Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Steve3007 »

Arjen wrote:The whole question is: should it be left to corporations to decide what to censor when it comes to newspaper or, god forbid, press secretaries of the White house?!
As I said, I think a strong free speech advocate (if they're being consistent) would say yes, corporations, individuals and everyone else are free to say whatever they want, to repeat/amplify/broadcast the words of anyone they want and to decline to do so. If declining to do so counts as censorship then, yes, they should be free to censor whoever they want (according to the strong free speech advocate). Such an advocate would say that governments have no business using their power to pass laws to incentivise people, on pain of punishment, to say, or refrain from saying, anything.
I say no. Perhaps section 230 should be amended to allow for "official sources" and let the free market punish the sources that were wrong?
I don't follow. If you're leaving it up to the free market of ideas then you are saying yes, corporations are free to censor, if by that you mean they're free to selectively decline to report people's words.
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Arjen »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 20th, 2020, 7:13 am Back in the old days, the news departments at ABC, CBS, and NBC policed each other. Any false news reporting was quickly seized upon and became a news story itself. Their competition with each other was based in part upon the quality of their product, which was information. Some newsmen resigned after reporting an unsubstantiated story.

But, things have changed, haven't they.

No intelligent human being should be giving any credence to stories spread by individuals on social media.

And, when Trump or anyone else says, "Some people say that...", we should all presume that this flags a false rumor that they are deliberately spreading.

School systems should prepare our kids to identify rumors so that they are not the victims of false information.
I do agree in principle Marv, but there are also examples of the opposite. I say this due to the lack of freedom of the press in Hong Kong nowadays and having seen things that beggar description being played off as nothing. Then, the lone witness is right.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16892
One example is there. My quote tags are off, but please understand that this is a very real thing where the CCP is concerned.
Steve wrote: As I said, I think a strong free speech advocate (if they're being consistent) would say yes, corporations, individuals and everyone else are free to say whatever they want, to repeat/amplify/broadcast the words of anyone they want and to decline to do so. If declining to do so counts as censorship then, yes, they should be free to censor whoever they want (according to the strong free speech advocate). Such an advocate would say that governments have no business using their power to pass laws to incentivise people, on pain of punishment, to say, or refrain from saying, anything.
A phone company never denies a call. If they are exempt, maybe this kind of silencing should be handled by an outside group that can be alerted by the medium, or not be exempt? Which would mean no more news on the internet?
Steve wrote: I don't follow. If you're leaving it up to the free market of ideas then you are saying yes, corporations are free to censor, if by that you mean they're free to selectively decline to report people's words.
I meant the paper. I you write crap, you will get less subscribers.
It would apply to a rule allowing media/news companies to place whatever they want and not be allowed to be censored by the internet medium.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Steve3007 »

Arjen wrote:It would apply to a rule allowing media/news companies to place whatever they want and not be allowed to be censored by the internet medium.
It's not exactly clear what you mean by "censor" and "internet medium" here. But, as discussed, if by "censor" you mean "decline to broadcast" and if by "internet medium" you mean the designer of a social media app then what you're saying is that you want anybody who designs a social media app to be legally obliged to use that app to broadcast anything that anybody wants them to broadcast via it. i.e. they'd be be legally prohibited from declining to use their app to broadcast anything. Would you legally allow them to censure (i.e. comment negatively on) any of the content that they're legally obliged to broadcast?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Steve3007 wrote: October 20th, 2020, 4:59 am This is consistent with your belief in the strongest possible form of free speech.
Yes, you'll find I'm very consistent. :wink:
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Arjen wrote: October 20th, 2020, 8:11 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 20th, 2020, 7:13 am Back in the old days, the news departments at ABC, CBS, and NBC policed each other. Any false news reporting was quickly seized upon and became a news story itself. Their competition with each other was based in part upon the quality of their product, which was information. Some newsmen resigned after reporting an unsubstantiated story.

But, things have changed, haven't they.

No intelligent human being should be giving any credence to stories spread by individuals on social media.

And, when Trump or anyone else says, "Some people say that...", we should all presume that this flags a false rumor that they are deliberately spreading.

