Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

[Arjen]

Change? No. Delete? Yes.

So, you think, like Trump that article 230 should be repealed?
Since you seem to indicate that said company should not be prosecuted for it?

[Steve3007]

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....

As I've said, I'm not really very interested in the specifics of your various claims about Biden, the CCP and so on.

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, yes? i.e. they'd be be legally prohibited from declining to use their app to broadcast anything, yes> Would you legally allow them to censure (i.e. comment negatively on) any of the content that they're legally obliged to broadcast?

[Sculptor1]

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....

As I've said, I'm not really very interested in the specifics of your various claims about Biden, the CCP and so on.

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, yes? i.e. they'd be be legally prohibited from declining to use their app to broadcast anything, yes> Would you legally allow them to censure (i.e. comment negatively on) any of the content that they're legally obliged to broadcast?

You have to ask is the repeal of this item practical.
Can you really make a service provider legally responsible for everything that appears through their medium?
It would be like making a motorway owner legally repsonsible for all road traffic accidents and offences. Now it might be that through some negligence in design or maintenance the accident was caused, but ought they be held repsonsible for every speeding offence?
I assume that "service provider" refers to Social media outlets, but why not ISPs?

[Arjen]

As I've said, I'm not really very interested in the specifics of your various claims about Biden, the CCP and so on.

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, yes? i.e. they'd be be legally prohibited from declining to use their app to broadcast anything, yes> Would you legally allow them to censure (i.e. comment negatively on) any of the content that they're legally obliged to broadcast?

You should be worried about what is going on though.
The CCP is doing this kind of thing.
Being from the UK, you should know that by now.
No, not as it belongs to individuals just posting dumb comments.
It is why I wrote:

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.

Anyway, that means that, the immunity as granted by section 230, only applies if the platforms (and providers) as specified in point 3 take the neutral stance and just show everything, unless proven to be something like a crime. Similar to the postal service, or phone companies. If they will not be neutral, they have to fall under 2 and be liable.

This is exactly what section 230 specifies. Unless I misread the content.

So, the companies have to be classified and perhaps legally registered as belonging to such a class.

[Steve3007]

I like to listen to a bit Leonard Nimoy every now and then too, just to remind me of what's possible.

[Steve3007]

Oops. Wrong topic. Please ignore.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think the internet is still so young that we (i.e. our communities and societies, across the globe) have not yet acceptably re-applied the rules, laws and codes of practice that we apply to other communications media (from books to newspapers to TV). ARPAnet was only invented in the 60s (I think), the internet followed in the late 70s/early 80s, and the world-wide web soon after. There are many posters here who remember all that happening. So it takes time to agree on an acceptable etiquette for the new medium. We'll get there....

As for holding service providers liable for material posted on their websites, I have some sympathy with them. On the one hand, it's simply unfair to hold them responsible for material posted by users who are not under their control. And yet a platform like Facebook, for example, is so big, and reaches so many people, that I am also uncomfortable leaving them entirely without responsibility.

Perhaps the responsibility for what gets posted on the interweb is distributed, with most lying with the people who post unacceptable material, but some applying to the rest of us, and to the platforms that enable them to post? After all, such practices will only become unacceptable once the majority are prepared to condemn individuals for doing it. We didn't stop drunk drivers until the majority became convinced that drunk-driving is unacceptable to them, and to us all. Interweb etiquette is surely much the same?

[Arjen]

I like to listen to a bit Leonard Nimoy every now and then too, just to remind me of what's possible.

Repeal it!
The only thing Leonard Nimoy did that was horrible!

As for holding service providers liable for material posted on their websites, I have some sympathy with them. On the one hand, it's simply unfair to hold them responsible for material posted by users who are not under their control. And yet a platform like Facebook, for example, is so big, and reaches so many people, that I am also uncomfortable leaving them entirely without responsibility.

No, it is not unfair. They choose to let complete idiocy go and block a newspaper with a real news story that is factually true, because it wrecked their candidate's chances. How is that honest business. Censor 1 thing and not another, while claiming to be protected by section 230 is going against the spirit and terms of that section.

[Sculptor1]

I think the internet is still so young that we (i.e. our communities and societies, across the globe) have not yet acceptably re-applied the rules, laws and codes of practice that we apply to other communications media (from books to newspapers to TV). ARPAnet was only invented in the 60s (I think), the internet followed in the late 70s/early 80s, and the world-wide web soon after. There are many posters here who remember all that happening. So it takes time to agree on an acceptable etiquette for the new medium. We'll get there....

