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.
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.