School systems should prepare our kids to identify rumors so that they are not the victims of false information.
I do agree in principle Marv, but there are also examples of the opposite. I say this due to the lack of freedom of the press in Hong Kong nowadays and having seen things that beggar description being played off as nothing. Then, the lone witness is right.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16892
One example is there. My quote tags are off, but please understand that this is a very real thing where the CCP is concerned.
I assume that the Chinese Communist Party rules in part by propaganda, and that propaganda is most effective when independent news media are non-existent. That ought not be the case in any country with a free press. A free press can combat propaganda with the truth (assuming they want to do that rather than propagandize their own political views).
Steve wrote: As I said, I think a strong free speech advocate (if they're being consistent) would say yes, corporations, individuals and everyone else are free to say whatever they want, to repeat/amplify/broadcast the words of anyone they want and to decline to do so. If declining to do so counts as censorship then, yes, they should be free to censor whoever they want (according to the strong free speech advocate). Such an advocate would say that governments have no business using their power to pass laws to incentivise people, on pain of punishment, to say, or refrain from saying, anything.
Government does have an interest in protecting citizens against deliberate manipulation by false information. Laws prohibit fraud, libel and slander, false advertising, etc. And the FBI is investigating foreign influence upon political opinion. The question is whether government should also protect people from false or misleading political propaganda from within (and how to recognize it).
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: October 20th, 2020, 4:59 am
Greta wrote:The decree of King Donald I?

Seriously, there is a broader fault line that comes from private companies becoming so huge and powerful that they end up taking on governance roles once reserved to the executive arm. A small example would be how the supermarket duopoly in Australia regulated toilet roll purchases.
Yes, the broader problem is the general one of private companies growing to have size, power and structure which is comparable to that of nation states. I'm intrigued about the Australian toilet paper regulation example. I'll look into that one! At the start of the pandemic there was panic buying and shortages of toilet paper here too. There was some half-serious-half-humourous discussion on news programmes about the possible psychology of that. (Everyone loves a toilet story.)
At once stage I'd bought bulk face cloths in case I never saw another roll again. Every day, the supermarket shelves would be empty where loo paper would have been. Apparently some expert suggested that, during COVID's spread, sick people should stock up on their medications and toilet paper. This was printed and, as is typical, people filtered out notions of sickness and medications and focused on, again typically, crap :)

More seriously, since Australia is a middling nation, multinational companies can readily control policy outcomes. So Australia's energy policies have been largely dictated by fossil fuel companies, largely thanks to the fact that one of their own - board member of Genie Energy (formerly American Shale Oil), Rupert Murdoch - controls from 60% - 70% of Australia's print media.

This should be a conflict-of-interest scandal, but accountability for the private sector has not kept pace with its increasingly prominent and influential role in societies.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Steve3007 wrote: October 19th, 2020, 11:36 am In the US, there is a piece of legislation called the Communications Decency Act whose intent was to regulate pornographic material on the internet (dating from the mid 90's when the internet was generally regarded as just a place where nerds could look at pornography slightly more conveniently than previously.) A section was added which protects online service providers from legal actions against them as a result of content provided by third parties. That section is occasionally in the news now because Trump keeps calling for it to be repealed (hence the capitalisation in the title) due to Twitter and Facebook censuring him for some of the more extreme examples of inaccurate things that he's posted on those platforms.

Should it be repealed? Is it possible to draw a reasonably objective line between a provider of interactive computer services (passive) and a publisher of news (active)?
What is meant by "service provider"? Surely if you are going to extend responsibility to Facebook and Twitter for their content, then why would you exlude ISP companies?
It would be a massive breach of freedom of speech, and it would make your Internet really expensive if your ISP had to moderate ALL content.
It would mean that whoever you buy your Internet from would be forced to check on every posting, in every site and compare that for legality or potential harm.
An army of snoops and lawyers would have to be employed making the cost of your Internet connection rocket.
Either that or they would have to shut down all political and porn sites for fear of breaches in legality. Welcome to China!!!
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 19th, 2020, 7:00 pm
Arjen wrote: October 19th, 2020, 5:03 pm If it is repealed, what should come in it's place?
Without such a law, propaganda would have an easier time, or all kinds of horrific stuff.

What should replace it?
A rating system based on fact-checking. Prior to posting, a bi-partisan moderator group would classify the content as "personal opinion", "false rumor", "fake news" and any other categories that would give the reader a heads-up that what they are reading is non-factual.
How expensive would it be to have each and every post moderated?
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 20th, 2020, 4:22 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 19th, 2020, 7:00 pm

A rating system based on fact-checking. Prior to posting, a bi-partisan moderator group would classify the content as "personal opinion", "false rumor", "fake news" and any other categories that would give the reader a heads-up that what they are reading is non-factual.
How expensive would it be to have each and every post moderated?
Perhaps people should be charged to post, and we could take it out of that. But social media accumulates wealth by advertising revenue.

Oh. Another thing that would improve the quality of posts would be to require everyone to use their real identity rather than avatars. That way the quality of the source could be more easily judged.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 20th, 2020, 4:48 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: October 20th, 2020, 4:22 pm
How expensive would it be to have each and every post moderated?
Perhaps people should be charged to post, and we could take it out of that. But social media accumulates wealth by advertising revenue.