As for holding service providers liable for material posted on their websites, I have some sympathy with them. On the one hand, it's simply unfair to hold them responsible for material posted by users who are not under their control. And yet a platform like Facebook, for example, is so big, and reaches so many people, that I am also uncomfortable leaving them entirely without responsibility.

Yet it is EXACTLY the point of their massive size that makes it impossible to take full responsibility for things that are posted.
The very nature of thesee SM outlets works by offering anyone a means by which to create an identity, and post what they will within mintutes.
The thing about free speech is that it is either free or not, there are not half measures.
If we want to keep free speech then tracability should be Social Media's only obligation.
China manages social media very effectively, but there are still times when (what they regard as.. ) bad material gets out.
But the really difficult question that I have posed at least TWICE on this thread is - if FB is to be held responsible then why no the Internet Service Provider itself? Since ALL Internet traffice is enabled by the ISPs then why do they get a free pass?

Perhaps the responsibility for what gets posted on the interweb is distributed, with most lying with the people who post unacceptable material, but some applying to the rest of us, and to the platforms that enable them to post? After all, such practices will only become unacceptable once the majority are prepared to condemn individuals for doing it. We didn't stop drunk drivers until the majority became convinced that drunk-driving is unacceptable to them, and to us all. Interweb etiquette is surely much the same?

[SimonP]

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.".

There's a very essential difference to a telephone call where someone tells another person lies as posting on social media is public, and is so in a big way so basically everybody is listening. I've just been suspended on Twitter without really knowing why. It's obvious to me that these SM companies are very biased and incompetent when it comes to controlling content and in any case they have far too much power for them to be allowed to reign over our information feed. I'm not sure but I think what's needed is government control to ensure freedom of information exchange with a transparent system dealing with misuse. There then needs to be intergovernment cooperation and agreement to try and achieve common regulation.

[Arjen]

There's a very essential difference to a telephone call where someone tells another person lies as posting on social media is public, and is so in a big way so basically everybody is listening. I've just been suspended on Twitter without really knowing why. It's obvious to me that these SM companies are very biased and incompetent when it comes to controlling content and in any case they have far too much power for them to be allowed to reign over our information feed. I'm not sure but I think what's needed is government control to ensure freedom of information exchange with a transparent system dealing with misuse. There then needs to be intergovernment cooperation and agreement to try and achieve common regulation.

Do you mean government control by means of more laws, or clearer laws? Of do you mean complete government control of the internet.

My wife being from Hong Kong and the CCP just having taken complete control, make me caution you here.

[LuckyR]

Change? No. Delete? Yes.

So, you think, like Trump that article 230 should be repealed?
Since you seem to indicate that said company should not be prosecuted for it?

Last I heard he was whining about his content being deleted, so I don't believe we are in agreement.

[Arjen]

So, you think, like Trump that article 230 should be repealed?
Since you seem to indicate that said company should not be prosecuted for it?

Last I heard he was whining about his content being deleted, so I don't believe we are in agreement.

That means again that you judged thing on an emotional basis, because the name Trump was mentioned.
1) The aim of propaganda and censorship is that people will judge things without examining any fact at all. You should recognise this pattern in you and break it by examining facts.
2) This is about article 230 and what you want can be done by repealing section 230. It will have the effect that companies will be allowed to determine what you are informed about. Even to the point of not knowing press releases of the White House and complete lies in renowned newspaoers about federal investigations concerning national security. Is that what you want? To repeal article 230?

[Steve3007]

This was to LuckyR:

You should recognise this pattern in you and break it by examining facts.

As has been noted before, you also need to recognize that you need to try to break the pattern of simply looking for evidence that supports the position you're defending. As a general rule, if you have a strong desire to take a particular position, as you clearly do, look for falsifying evidence. Challenge your own position. If you only look for verifying evidence then, in the internet age, you will always find numerous URLs to link to. If your response to people picking one of those URLs and following it to examine whether it really does support your position is to simply post a load more links, people will just ignore you. I presume you don't want that.

[Sculptor1]

This was to LuckyR:

You should recognise this pattern in you and break it by examining facts.

As has been noted before, you also need to recognize that you need to try to break the pattern of simply looking for evidence that supports the position you're defending. As a general rule, if you have a strong desire to take a particular position, as you clearly do, look for falsifying evidence. Challenge your own position. If you only look for verifying evidence then, in the internet age, you will always find numerous URLs to link to. If your response to people picking one of those URLs and following it to examine whether it really does support your position is to simply post a load more links, people will just ignore you. I presume you don't want that.

You know what your problem is Lucky: You can't cannot shoehorn this issue into yet another discussion about China. SHAME ON YOU!