Well, this is the second of your articles I have read, and no doubt my last. You seem to spend a majority of your time on character assassination, discussing how much you dislike this or that person making an argument, and precious little on the arguments themselves, to a point where the thread of your article is utterly lost.
"Moderating content does not make you a “publisher” whether you are a social media company or a newspaper or anyone else." Okay. What is the crucial line where one might call it "moderating" and another person might call it "editorializing" or "allowing only approved content"? I mean, isn't THAT the question? Would you say it fair that SOME people might think social media companies have stepped well over that line, while OTHERS might think, nah, it's ok? Perhaps we could have a discussion of the various issues and court cases? Personally I think they HAVE stepped over the line on several occasions, and they are extremely sloppy (and partisan) in their "moderation" efforts to a point where we should consider revoking the Section 230 exception, even if that threat is just an attempt to get them to do a better job and establish clearer rules and standards.
I would be very sad to lose social media and repealing 230 would impact its availability. But if this many of us are going to abuse it instead of use it, then perhaps it is a pleasure we don't deserve.
Heard an interesting perspective on a Ricochet podcast by a major investor in these companies. In his opinion, thanks to the near-monopolistic power, and de facto total control of a huge segment of our modern communications methods, these companies are, in effect, government-like entities that have privatized our First Amendment rights.
He concluded that perhaps we need a “Digital Bills of Rights” that addresses what certainly creeps ME out.
How has our freedom of expression been *diminished* with the advent of Facebook and Twitter, as compared to the good old days before those companies existed -- back when you could always write a letter to the editor, or stand on the street corner with a bullhorn (both of which you can still do)? It seems to me these companies have created a new outlet for people, and have done so very well, which is why their competitors (like Gab, for instance) fail.
The issue is that the public square has been moved online to social media. You are intentionally skipping past the fact that no one pays attention to these things anymore because of the broader access provided by social media. As the original poster stated they have become government like in that they are now the public square where people interact. Legally the argument would be that social media companies act like a company town, only limited to speech. I would offer that instead of throwing out Section 230 whole hog, the last bit (listing types of speech sites can censor then saying "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected") should be interpreted more narrowly and sites whose primary purpose is to act as a public square should be held to account if rules that are viewpoint neutral are not enforced in a viewpoint neutral way just as a government would be if they violated people's free speech.
Lets' say, back in the old days they had a law where I could speak on a corner, but liberals could use a microphone and loudspeakers to drown me out. I was not allowed to use the same equipment. Or I wanted to start a conservative newspaper, but progressives conspired to prevent me from buying newsprint. Would that be legal, or fair?
Equal access has to be allowed for all voices. That includes all outlets.
Do you see anything wrong with what Google and Apple did with Parler? Kinda hard to "create a new outlet for people" when the oligarchs throttle your access to servers and pull your app from their stores.
Then there's the Parler CEO now in hiding with his family due to death threats. Competition seems to be getting a tad more intense these days. Granted, the threats aren't coming from Google employees. I think.
Well, this is the second of your articles I have read, and no doubt my last. You seem to spend a majority of your time on character assassination, discussing how much you dislike this or that person making an argument, and precious little on the arguments themselves, to a point where the thread of your article is utterly lost.
"Moderating content does not make you a “publisher” whether you are a social media company or a newspaper or anyone else." Okay. What is the crucial line where one might call it "moderating" and another person might call it "editorializing" or "allowing only approved content"? I mean, isn't THAT the question? Would you say it fair that SOME people might think social media companies have stepped well over that line, while OTHERS might think, nah, it's ok? Perhaps we could have a discussion of the various issues and court cases? Personally I think they HAVE stepped over the line on several occasions, and they are extremely sloppy (and partisan) in their "moderation" efforts to a point where we should consider revoking the Section 230 exception, even if that threat is just an attempt to get them to do a better job and establish clearer rules and standards.
For example, you are aware that Youtube demonetizes any video even mentioning COVID19? That is, even if you say "hey there are no new movies to review because of COVID19" you will be demonetized? Except they apply that standard quite unevenly - some sites and news organizations are allowed to discuss COVID19 freely, others not so much. https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/4/21164553/youtube-coronavirus-demonetization-sensitive-subjects-advertising-guidelines-revenue
So, is that okey dokey? or is there something to discuss?
Trump is gone. get a grip.
I would be very sad to lose social media and repealing 230 would impact its availability. But if this many of us are going to abuse it instead of use it, then perhaps it is a pleasure we don't deserve.
Heard an interesting perspective on a Ricochet podcast by a major investor in these companies. In his opinion, thanks to the near-monopolistic power, and de facto total control of a huge segment of our modern communications methods, these companies are, in effect, government-like entities that have privatized our First Amendment rights.
He concluded that perhaps we need a “Digital Bills of Rights” that addresses what certainly creeps ME out.
How has our freedom of expression been *diminished* with the advent of Facebook and Twitter, as compared to the good old days before those companies existed -- back when you could always write a letter to the editor, or stand on the street corner with a bullhorn (both of which you can still do)? It seems to me these companies have created a new outlet for people, and have done so very well, which is why their competitors (like Gab, for instance) fail.
The issue is that the public square has been moved online to social media. You are intentionally skipping past the fact that no one pays attention to these things anymore because of the broader access provided by social media. As the original poster stated they have become government like in that they are now the public square where people interact. Legally the argument would be that social media companies act like a company town, only limited to speech. I would offer that instead of throwing out Section 230 whole hog, the last bit (listing types of speech sites can censor then saying "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected") should be interpreted more narrowly and sites whose primary purpose is to act as a public square should be held to account if rules that are viewpoint neutral are not enforced in a viewpoint neutral way just as a government would be if they violated people's free speech.
Yes.
Lets' say, back in the old days they had a law where I could speak on a corner, but liberals could use a microphone and loudspeakers to drown me out. I was not allowed to use the same equipment. Or I wanted to start a conservative newspaper, but progressives conspired to prevent me from buying newsprint. Would that be legal, or fair?
Equal access has to be allowed for all voices. That includes all outlets.
Do you see anything wrong with what Google and Apple did with Parler? Kinda hard to "create a new outlet for people" when the oligarchs throttle your access to servers and pull your app from their stores.
Then there's the Parler CEO now in hiding with his family due to death threats. Competition seems to be getting a tad more intense these days. Granted, the threats aren't coming from Google employees. I think.
I don't have a problem with the actions large companies are taking with respect to Parler. Read Amazon's response to Parler's lawsuit in its entirety to see why. https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20449127-amazon_response
Reads like your typical Antifa strategy session.
The Pulitzers ruled the newspapers, the the big three ruled the Television, now the big three rule the discourse on the internet....... for now