Posted June 19, 2019 Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is under attack again. Section 230 provides immunity to Internet providers and websites for third party content. This time the attack is focused on political content filters of “large” tech companies. The MO Senator wants transparency and audits of the content filters social platforms, like Facebook, use to censor their user provided content. Sounds OK, right? Who’s to say what political speech should be allowed? What’s going to limit government manipulation of 3rd party content filters to politics? You can bet your bottom dollar that if it passes this year, then next year it will be folded into FOSTA/SESTA and “large” will shrink to “any”. https://www.foxnews.com/tech/josh-hawley-takes-aim-big-tech 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 20, 2019 Bit, thanks for the information. This is worth following, for a number of reasons like freedom of speech, privacy and censorship. Things like this worry me. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, average1 said: . This is worth following, for a number of reasons like freedom of speech, privacy and censorship. Things like this worry me. Exactly my thoughts & why I posted. While our Constitution prevents our government from suppressing free speech, especially political speech, there is no similar protection in the private sector. Nor should there be. We get to pick & choose what messages we wish to consider. The Senator’s concern (and sometimes mine) is the monopolistic nature of major social media platforms and their control of content. But his proposal of the government controlling their filters gives me chills! Though we’ll intentioned it opens the door for government control of ‘free speech’ through private agents. I suspect that the reason the press (msm) hasn’t flogged this story is that the proposed legislation throttles their prime competitor. That’s being short sighted because once established, the precedent may be used to control their content. This is not about party, as both would like to control the message ‘the people’ receive. All this bears watching!!! Edited June 20, 2019 by Bit Banger 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 20, 2019 15 minutes ago, Bit Banger said: Exactly my thoughts & why I posted. While our Constitution prevents our government from suppressing free speech, especially political speech, there is no similar protection in the private sector. Nor should there be. We get to pick & choose what messages we wish to consider. The Senator’s concern (and sometimes mine) is the monopolistic nature of major social media platforms and their control of content. But his proposal of the government controlling their filters gives me chills! Though we’ll intentioned it opens the door for government control of ‘free speech’ through private agents. I suspect that the reason the press (msm) hasn’t flogged this story is that the proposed legislation throttles their prime competitor. That’s being short sighted because once established, the precedent may be used to control their content. This is not about party, as both would like to control the message ‘the people’ receive. All this bears watching!!! Actually there is quite quite a bit about this going on in the news. Google the senator’s name or “section 230” even and you get a ton of hits from top sites. Trump has been shouting for a while now that he thinks those companies need to be audited, fined, sued, and everything else under the sun while overstepping his legal means to influence the private sector because he feels as though they’re censoring him and others. And that he doesn’t get a fair shake, and while I wish some channels or outlets would change their tune from time to time it’s up to me, the consumer, to parse out and investigate the truth. It’s been that way for a long time now; we’ll before the current administration. I’m more surprised it’s taken this long for a formal proposal to be presented. Sesta/Fosta is one thing. I’d rather not have the government controlling the news in any way whatsoever. Which again was something the current administration verbally proposed at one point. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 20, 2019 3 hours ago, JoDoe27 said: I’d rather not have the government controlling the news in any way whatsoever. This! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 20, 2019 7 hours ago, JoDoe27 said: Actually there is quite quite a bit about this going on in the news. Google the senator’s name or “section 230” even and you get a ton of hits from top sites. Trump has been shouting for a while now that he thinks those companies need to be audited, fined, sued, and everything else under the sun while overstepping his legal means to influence the private sector because he feels as though they’re censoring him and others. And that he doesn’t get a fair shake, and while I wish some channels or outlets would change their tune from time to time it’s up to me, the consumer, to parse out and investigate the truth. It’s been that way for a long time now; we’ll before the current administration. I’m more surprised it’s taken this long for a formal proposal to be presented. Sesta/Fosta is one thing. I’d rather not have the government controlling the news in any way whatsoever. Which again was something the current administration verbally proposed at one point. This isn't about the government controlling the news, it's about the big tech companies controlling the news. If these "platforms" such a as facebook, youtube, instagram claim no responsibility for third party content , they are protected by law from libel and slanderous lawsuits. However, if they censor for political reasons, then they are no longer "platforms" and are "publishers" such as CNN, Fox, New York Times and can be sued for slander. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. The senator wants to see if their censors are based on political reasons since it is, such a big "secret" that they refuse to reveal. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Pecman2014 said: This isn't about the government controlling the news, it's about the big tech companies controlling the news. If these "platforms" such a as facebook, youtube, instagram claim no responsibility for third party content , they are protected by law from libel and slanderous lawsuits. However, if they censor for political reasons, then they are no longer "platforms" and are "publishers" such as CNN, Fox, New York Times and can be sued for slander. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. The senator wants to see if their censors are based on political reasons since it is, such a big "secret" that they refuse to reveal. We can split hairs if you like but the way it’s presented is vague to say the least in terms of what constitutes as political and further by having the companies stand before a government elected panel of the FTC. “The Supreme Court has limited Congress’ ability to impose conditions on a government benefit—most notably, by forcing beneficiaries to comply with a speech code. Hawley’s bill arguably runs afoul of this bar on “unconstitutional conditions,” compelling tech companies to surrender their own free speech to retain Section 230 immunity. Currently, these corporations hold a First Amendment right to remove speech with which they do not wish to associate. Hawley would demand that they give up their freedom of expression or risk being sued into submission.” That sounds like some government controlled censorship to me. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 21, 2019 Two other recent notable articles on Facebook in particular: https://www.foxnews.com/tech/facebook-reveals-how-often-it-gets-content-takedowns-wrong https://www.foxnews.com/tech/facebook-moderator-dies-horrific-videos-others-share-disturbing-incidents The issue is that Facebook and others as private entities are free to delete 3rd party content they deem ‘inappropriate’. They may not edit that content to bring it within their standards; that’s one of the things that got BP in trouble. It ceases to be ‘3rd party content’ when the moderators edit the material. But when the government steps in and starts controlling their content filters, either through regulation or “audits”, then government censorship & 1st Amendment rights come into play. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 22, 2019 Let's face it...this kind of thing was inevitable and it is amazing it has not happened before now. The internet\world wide web is just WAY too powerful a tool for commerce, propaganda, and brain washing to NOT be taken over by Governments. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
