Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

[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 Steve: You just cannot shoehorn this issue into yet another discussion about China. SHAME ON YOU!

[Arjen]

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.

I do actually do that. However, I think that you miss the scope and scale of this thing. They use actual situations and blow them out of proportions in order to politicise and use it.

Tip: Where are facebook and youtube (not sure about twitter) banned and why? Is what is happenning now usefull for that country?

[SimonP]

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.

I think democratic states are obliged to establish and run internet forums for the purpose of the exchange of views and ideas of it's citizens, and that when this is done in an appropriate way they will be regarded as reliable by the general public and made use of, and in that way counter balance the influence of the big SM companies.

[Arjen]

So, after some time, I have found the Dutch law.
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0025028/ ... Hoofdstuk7
Chapter 2 is for companies providing services, like TV and radio stations and postal companies and phone. I expect internet providers there as well.
Chapter 3 is all about commercial activities.
These companies are then defined here:
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0030512/2011-11-01

Artikel 5. Hoofddoel 1
1De commerciële mediadienst op aanvraag heeft als hoofddoel het aanbieden van video’s. Hieruit vloeit voort dat de aangeboden video’s geen ondergeschikt belang dienen en dat de commerciële mediadienst op aanvraag een volwaardige, zelfstandig te gebruiken dienst is.

This part specifies that there can not be a hidden purpose and all video's must be accessible.
To be honest, I am curious how that applies to the filters that these platforms use.
Anyway, I think that also in Dutch law, these companies will have broken the pledge to be impartial.
Had they complied with this law, they would not be susceptible to the commissioner in charge of this:

Artikel 1. Strekking van de regeling 3
Deze regeling geeft de criteria weer op basis waarvan het Commissariaat bepaalt of er sprake is van een onder zijn toezicht vallende commerciële mediadienst op aanvraag zoals bedoeld in artikel 1.1, eerste lid, en artikel 3.29a van de Mediawet 2008.

I think the USA did the same, more or less.

(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]

This is why today facebook and twitter are in the courtroom. They broke sections 1 and 2 of the good samaritan section.

[Jack D Ripper]

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

You make a strong case for censorship.

[Jack D Ripper]

... Is it possible to draw a reasonably objective line between a provider of interactive computer services (passive) and a publisher of news (active)?

Yes, I think so. Your ISP, assuming they just connect you to the internet, is a passive provider of computer services. Insofar as they just connect you, they are purely passive. Of course, they likely have a web site, and with that, they are not passive and should be held responsible for whatever they do on their web site. However, something like Facebook is not merely passive, as, for example, they decide what items get promoted in members' "News Feed", in accordance with their algorithms and choices they make regarding it. So for a company like Facebook to claim that they are passive is just a lie. They promote stories. They should be held responsible for what they promote. If they promote hoaxes, they should be held accountable for it. If they want to be purely passive, then they need to change what they are doing.

[Arjen]

I think democratic states are obliged to establish and run internet forums for the purpose of the exchange of views and ideas of it's citizens, and that when this is done in an appropriate way they will be regarded as reliable by the general public and made use of, and in that way counter balance the influence of the big SM companies.

If the state organises it, the question is how impartial it will be. You do specify democratic states, but there are enough countries claiming they are, while not exactly being that.

Does this mean that you think a state should run a facebook-like, youtube-like and twitter-like platform to counter them? Or just a general platform that shows all news/discussions?

[Arjen]

Yes, I think so. Your ISP, assuming they just connect you to the internet, is a passive provider of computer services. Insofar as they just connect you, they are purely passive. Of course, they likely have a web site, and with that, they are not passive and should be held responsible for whatever they do on their web site. However, something like Facebook is not merely passive, as, for example, they decide what items get promoted in members' "News Feed", in accordance with their algorithms and choices they make regarding it. So for a company like Facebook to claim that they are passive is just a lie. They promote stories. They should be held responsible for what they promote. If they promote hoaxes, they should be held accountable for it. If they want to be purely passive, then they need to change what they are doing.