Oh. Another thing that would improve the quality of posts would be to require everyone to use their real identity rather than avatars. That way the quality of the source could be more easily judged.
Facebook already do that.
But the big question in my mind is, that if Facebook and Twitter have to have an army of moderators, then why no ISPs? It would mean the end of free speech if everyone could be held repsonisible for everything posted by ANY third party.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 20th, 2020, 4:52 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 20th, 2020, 4:48 pm

Perhaps people should be charged to post, and we could take it out of that. But social media accumulates wealth by advertising revenue.

Oh. Another thing that would improve the quality of posts would be to require everyone to use their real identity rather than avatars. That way the quality of the source could be more easily judged.
Facebook already do that.
But the big question in my mind is, that if Facebook and Twitter have to have an army of moderators, then why no ISPs? It would mean the end of free speech if everyone could be held repsonisible for everything posted by ANY third party.
Oh, I agree with you there. It really isn't social media's responsibility to do any of this. Individual's should be held responsible for what they post, just like they should be held responsible for what they do with a gun. Protecting the public from false advertising and fake news is a public responsibility, which means it falls upon us all, through legislation and enforcement, to clean up this mess.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Steve3007 wrote: October 20th, 2020, 4:32 am Just to be clear on this: The issue is where the line is drawn, in the social media age, between a passive facilitator of other people's communications and an active creator of content, such as a newspaper. At the ends of this spectrum: The law generally holds the publishers of newspapers to be at least partly responsible for the legality and accuracy of their content. It does not do the same with the telephone company. i.e. if someone uses a phone to tell other people lies, or plot terrorist acts with them, or whatever, the phone company isn't held to be responsible for that. And, of course, the phone company doesn't chip in with a warning if you say something untrue during a phone call. Section 230 effectively treats internet based service providers such as Twitter a bit like the phone company.

Trump's point (or perhaps more accurately, the point of the team who were tasked with retroactively finding a justification for his outrage at being censured) is that if the likes of Twitter are going to filter the content placed on their site for accuracy, as a conventional newspaper does (or at least claims/aspires to do) with its journalism, then they should be treated like a newspaper when it comes to being responsible for that content too. It's a consistency argument. In other words: "If I say something inaccurate or harmful on your platform its your fault for not controlling me.".
The difference is that the newspaper's editors select the creators of content and control it prior to being published. Their publications more or less represent their views and they're pretty accountable of what gets published. Unlike the telephone company, which only serves as a carrier of the content, without interfering in the creation of that content. Twitter and Facebook's filtering is applied afterwards to posts of people they don't select previously. Actually I would prefer no such filtering took place and these platforms moved away from policing speech, like a phone company. Too bad they behave as if they were newspapers, with an editorial agenda.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Arjen »

Steve3007 wrote: October 20th, 2020, 9:59 am It's not exactly clear what you mean by "censor" and "internet medium" here. But, as discussed, if by "censor" you mean "decline to broadcast" and if by "internet medium" you mean the designer of a social media app then what you're saying is that you want anybody who designs a social media app to be legally obliged to use that app to broadcast anything that anybody wants them to broadcast via it. i.e. they'd be be legally prohibited from declining to use their app to broadcast anything. Would you legally allow them to censure (i.e. comment negatively on) any of the content that they're legally obliged to broadcast?
Well, the problem here is that "declining to broadcast", in the case of the threat to national security, that the Biden mails show should be punishable. Especially if that same company does "broadcast" the fake news that it was a Russian plot, in order to cover that fact, is in itself a threat to national security. Fact checking is for off. Plus, what if it takes 5 years to fact check? With 20 days to the elections when that news broke, waiting for fact checking, or investigation by the authorities is also problematic.

Your example of a phone company is a good one. It shows that for example Internet service providers, platforms such as youtube, facebook and twitter and web hosting companies take a different position. Censoring on political bias is just as disgraceful as censoring on skin colour, for example. However, after a court case, proven crimes should be prohibited in the country. Such as beheadings done by Isis (or worse). So, those companies should be held accountable. In the case of the Biden emails, those companies took that power into their own hands.

Section 230 (thanks for pointing it out) clears the hosting companies from impressions of guilt if a customer does something that they are not allowed to do. They are obliged to block it, take it down and report it. That does not mean, however that they can be judge, jury and executioner. Especially not in cases of news agencies with more than 50 readers (random number). So, if a company is cleared from guilt by section 230, then they can't "decline to broadcast" on their own accord. If that is the case, we must assume that allowing other stories that appear to be illegal, is done purposefully and as such, those companies should be prosecuted.

You are making a case to choose between allowing for propaganda (allowing for lies by broadcasting companies without punishment), or allowing for censorship (allowing for blocking by broadcasting companies). But that choice is a complete misrepresentation of the matter. Both are problematic in an open and free society! The one automatically leads to the other. The The matter concerns the position of the person doing something, as Marvin_Edwards pointed out in the beginning.

