A friendly reminder of free speech and how online "platforms" are not in compliance with current law.

[Juxtapose]

"Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “ `Good Samaritan' blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that—far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content—instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider."

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/02/2020-12030/preventing-online-censorship

Are you still confused?

A platform is like a bulletin or a telecommunications company, it is simply a vehicle for you to use to communicate and it cannot editorialize. Censorship outside of targeting child pornography and whatnot voids your status as a platform and thus you are liable for everything your users post.

A publisher on the other hand is like a newspaper. They can editorialize all they want but they are fully responsible for everything within the newspaper. Something like YouTube would become unviable overnight if it was responsible for everything its users posted.

[Lliam]

"or otherwise objectionable" is the loop hole.
The government violates this law by actively meeting with and encouraging internet companies to censor information that it doesn't want the public to hear.

I know people who have been banned from Fascibuch and Twitter for posting information that comes straight from CDC data. The intent is to only allow people to hear what their rulers want them to hear. And, in the end, the government is part of the conspiracy, just as it controls MSM.

I read something recently that said the reason for all the alarm over TikTok isn't about Chinese spying. The purpose of EVERY internet site is to gather information. China doesn't need TikTok for that. The problem is, the U. S. government has a hard time getting TikTok to censor information compared to U. S. based sites.
The same thing happened to RT. RT wasn't censoring information, so the U. S. had to claim that it was Russian propaganda.

[Juxtapose]

God I hope Trump gets reelected. He actually understands that America's public discourse was never supposed to be controlled like this.

[Adaeva]

You are telling it like it is.

[Jamie05rhs]

The key word in the law is "harassing.". Since everything is defined as harassment now, they can basically ban you for anything they want. Because you have offended the sensitivities of the SJW snowflakes. Even if you are not talking about anyone directly, if they're offended by it, then it is deemed objectionable.
And "violence" can mean anything, too. Since even "silence is violence."

[Juxtapose]

Yes, I hate these nebulous terms like "harassment" and how "violence" was twisted.

[Jamie05rhs]

Thanks

[TrueConfection]

I just got a notification that I was censored here for simply posting a link to one of Creepy Joe's speeches.

[Adaeva]

It means they can do whatever they wish and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Juxtapose]

Huh?

[Adaeva]

The USA is a criminal organization where the rich and powerful rob the people to become multi-billionaires.

[Adaeva]

They have acquired absolute power so there is nothing you can do about it. Just realize, they will rob you of half of what you earn so just make the best with what they don't take.

[RavVid]

As not a US citizen, it seems to me a highly useful distinction to make between a publisher (such as a newspaper) and a communication channel (such as a phone or email or a bulletin board).

It has quite surprised me that I have clicked on a question in GAG to find shortly later it has been censored even though it was unremarkable.

Just as I can say anything I like on a phone call or write in an email, it should be allowed in online forums without censorship. It would be better to codify what is harassment or objectionable with objective tests in my thinking. At least then it is something that can be debated.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I'm of the opinion that the internet should not be regulated at all outside of user data protection. And should otherwise be a "wild west" type of environment.

[Juxtapose]

What about child pornography? If that's not banned then you will see that everywhere.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Pictures, gifs, or videos of a person count as user data, be it containing nudity/sexual acts, or not, thus they count under "user data protection", so both the child and parents of the child should be allowed to legally force those those pictures to be removed, and the child should be able to sue over it.

Adults by the way should also have the right to sue and force the takedown of their user data as well. Basically if it is your data, you should have complete control over it. This could be pictures, videos, gifs, important documents, art, music, account info, etc.

Outside of personal data such as those, censorship is just renewing stupidity.

[TheSpaceGnome]

So yes, it should be banned, but this idea is the only reliable way to do so.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I should note that any internet based laws I'm not sure how to enforce. The internet is international, so if someone in another country posts your data, can you even do anything since their laws are different? And if so, who's court system do you make the case to?

[Anonymous]

That is the heart of the issue, the problem of course as pointed out by others is pointlessly broad nature of the "exceptions" as currently defined makes the act pointless.

[Juxtapose]

Luckily Trump spells it out 👍

[Opinion Owner]

@juxtapose
I am regularly impressed how politicians can write such big and complicated laws which have no effect on the account of their exceptions.

We are either being routinely scammed and lied to by our politicians who simply do their own thing most of the time, or we are electing the most incompetent members of our socility who are themselfs being routinely scammed and lied to by the people they let do their job for them.

Either way we the people are not running the federal goverment, and have no been for far too many generations. Which begs the questions why do we want the same goverment running anything at all?

they must beleive they are getting something out of it remotely comparable to what your putting into it. Which generally means you don't have a clue how much your putting into it in the form of everything you buy and every job you can't take.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Well YouTube pretty much removes anything that's not cat videos, so they're already bowing to the censorship police.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Why did GaG put this in "Sexuality"? 🤔😂

[Juxtapose]

Inb4 some mod comes in here and bitches at me for putting it in the wrong category when I did not put it under the sexuality category.

[PraviteliNahuiValite]

The comment removal of youtube is even worse. Nobody is notified that when you said "hello youtube" your comment was removed and nobody saw it. Yes, it auto removes even something as harmless as that. I see people struggling to communicate there about simple nutrition.

[Exterminatore]

I think we need to get the FB fact checkers to look into what you posted. Surly they are beacons of truth and Justice. Lmao

[Juxtapose]

[Exterminatore]

Funny meme!

[gorydetails]

[RealMarek]

You are correct about the intent of the law, but remember that “sovereign is he who makes the exception.”

[strateguy632]

face the facts we dont have protected "speech" and that is why the replies we see are one sided

[Juxtapose]

Not really man.

[KrakenAttackin]

Wait? So the GAG Gynocracy does have limitations after all? Where is @OlderAndWiser for a legal position?

[jackiechanfan]

wait what...

[Juxtapose]

I bet they don't teach you this in social studies or civics, huh?