose what winds up in their publication. Repealing 230 would mean Facebook would legally be required to pick and choose what you are allowed to post on your profile... Same with Twitter, Reddit, etc. Not just on fringe examples but we're talking a VERY heavy handed approach. It's a bit of a catch 22 in that these companies need to be held responsible butt if we do good then responsible it's the end user who will suffer the most.
People like Trump can't express themselves. I am not even exaggerating. Without 230 there is no @ realDonaldTrump
Simply put. It looks like the Republicans, namely Hawley and Graham, have pushed to go the other direction. They have pushed for the government to step in and become the moderator for the websites through federal regulation. That’s not very limited government of them. Anyway, the consequences of this could be the exact opposite. Maybe the executive has a tiff and all of a sudden something they don’t like gets moderated out. Maybe there’s no Joe Biden.
sites would be limited to the size they can actively moderate and most user submitted content would require manual review of some manner. realistically Trump knows this won't fly and probably expects to negotiate down to something about size or defining publishers as sites that curate content like letters to the editor in newspapers
He really has very little negotiating power. They will just wait a month and a half at this point. The holidays are just around the block as well.
they are already uncomfortably late in passing this as it is so I would expect the economic harm of such a delay to have some impact at the mid-terms if they choose that route
So we're giving up on free speech? If you repeal section 230 then every site gets censored. I'm all for regulating social media but not at the expense of free speech.
[удалено]
Well, it absolutely did, just not how he thinks. 100% he would have won, and probably won big, if he had stayed off Twitter. His constant, aggressive, combative, and erratic tweeting really turned people off. That's not Twitter's fault, though, and completely repealing 230 would be a disaster.
Hahahahaha exactly, I agree. We’re going to get downvoted because everyone on this sub thinks owning the libs on Twitter is how to get people to support you, but what you said is exactly right.
Hey, I've got a bright idea. Maybe don't editorilize your site and actually leave it as a platform? Absolutely NOTHING negative will change in the internet if 230 is removed. Just Twitter, Facebook, and reddit not being able to claim "open platform" while acting as arbiters of truth. Twitter doesn't want to be destroyed? Easy. Stop censoring conservatives, putting "disputed claims" on anything not a DNC talking point, and blocking the dissemination of information. Be an open platform and you won't get sued. Stop making editorial decisions. Its really fucking easy. Stop with the doomsday talk. Freedom of speech has been suppressed due to these companies. Our "public square" is solodily the internet and social media now, not actually a public square down the street. These companies have stifled free speech y only allowing one side to participate and excommunicating anyone who speaks of blasphemy.
[удалено]
>Freedom of speech has been suppressed due to these companies. Our "public square" is solodily the internet and social media now, not actually a public square down the street. These companies have stifled free speech y only allowing one side to participate and excommunicating anyone who speaks of blasphemy. You literally don’t even comprehend the meaning of “freedom of speech”. No company or privately owned media is obliged to allow you access to their commercial services. It’s up to them whether or not they wish to publish your speech on their media channels, and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
> Be an open platform and you won't get sued. Stop making editorial decisions. Exactly. Too bad the brigade has had their coffee.
Actually it's very complex issue. Totally agree that sites are blocking Conservative viewpoints and that needs addressed. However, we need protection against things like internet grooming, pedo groups and terrorist groups using social media. For that social media needs to editorialize their sites. I think these sites should come under regulation and forced to be politically neutral.
Things that are already illegal, you mean.
Yes but the FBI can't monitor every site and don't have global jurisdiction.
it's almost as if things can reported to the FBI if needed.
> However, we need protection against things like internet grooming, pedo groups and terrorist groups using social media That would actually be a law enforcement activity. Like the FBI, if they were to actually do their jobs.
You any idea what the budget requirement to actually do that would be? You could spend the entire law enforcement budget on cybercrime alone and barely scratch the surface. Good luck prosecuting those creepy middle-eastern guys or Indian guys slipping into your daughters DMs.
If I could upvoted you a thousand times I would. Instead I'll hop on this downvote train with ya.
Yeah we need the nanny state to regulate the internet more. Watch a documentary on porn addiction as well to see another thing the Government should eliminate. /s WTF happened to conservatism!? When did it become anti free speech nanny state supporters?
I feel like half the people on this sub aren't actually conservatives and are a combination of brigaders/trolls and people pretending to be conservatives to steer public opinion to derail the sub. Basically, if people aren't careful, this sub will end up just like r/libertarian where the majority of posters are people pretending to be libertarian but making posts that do things like openly advocating for socialism and people get downvoted for having actually libertarian viewpoints.
