Section 230

Author: Danielle

Posts

Total: 35
Topic's author
#1
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 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" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. It is the law that says that if I post something defamatory on Twitter, the victim can sue me, but not Twitter.

A lot of people including Donald Trump and Joe Biden among other lawmakers have called to repeal Section 230. I'm firmly opposed. What say you?  
#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Twitter doesn't need section 230 to post a TOS clause protecting themselves from lawsuits. It's a bogus issue.
#3
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Danielle
I think that repealing section 230 would lead to way more censorship and would hurt smaller alternatives. The way to solve censorship does not in any way include a repeal of section 230. Might include some changes to the law, though
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
It's a fundamentally dumb philosophy to think private business needs the government's intervention to protect them from liability lawsuits. Private industry is far more capable at protecting itself on an individual basis than any government agency, no matter what the promises are.

From what I know of the capabilities of private industry, the entire genesis of the 230 scenario seems to be mostly a marketing plan using the government as cover for their shareholders as they went ahead with censorship they planned long before 230. As I said before, private industries certainly didn't need 230 to shield themselves from lawsuits. They never needed it in the past.
#5
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a fundamentally dumb philosophy to think private business needs the government's intervention to protect them from liability lawsuits. Private industry is far more capable at protecting itself on an individual basis than any government agency, no matter what the promises are.
We aren’t talking about needs. It is just a good idea for the government to forbid lawsuits in this case. Otherwise, you could not have any website that allows individuals to post their thoughts without thousands of lawsuits being filed every time someone says something defamatory or false about another.

In this case, the private companies defending themselves would mean constantly racking up legal costs
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Otherwise, you could not have any website that allows individuals to post their thoughts without thousands of lawsuits being filed every time someone says something defamatory or false about another.
That's a ridiculous statement. Colleges aren't sued for defamation when students yell nigger on their campus. They have a code of conduct like any other speech venue that protects them from liability for defamation.

We don't have a section 230 for private colleges.

When colleges start censoring is the point at which they get sued. It's not frivolous liability lawsuits that colleges need government protection from.

The entire 230 deal is one big marketing scam; that's all it is. Period.
#7
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,356
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
@Topic
I think it depends on context.
Gross negligence or intentionally stoking a flame makes it a bit deserved for a company to be sued.

But internet 'is huge, 'lot to moderate, hazy lines at times, what's acceptable, or what's not.
I 'do bit like idea of users using platform to create their 'own construct that 'they are responsible for, 'not the company.

Someone who makes a 'tool, need not be 'too responsible for how the buyer, user, uses it.
Topic's author
#8
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
So you don't think Section 230 should be repealed, right ? 
#9
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
needs reform
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
I think Government needs to get out of the business of business. Don't you think so?
Topic's author
#11
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
For some reason I always forget that you are incapable of answering a simple question with either a "yes" or a "no." You should make that a goal for yourself in 2022. Start small. Ask yourself something like am I thirsty, yes or no? Am I tired, yes or no? And then work your way up to more complex subjects like laws and politics. 

#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
You didn't ask a yes or no question. You just said Right? As if you needed validation from me when I know you clearly do not.

Here's a goal for you in 2022. Frame your questions like this: Do you support the repeal of section 230?
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
And if the meaning of post #2 was entirely over your head, let me further patronizingly and condescendingly indicate in the dialect of New Yorkers how irrelevant the existence of 230 is to the security of big tech platforms.

So a yes or no answer to your quasi-question is also equally irrelevant.
Topic's author
#14
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Asking "right?" is not asking for validation -  it's asking for confirmation. I asked in the OP if people thought section 230 should be repealed. You made three posts without ever answering that question, so I was left to make an inference through context clues which is exactly what I did. And asking you whether or not I was right about my guess is, in fact, a yes or no question. Pretty simple stuff. 
Topic's author
#15
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
The fact is many people have no idea what Section 230 says and have been lied to by politicians and the media about its purpose. Among the most common misconceptions is that Section 230 requires sites to choose between being a “platform” or a “publisher," that Section 230 requires sites to moderate content in a neutral fashion, that Section 230 is some sort of “gift” to the tech industry, and that sites lose Section 230 protections if they demonstrate a point of view. All of those takes are wrong, and I recall some Trump apologists on this site echoing that misinformed propaganda. I was wondering if people were still confused about why Section 230 is important. It's not a "scam" -- it's very important to how the internet works. It is essential to having sites that feature comments from users. 

#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
You made three posts without ever answering that question,

On principle, I don't support any government protections of select private industries. But on this particular one, I don't think it matters if it's not repealed as companies can still do whatever the hell they want anyway with or without it. So I don't have a yes or no answer really on your question.

I really don't like talking in threads focused mainly about Trump since they almost always get derailed into irrelevant bullshit, but I really want to know exactly what you think would happen to twitter and facebook (meta?) if 230 were repealed today?
#17
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
That's a ridiculous statement. Colleges aren't sued for defamation when students yell nigger on their campus. They have a code of conduct like any other speech venue that protects them from liability for defamation. 
Those aren’t comparable for two different reasons. First, yelling slurs isn’t defamation. That’s just saying something rude and isn’t illegal or a violation of civil law.

Second, a social media platform that hosts posts online is different from a student on a campus saying words. The school is in no way promoting what they say unless they printed it in a school newspaper, whereas a social media company aids in spreading information from posts.

When colleges start censoring is the point at which they get sued.
That’s because public colleges are forced to respect free speech rights because they are government institutions.

The entire 230 deal is one big marketing scam; that's all it is. Period.
Absolutely not. Without protection from being sued for what people say on your site, companies will act more like publishers than platforms, meaning more control over content

#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Absolutely not. Without protection from being sued for what people say on your site, companies will act more like publishers than platforms, meaning more control over content

They are already doing that though. So what was the goal of 230 then?