Our prime minister once explained that, depending on the action in question, a company can fall under legislation x and another under y. In the same way that a parent behaves differently at the job, or a politician that also has a private business. Youtube, for example accepts all movies. In that sense, the fall under providing a service. When removing bad stuff like beheadings or sexual stuff, they fall under 'good samaritan'. However, blocking news about Biden's corruption, makes them fall under the commercial laws. That means that suddenly they do not fall under the group that provides a service. Which means suddenly they do fall completely under a private company showing us things on their website. So, they crossed a line. It has to be punished severely.

[SimonP]

I think democratic states are obliged to establish and run internet forums for the purpose of the exchange of views and ideas of it's citizens, and that when this is done in an appropriate way they will be regarded as reliable by the general public and made use of, and in that way counter balance the influence of the big SM companies.

If the state organises it, the question is how impartial it will be. You do specify democratic states, but there are enough countries claiming they are, while not exactly being that.

Does this mean that you think a state should run a facebook-like, youtube-like and twitter-like platform to counter them? Or just a general platform that shows all news/discussions?

You think commercial companies are more likely to be impartial? If we compare the manner in which SM giants have performed and different democratic states I don't think it supports that, to put it mildly! The SM giants act like dictators. Yes, democracy is a question of degree to some extent but it is clear there are many countries which are democratic in name only, take the Democratic People's Republic of Korea! However this at least indicates the fact that there is a value attached to the principle and therefore something to be strived to be recognised as in some way.

I'm not entirely sure what the difference in principle, but they could at least start with the latter as a minimum. I think it's important that politicians and officials use the state platform unless what they are sharing is private. I find it very problematical that presently many use SM.

[Arjen]

Live hearings of twitter and facebook and google. I thinktthe democrats were a mockery and the twitter CEO should be arrested forth with. I am onky halfway more cell might be needed!

Let me know what you all think!

[Sy Borg]

Yes, all of King Donald's enemies must be put in prison. That how democracies operate.

[Arjen]

Greta finally shows her totalitarian colours...

[Sy Borg]

Do you really not understand irony? Have you never encountered it before??

irony
noun
- the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

If I was a totalitarian (like King Donald I), I would have banned you permanently a day after you had joined because you immediately started complaining. Really, I probably should be much more strict to drive off those who would drive off those with no interest in cheap point scoring and epithets.

[Arjen]

I mean: even to the point of defending the censorship of twitter, facebook, youtube and google. You even agree with that because it furthers your political agenda. Which, therefore, must be totalitarian (utilitarianism in the form of 'socialism') agenda. You have no outrage of the corruption of the Biden family, none over limiting the freedom of the press, but you do about people that actually report on this corruption. Because I am showing these attempts at revealing information that should be researched by the press, you instead project your totalitarianism onto me, even pretending I am in league with the one that you call 'King Donald I'. While I am not even in, or from the states, nor have I any stake in who wins the election.

Seriously, you should get out of the news and political debate for a month or 2 and then re-enter with a fresh mind. I expect that the soap on your brain will have withered a bit, so that you can see more clearly how attempts at destroying the foundations of democratic rights all over the world are furthered b the way the CCP manipulates the press/internet.

Again: I do not exactly blame you for it. Billions of people world wide are not aware of what is going on. But, after I pointed things out, I expected you to catch on. The soap on your brain is blocking that.

[Sy Borg]

Where is your outrage of the corruption of the Trumps?

The millions in debt to China? Investments in Russia? Stealing from his own charitable foundation? Avoiding disclosing tax status, and then being found out to have paid less tax than we do in at least one financial year.

What about the attempts to erode democracy? False claims about postal voting? Deliberately hobbling the post office? Refusing to commit to a peaceful handover? Telling the Proud Boys to "stand by"?

Endless obvious lies, one after another.

Obstructing the course of justice. Blackmailing Ukraine for party partisan purposes.

Sacking anyone who dares disagree with him, costing the administration enormous corporate experience.

Disastrous failure with COVID not only costing many lives, but due to get much worse due to his irresponsible rallies. This includes dismantling Obama's pandemic response team months before the pandemic struck.

Hiring obvious shyster, Paula White, as his "spiritual adviser". Just send her money to buy a place in heaven [sic].

Grabbing vaginas? Stormy Daniels?

Whatever Biden's family has done pales pathetically by comparison with King Donald I.

No, you will forgive him any crime, any dishonesty, perversion of justice etc. The question is WHY???