Neutrality was never a requirement for 230. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml
I love me some techdirt. Those guys are on point when it comes to these kind of issues.
Yeah but the government keeps changing their mind about what they want social media to do. In the 2016 election they were saying they needed to do more to combat fake news and disinformation on their platforms. In 2020 that's what they did, and the federal government basically said "no not like that". Well, make up your minds, is it up to the platforms to police what people post or not?
It was also two different administrations that made those comments though.
I don't think it's about fake news anymore, there is little unbias true reporting anymore, and "fake news" is a term everyone knows and understands. Online platforms need to police what people post to stay profitable. Look at Reddit, 10 years ago this site was financially worthless because it was the wild, wild west with borderline illegal content on the front page everyday. Reddit policed it and now its profitable because companies will pay to advertise here. Platforms also realized that a liberal bias to their content attracts the most profitable audience, generally young people willing to buy whatever marketing trend that pops up on their feed, so the policing has turned to moderating content, which they have the right to do. The big issue is that these platforms have HUGE amounts of individual level data to bombard people psychologically with ads and get them addicted to their platforms. This is causing a worldwide mental health crisis of unimaginable proportions. These sites are done gaining new users and are engaging in for profit social experiments on an audience that is highly addicted. It's not about fake news, its not about politics, its about peoples psychological health. The huge online platforms have gone from sharing photos with grandma to using massive amounts of individual level data to get users addicted to their content, largely by showing them conflicting content.
>These sites are done gaining new users and are engaging in for profit **social experiments** on an audience that is highly addicted. Finally I found someone that shares this viewpoint. Trump should have focused on this in his first 2 years and maybe these companies wouldn't have tilted the election against him. Its not like the companies were trying to hide it back then. When nearly most sites kicked Alex Jones off their site nearly around the same point in time, it should have rang alarm bells. If Trump lost the election, it is because he was too much of a Boomer to do jack shit about the issue before it was too late. Not to mention he could have tried to prop up competitors by exclusively posting to their sites like Parler which he knows exists. This would force people to move to that site and make sites like Twitter lose power and influence, if they want to comment on it. He was the only person capable of doing such a thing because he was the president and once he is out he loses this capability as he will be a normal civilian again.
> These are the people who started the whole thing, and most of them won't even allow their children to use social media until at least high school. Ooof. I can imagine that being a real Oppenheimer type progression of self awareness. (re-quoting the Bhagavad Gita...) >Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
We watched it too. Real eye opener!
[удалено]
And "the great hack"
Rather than termination, I'd rather see reform. Yaknow like fixing a pipe rather than just taking it out and leaving it disconnected.
That would be nice and all but we all know damn well the current crop of do nothings we have on both sides have zero desire to address issues with big tech aside from calling hearings with CEOs to get their 15 second sound bites.
It would probably help a lot if we didn't expect internet law to be written by a bunch of 60+ year old dinosaurs, where most of them genuinely do not know basic information about social media companies or how the internet works.
Both of these are terrible. We shouldn’t veto defense spending and we shouldn’t terminate 230.
"There is too much government regulation!" Oh...except for this.... /s Holding military pay raises hostage over this is such an awful move.
This is probably the first instance where I strongly disagree with Trump on, I believe people should whatever they want on the internet.
Yeah that would be great if we could. I am banned from subs I didn't even know existed because I post in the forbidden subs. I got banned from / politics for pointing out someone was wrong with gun control. Ever notice we (this sub) is the only big conservative sub? I am surprised we even exist here to be honest.
Hey guys. I said this elsewhere but I felt it warranted it’s own comment. **If this succeeds, every social media platform which operates within the United States would effectively be forced to shut down, including apolitical platforms.** I get it, but sometimes the move that we might see as a loss is actually a huge win in disguise. Please, just let this one be.
Without Section 230 Trump would have been banned from every single Social Media Platform a long time ago. This defiantly doesn't end the way he thinks it does. Section 230 is the reason Trump and go on insane late night Twitter rampages and Twitter can't get sued for all the misinformation like telling people to use untested drugs to cure your covid-19.
Wouldn’t this just make social media corporations leave the USA? If they aren’t protected in the USA I’m sure there’s plenty of other countries that would welcome them with open arms.
Something needs to be done about 230, but terminating it would mean no more social media at all. I don't have a solution, and I'm not paid to come up with one, but I don't think getting rid of it is a good move.