That’s because public colleges are forced to respect free speech rights because they are government institutions.
That was a private college that got sued if I read it correctly. Oh you're right it was public.

Regardless, if you read the Scotus brief, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf it doesn't say it gave special consideration for the public or private or government status of the school as the basis for their decision. That's a big deal. Do a word search for "Public" or "government" and see for yourself.


#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Those aren’t comparable for two different reasons.
I think they are absolutely comparable. For example, MSNBC got the pants sued off of them for defamation while also having active Facebook and twitter accounts.
The stories about how racist and white supremacist Sandman were circulated all over college campuses with some of the keynote speakers also working for MSNBC. There were a myriad of other venues in print and radio that also hosted the hate speech. None of those venues had nor needed section 230 protections.

Facebook and twitter were never remotely considered a guilty party to the defamation Msnbc did to Sandman; nor were any other media hosting platform or any college. Section 230 wasn't needed, or necessary; and even if there was a need for legal protection, those private industries can and should have made their own legal disclaimers like the rest of private industry. You still have yet to make the case why Facebook and twitter are so special that the government just has to play favorites with those private industries as a unique case.

It baffles me the mental gymnastics used to justify why government should be the entity picking the winners and the losers in a supposedly free market with free competition while also knowing full well government is the only sanctioned monopoly.
#20
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I’ll get back to ya soon, just been slammed with work 👌
#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Danielle
the petrol-station is not responsible for the bank-robbery

the automobile manufacturer is not responsible for the bank-robbery

the weapon manufacturer is not responsible for the bank-robbery

the clothing manufacturer is not responsible for the bank-robbery

the road-construction company is not responsible for the bank-robbery

the telephone company is not responsible for the bank-robbery
#22
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Danielle
I think there needs to be sensible discussions about this.

If you have left uncensored and publicly available defamatory or 18+ or whatever else type of content, there should be a deadline after which the owner of the website can be held responsible.

Never entirely responsible, of course the poster of the content is the one ultimately to blame but partially for sure.
#23
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Danielle
What say I? I say neither the intermediary nor the publisher of alleged defamatory speech should face penalty. Halfway there, at least.
#24
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
They are already doing that though. So what was the goal of 230 then?

They are purposely misinterpreting the law, which is why I think they should add very clear language. If they banned all censorship except those that violated any laws in order to receive 230 protection, that'd solve the issue.

Regardless, if you read the Scotus brief, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf it doesn't say it gave special consideration for the public or private or government status of the school as the basis for their decision. That's a big deal. Do a word search for "Public" or "government" and see for yourself.

They specifically mentioned that it was public. Are you saying that they specifically mentioned that the public/private distinction didn't matter or that they didn't mention it was public in their opinions?

Because the way the Constitution works is that it prohibits the government from doing things. That's why you can get fired from your place of employment for expressing political opinions after work on your private social media account, but professors can't be fired at public universities for what they say. I think personally that the Constitution should be applied more to the private sector (and it legally can), but that's not where we are now.
#25
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I think they are absolutely comparable. For example, MSNBC got the pants sued off of them for defamation while also having active Facebook and twitter accounts.
The stories about how racist and white supremacist Sandman were circulated all over college campuses with some of the keynote speakers also working for MSNBC. There were a myriad of other venues in print and radio that also hosted the hate speech. None of those venues had nor needed section 230 protections.

Facebook and twitter were never remotely considered a guilty party to the defamation Msnbc did to Sandman; nor were any other media hosting platform or any college. Section 230 wasn't needed, or necessary; and even if there was a need for legal protection, those private industries can and should have made their own legal disclaimers like the rest of private industry. You still have yet to make the case why Facebook and twitter are so special that the government just has to play favorites with those private industries as a unique case.

It baffles me the mental gymnastics used to justify why government should be the entity picking the winners and the losers in a supposedly free market with free competition while also knowing full well government is the only sanctioned monopoly.
Twitter and Facebook were never remotely considered a guilty party BECAUSE of the broad 230 protections. If there was no 230, all sites would be liable for those things. Think of if a building owner let you put a giant sign with defamatory comments on his building. The building owner is responsible for the widespread character defaming because it occurred as a result of his help and not taking measures to stop it.

That industry is special in this regard because their entire business is the provision of a medium with which to speak with other people, hence why speech protections are particularly important.

There are no mental gymnastics, and there are no winners or losers being picked. There would be nothing resembling any social media we have today without 230. But let's assume you're right and Twitter and Facebook weren't sued by Sandman because of other reasons. That just would mean that 230 had no effect and it doesn't matter if it stays or goes.
#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
 If there was no 230, all sites would be liable for those things.
Absolutely not anymore than the private colleges were held responsible for hosting the MSNBC hate speakers that Sandman sued. It's all a fantasy threat designed to grant specific government protections exclusively to a powerful company. Period.

 That just would mean that 230 had no effect and it doesn't matter if it stays or goes.

Now you get it.
#27
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
If your position is that 230 literally does nothing, then why does it matter if it gets repealed?
#28
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Lol, I never once said I cared if it got repealed nor did I advocate for repealing 230 other than under the umbrella of all crony corporate protections that I don't like when the government gives special protections from one monopoly to another.
#29
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Absolutely not anymore than the private colleges were held responsible for hosting the MSNBC hate speakers that Sandman sued.
First off, I'm pretty sure they didn't defame Sandman while speaking on the campus.

Second, posting something online where anybody with an internet connection can see (or cable in this case) it is much more damaging and thus more likely to result in a lawsuit.
#30
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
As I said in post number 2...this is entirely a BOGUS ISSUE.