The existing section 230 disagrees with you. Twitter does not generate its own content which is the requirement to be a publisher, and even if it did, only the content that Twitter staff generated or paid would count to make it a publisher. Fact-checking, editing, or deleting user-generated content doesn't make it a publisher, and "moderation" is, in fact, required by section 230 now, and in the proposed reforms. We'll see how it goes.
I dunno - moderation that always ends up going in one direction doesn't seem like moderation to me, but editorial control - whether the site created the content or not (that's another artful dodge).
I think that if companies want to enjoy section 230 protection they should be required to 1) publish their content policies 2) publicly disclose all moderation decisions and tie them back to their previously published policies
I don't care if platforms want to moderate content. I do care that moderation is used as an excuse to justify blatant editorialization while pretending to be a neutral platform.
I'm not an expert on Section 230, but the reason this contentious issue has resurfaced again this week is because the NY Post was given material from Hunter Biden's MBP which was left behind at a Delaware repair shop.
Needless to say the material given to the Post is highly explosive in nature and in all likelihood will doom Biden's presidential run as among other things it appears the Biden family was taking money from China and Ukraine (among others) in exchange for influence, the very definition of corruption.
This is a fake story that the Trump campaign is desperate to get to jump from right-wing media to the mainstream. Except for the NY Post, no other mainstream media would touch this because it's so obviously fake. Even the writers at the Post didn't want their bylines on this! If you think this dooms Biden, especially after the daily scandals that have engulfed the entire Trump presidency, you aren't paying attention. Even if it were true (which it isn't), it wouldn't change a thing.
The existing section 230 disagrees with you. Twitter does not generate its own content which is the requirement to be a publisher, and even if it did, only the content that Twitter staff generated or paid would count to make it a publisher. Fact-checking, editing, or deleting user-generated content doesn't make it a publisher, and "moderation" is, in fact, required by section 230 now, and in the proposed reforms. We'll see how it goes.
I dunno - moderation that always ends up going in one direction doesn't seem like moderation to me, but editorial control
Section 230 has been a favourite target of Republicans, who believe that social media companies use those protections to censor conservative viewpoints.
I'm laughing about this. They pull the protections of Section 230 and far from making the companies open their sites up, they are going to double and triple down on "censorship". You think they restrict certain viewpoints now? You ain't seen nothing like what will happen. If they are suddenly responsible for what appears on their sites, they will chop anything that is controversial, and that will mostly be right wing opinions. Aren't some conservative talking heads continually going on about how Silicon Vally is so "liberal". Well if they do what they are threatening, there's no reason for FaceBook, Twitter, etc to hold back.
I've got my popcorn.
To the contrary, if protections are removed then anywhere people offer an opinion which could put a company at legal risk they will most likely just remove all comments. Facebook, Twitter and even AppleInsider would have to consider removing all comments. I know the comments section has been a source of aggravation for this site for years, but Facebook and Twitter would have to radically shift their business models or go out of business. Twitter would probably be most at risk.
We've already had the conversations. If the 230 reforms are as dramatic as they look like they are going to be, and turn out to be what the DOJ wants, we are absolutely closing the forums. The risks of leaving them up are too great.
Comments
I think that if companies want to enjoy section 230 protection they should be required to
1) publish their content policies
2) publicly disclose all moderation decisions and tie them back to their previously published policies
I don't care if platforms want to moderate content. I do care that moderation is used as an excuse to justify blatant editorialization while pretending to be a neutral platform.
This is such a weasily dodge - it's why 230 is up for review/changes. Congratulations for proving why 230 needs to be revisited.