Should Sect. 230 (grants immunity to social media) for content be repealed? Would poss lawsuits lead to better self-regulation? Make them gatekeeper?

[DrPepper12]

Hillary Clinton called for the repeal of Section 230 of the (way out of date IMHO - 1996!!) TeleCommunications Act, which protects online platforms from being held liable for users content on social media.

"We should be, in my view, repealing Section 230, which gave early platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just "pass-throughs" and that they shouldn't be judged for the content that is posted," Clinton said "But we now know that that was an overly simple view, that if the platforms, whether it's Facebook or Twitter/X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don't moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control," she continued. "And it's not just the social and psychological affects, it's real life."

Clinton said the social media companies should have their immunity stripped so "guardrails" could be self-imposed WITHOUT regulations as the potential of being sued for third party user content would guarantee this self-serving outcome.

Many free speech advocates are torn by the issues raised. Some have said "This has nothing to do with censorship of either conservative or liberal views. These social media companies are publicly traded, private corporations accountable to their shareholders above all other considerations - that's capitalism. If, as private corporations they choose not to host material they believe to be inflammatory, false or misleading content that unfortunately would create another scenario whereby the private corporations are now the gatekeepers for an increasing number of Americans source of news." Others have stated "However, the imposition of rudimentary "guard rails" would be prudent and the issue of gatekeeping would have to be addressed as a known consequence of putting those guardrails in place.".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/hillary-clinton-says-social-media-companies-need-moderate-content-we-lose-total-control.amp

Yes. They are a now a profitable, mature menace not in need of govt protection.

No. Although private corps, they are the new "town square" that should be protected so views are robust & varied.

I see both sides but making them gatekeepers is the worse evil. Let it be for now.

Some other suggestion. I agree this is an important issue that needs resolution.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Very complicated when zooming in. However when zooming out, I see that The Market is only caring about ethics when there is profit to expect from it. I see that taking responsibilities from actions is not the plan at all for companies in general. They only do it by gov restriction or when there is profit.

So, do I trust The Market? Evidently not. Do I trust any Gov? to an extent only, but way more than companies, given the primary goal, and the goal in practice, these two institutions have. The struggle between these two giants, in their complicated dance of foes or friends, for me remains the same, if Gov doesn't regulate The Market, then in the current state of things, I expect total chaos unleashed. And it looks already chaotic enough to me.

Also, an irony stays, if the wrong Gov gets too much power then I can see authoritarians win, this shadow is in EU already... Maybe I could miss capitalism after all. What's even more funny? Authoritarians, where are they exactly, on which side of the fence? I have my idea, but I'm certain many will disagree. Time will tell 😏

[Juxtapose]

The current system is sufficient in the United States. You can be a platform but you cannot editorialize, so you maintain your protection by not editorialized. We just need to hold platforms who actually editorialize accountable.

You do not want the government becoming the Ministry of Truth. Let the open marketplace of ideas thrive.

And Hillary Clinton is pure fucking evil. If she wants something, you probably want to do the opposite.

[DrPepper12]

@Juxtapose by editorialized do you mean messing with the algorithm for what rises to the top and what doesn't? Picking winners and losers and the information marketplace?

And for my money, little shrub bush and the bipartisan rush in to the "Patriot" Act was the epitome of evil because it was intentional. I don't think any of them ever read the book Frankenstein...

[OtterMan68]

more speech is always better than less speech.
Ending protections would lead to a flood of lawsuits which would do one of two things: drive the social media companies out of business or have them drastically restrict what's allowed. It would also give rise to more dark web social media sites that have zero moderation and anything goes: murder for hire, human trafficking, etc.

[DrPepper12]

That is a very likely outcome, One I did not anticipate! Thank you for that great observation!

[exitseven]

yes, they are not common carriers. They censor content and control the flow if information. Thry are publishers.

[DrPepper12]

Damn right they do! Excellent observation!!

[Juxtapose]

Platforms should absolutely exist but they should lose their privilege of being platforms when they editorialize. I do not want the government being a Ministry of Truth, absolutely fucking know. That would be worth starting a revolution over.

[Juxtapose]

*absolutely fucking no

[Juxtapose]

He's only doing this by the way because Elon Musk owns Twitter. I can guaran-fucking-tee you she would not be pushing this if Twitter was owned by some sjw who bowed to the deep state.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Not wise to bring the term SJW here, Musk has the hat of the SJW as well, just with his idea of what social justice should be.

[Juxtapose]

It's cute how people try to turn that around on him but no, he is not an SJW. He is promoting the Open marketplace of ideas.

[gatixek710]

Another day, another democrat trying to violate a constitutional amendment. You should be embarrassed you voted for her.

[DrPepper12]

They're private corps! There's no censorship involved whatsoever! It's simply taking away the indemnification the originally enjoyed as common carriers. they are now mature with capabilities to monitor. But it's not censorship that's when the government actually prevents the spread of information. Know your definitions next time.

[gatixek710]

woah, woah woah. you just typed “It’s not censorship when the government prevents the spread of information”?

I really can’t tell. Are you a fucking moron? Or do you think everyone else is stupid enough to believe what you just typed.

Holy fuck, thank God you were never my kid’s teacher. They’d leave your classroom dumber than when they entered it.

Your brain is oatmeal.

[DrPepper12]

Might wanna read that again geniASS. Don't skip "That's". I guess the lack of a period through you off... 😂

Private corps CAN do WTF they want on their platforms RN. Read the ToS fool.

I await your apology

[gatixek710]

The government coerced Facebook to hide the hunter laptop link from the NY Post. So yeah. About that.

[DrPepper12]

Not exactly. Source?

[gatixek710]

Source is I put the NY Post link on my facebook and it was deleted. Other source is zuck’s admissions in recent weeks.

[DrPepper12]

This isn't FB. Just post it or zucks admissions here

[gatixek710]

what is "this"? You are capable of googling "'zuckerberg facebook censorship".

[Anonymous]

I ain't reading all that.

If Hilary wants it, I don't want it to happen. Her and Bill (especially Bill) should be in jail.

[Juxtapose]

^^ this

[DrPepper12]

Dumbest post ever. "I have nothing to learn from my enemy". SMDH

[Opinion Owner]

Bill Clinton is a rapist and the Democrats never denounced him.

You yourself call out Trump about Epstein (which he never traveled to the island and banned Epstein from Mar-a-lago), yet you never talk about shady ol Bill.

[Juxtapose]

Yeah the far leftists only talk about what is convenient for them.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

BUT

[DrPepper12]

I've said for decades investigate slick willies extra curricular activities. Stop with the ASSumptions, broad brush and whataboutism!!

Now try again. MY question