1) A private person in the streets can more or less say what comes to mind. Even plain lies are often just shrugged off. But, putting that into writing can be prosecuted, depending on the situation.
2) A news agency, with a reach of a lot more people and in placing their messages on paper, or the internet, or in "the ether", is liable (or the reporter) all the time. That is because it is stored and the message reaches many people. So, we (the people) demand honesty. And rightly so.
3) The mail office is never liable for delivering the paper. In fact, declining to deliver is punishable, except in the case of known criminal behaviour.

In the same way, we can look at the internet:

1) A private person in the streets can put stuff into writing on a profile that normally will not be prosecuted. Messages on social media, below news articles are also not prosecuted. There is a small reach to people, plus, who takes that seriously? It is the news article that is taken seriously and has a reach.
2) A news agency, with a reach of many more people, is required to fact check. If it is proven to place proven lies on the internet, it is liable (or the reporter is, depending). That is because it is stored and the message reaches many people. So, we (the people) demand honesty. And rightly so.
3) The Internet service providers, platforms such as youtube, facebook and twitter and web hosting companies take a different position. They SHOULD never be liable for delivering the message. In fact, declining to deliver SHOULD be punishable, except in the case of known criminal behaviour.

=====================================================
The above is actually exactly what section 230 is there for. The choice between censorship and propaganda is not the actual matter at hand. Both are unallowable. So, repealing it, as mr Trump wants is actually not what he wants. Because under this act, the blame goes to the papers that made up the Russian Plot and to the broadcasters that blocked the email news. And they should be prosecuted. That, until now, they have been getting away with that is not the cause of section 230, in my opinion, but more the way it is explained.

I say this because of these texts in section 230:
A) Referring to my 3rd point(s) above:
Section 230, part C wrote: (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
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.
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
B) Referring to my 2nd point(s) above:
Section 230, parts D and E wrote: (d)Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e)Effect on other laws
(1)No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2)No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4)No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5)No effect on sex trafficking law Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A)any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.

I actually think that it is exactly what it should be and exactly what Marv means. And, as said above, it is not being acted on properly by the law. The matters with (and surrounding) the emails should be punished just as harshly as any matter that impacts the freedom of the press and speech to such a degree.

This actually also satisfies Greta Sculptor1 Count Lucanor 's conversations. Section 230 addresses what should be regulated where and because of that also who is liable in what situation. Again: All that is needed is for the LAW to catch up and start prosecuting twitter, facebook and youtube for censoring without legal cause, while simultaneously not censoring a proven lie. Clearly there was a politically motivated bias. Had this been about my personal posts versus another's personal posts, there would not have been an issue, because we are private individuals. But this is about well read newspaper, presidential candidates and press secretaries and DNI's. It might even go so far as treason (on behalf of democrats.....with ties to the CCP), depending on WHY these things were done.

Also: I was checking to see how we do this in The Netherlands. We do not appear to have a law like this. It just falls under the general media law, which includes intellectual property, if I understand correctly. I might get back to this at a later time, IF I can find out more, because that is proving to be quite a challenge.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7933
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by LuckyR »

Steve3007 wrote: October 20th, 2020, 4:59 am
LuckyR wrote:In a perfect world consumers of content could figure out what is fake. Obviously we live in a very imperfect world where many turn off their critical mind if the subject matter is to their liking. Thus I see no problem if a service provider wants to regulate what is broadcast on their bandwidth.
Fair enough. But if there is no problem regulating the content, should they also be held responsible for it by the repeal of section 230? That seems to be what's at issue. Or, as private companies (or as companies owned by shareholders), are they free to do absolutely anything they like with the content people use them to broadcast, even if they've grown to a size which makes them an institution? As an extreme example to illustrate the point, should Twitter be allowed to completely change the content of a tweet by a prominent public figure like Trump or Biden?
Change? No. Delete? Yes.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Sculptor1 »

TO my way of thinking just about ANYTHING that Trump wants to appeal, should rather be strenthened - or at least it should be looked at for the possibility that the law shold be strengthened, but definitely NOT repealed.
Trump only does things that he thinks are or his own personal good, based on a twisted sense of the world and his own brand of Narcissism and Histrionic behaviour.
His blanket claims of "False News" are pretty much all false in themselves, and are simply attacks on the freedom of the press - a freedom that this repeal would continue to attack.
Let's face it. Trump has made the USA a laughing stock of the entire world's media.
John Sopel is a respected journalist of long standing working for the BBC. The fact that Trump does not recognise him is bad enough in a leader of state, but to attack the BBC is just funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivqo5WfRCj0
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021