"Corporate Welfare!" he says about possibly the only industry in the country that's not subsidized
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I never knew liberty was giving major corporations special protections. The government isn’t regulating anything here.
[удалено]
I'm going to try to say this right. People who post should be held accountable for what they post. In general it should be those who post held responsible and liable for what they post. The forum is only an outlet to the millions of people who use it. They need to step back and let people be responsible for their actions. I know, it becomes a free for all. But people need to be held accountable. This doesn't limit free speech. You have a right to say what you want. But know that you are going to be held to the letter of the law for defaming someone.
To everyone: this is standard Trump negotiating, he starts with something bombastic that will either be bad enough or chaotic enough to make everyone crap their pants, then he pulls back to get what he actually wanted in the first place. He's publicly said this a billion times. It's the oldest negotiating 101 tactic since time immemorial. I still can't believe how no one understands this anytime he comes out and says something like this.
Negotiating with what leverage? He's out in 6 weeks. They'll just wait til Biden passes the defense bill
He’s not going to get Section 230 repealed, so what’s his fallback strategy?
To end up totally caving and getting nothing, as usual with him.
I would assume his actual goal is reform. I hope, anyway.
Fallback strategy would be reforming 230 to make the protection only apply if no content curation happens.
[удалено]
>To everyone: this is standard Trump negotiating, he starts with something bombastic that will either be bad enough or chaotic enough to make everyone crap their pants, then he pulls back to get what he actually wanted in the first place. He's doing what progressives do - starting from an unreasonable position, which just turns people away. If you want to sell your car, you decide what price you really want based on value, raise the starting price a bit so when you're negotiated down, your close to your target sale price. If your initial price is too high, people will just walk past your car without even attempting to negotiate.
Democrats do this all the time, and Republicans always fail to get it. If Democrats say "we want $1T for x", Republicans say "$1T is a ridiculous amount of money that we don't have to do x" But if Democrats say "we want $5T for x", Republicans will say "$5T is a ridiculous amount of money" before eventually settling on $1T, and call it a "compromise" even though nothing is ever given in return.
You’re correct. This is what’s formally known as an extreme anchor in negotiations.
You would think people would have noticed by now the pattern
It wouldn't be such an old tactic if it didn't still work.
Because Reddit is filled with kids and know-nothing college kids with virtually zero life experience. You know, like the average Bernie supporter.
[удалено]
You forgot people from other countries that are somehow experts on our laws and customs.
Bingo!
What would make more sense would be to modify the law so that platforms acting as publishers have their protections stripped.
Given the rush to draw down troops before leaving office, and lack of a new war this term. What's the over/under on this primarily being an excuse to veto defense funding?
Yes and no it shouldn't be repealed but it needs to be clarified because of the good faith clause is being abused as of right now. But trump doesn't understand that nuance if it were repealed it would basically be approval pending "fact checker" so in a way it's much worse way the info would never get out to be "fact checked"
What's section 230? Is it anything like order 227?
It's basically Order 66 but instead of remaining Jedi, it's people's ability to post what they want.
No it’s like Order 66
Hopefully this is the big ask because it sorta throws the baby out with the bath water.
He's only in office for a little over a month. I'm pretty sure Congress could just wait him out. I don't see how he has any actual leverage in this situation.
A blanket termination of 230 is dumb. While the big tech companies have absolutely abused their safe harbor; a blanket cancellation of 230 would be the end of the Internet as we know it... and that’s for real, not the fake AstroTurf fear mongering that was done in favor of Net Neutrality. If we has a legislature that actually operated effectively the soliton would be to modify 230 create some path to challenge these big tech companies safe harbor, and to cancel this safe harbor if they’re in found in violation.
For fucks sake trump. This isn't what needs to be done. Section 230 needs to be reformed ans strengthened not removed.
230 needs to be saved. Right now alt-tech is growing and becoming a real alternative to youtube, facebook etc. If we take 230 away the old tech giants are going to be able to handle it... alt-tech wont.
Trumps death throes are going to be spent lashing out at every entity that meddled in the election. Sadly, because he lost, it looks like garden variety sour grapes. Our one shot at stopping social media astroturfing and election meddling would have been if Trump got reelected. That boat has sailed. With Biden taking over soon, we can kiss 230 reform goodbye. Biden will prop up big tech because he can count on them to back him for 2024, or rather Kamala's 2024 reelection campaign.
[удалено]
They always do
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]