No company should be held responsible for what users do with their product. Why should internet companies be any different? Can a phone company be held liable for callers using their service for terror plots? Or vehicle manufacturers when their vehicle is used to plow into a crowd of people? Or gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed with their guns? Or course not and it should be the same for rules for all companies.
What if they actively profit from encouraging poor behavior?
To me that is the line this change seems to do nothing to improve. Instead putting an odd burden on those acting sensibly..
No company should be held responsible for what users do with their product. Why should internet companies be any different? Can a phone company be held liable for callers using their service for terror plots? Or vehicle manufacturers when their vehicle is used to plow into a crowd of people? Or gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed with their guns? Or course not and it should be the same for rules for all companies.
You made way too much sense in your first post. I was going to warn you about people like George but it appears I’m too late.
No company should be held responsible for what users do with their product. Why should internet companies be any different? Can a phone company be held liable for callers using their service for terror plots? Or vehicle manufacturers when their vehicle is used to plow into a crowd of people? Or gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed with their guns? Or course not and it should be the same for rules for all companies.
That is a legitimate argument. But,..
When people and organizations use a platform to spread disinformation that harms people and society (say hate speech) then it becomes a systemic problem. Since there is no effective way to stop those spreading the disinformation (particularly if they are from another nation) then the onus falls on the platform itself to police how it is being used. If they cannot do an effective job (which their obviously have not) then it is time for government to step in.
George the problem is when these platforms become selective in what they allow. Take a look at hydroxychloroquine, for months people needlessly died because they weren’t informed about it because big tech shut down all discussion of it. Now the AMA comes out and says never mind, the 70 year old drug is proven and it works. The damage has been done.
They still allow Biden and Harris to promote flat out lies of presidential statements and because they do people like you think they are still true. How many unarmed sources were there on the Russian collusion delusion? All fake, but allowed.
No company should be held responsible for what users do with their product. Why should internet companies be any different? Can a phone company be held liable for callers using their service for terror plots? Or vehicle manufacturers when their vehicle is used to plow into a crowd of people? Or gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed with their guns? Or course not and it should be the same for rules for all companies.
You made way too much sense in your first post. I was going to warn you about people like George but it appears I’m too late.
No company should be held responsible for what users do with their product. Why should internet companies be any different? Can a phone company be held liable for callers using their service for terror plots? Or vehicle manufacturers when their vehicle is used to plow into a crowd of people? Or gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed with their guns? Or course not and it should be the same for rules for all companies.
That is a legitimate argument. But,..
When people and organizations use a platform to spread disinformation that harms people and society (say hate speech) then it becomes a systemic problem. Since there is no effective way to stop those spreading the disinformation (particularly if they are from another nation) then the onus falls on the platform itself to police how it is being used. If they cannot do an effective job (which their obviously have not) then it is time for government to step in.
George the problem is when these platforms become selective in what they allow. Take a look at hydroxychloroquine, for months people needlessly died because they weren’t informed about it because big tech shut down all discussion of it. Now the AMA comes out and says never mind, the 70 year old drug is proven and it works. The damage has been done.
They still allow Biden and Harris to promote flat out lies of presidential statements and because they do people like you think they are still true. How many unarmed sources were there on the Russian collusion delusion? All fake, but allowed.
The AMA did no such thing. Source, AMA.
Back on topic, though. 230 needs to exist, even if Limbaugh is allowed to say what he wants. He's got no business complaining if he gets fact-checked here, on Twitter, on Facebook, or anywhere else. Complete moderation of a post beyond the rules of the platform, or attaching a fact-check to a post by an individual in no way make the venue a publisher. The former is required by 230 as it stands, and given that businesses themselves have first amendment rights, the fact-check is explicitly allowed, until/if things change.
For instance: If Twitter itself published a slanderous post, then they'd be liable for that. If a user of Twitter posted it, and they deleted it or attached a fact-check to it disproving the slander, that doesn't make them a publisher in any way.
No company should be held responsible for what users do with their product. Why should internet companies be any different? Can a phone company be held liable for callers using their service for terror plots? Or vehicle manufacturers when their vehicle is used to plow into a crowd of people? Or gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed with their guns? Or course not and it should be the same for rules for all companies.
You made way too much sense in your first post. I was going to warn you about people like George but it appears I’m too late.
No company should be held responsible for what users do with their product. Why should internet companies be any different? Can a phone company be held liable for callers using their service for terror plots? Or vehicle manufacturers when their vehicle is used to plow into a crowd of people? Or gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed with their guns? Or course not and it should be the same for rules for all companies.
That is a legitimate argument. But,..
When people and organizations use a platform to spread disinformation that harms people and society (say hate speech) then it becomes a systemic problem. Since there is no effective way to stop those spreading the disinformation (particularly if they are from another nation) then the onus falls on the platform itself to police how it is being used. If they cannot do an effective job (which their obviously have not) then it is time for government to step in.
George the problem is when these platforms become selective in what they allow. Take a look at hydroxychloroquine, for months people needlessly died because they weren’t informed about it because big tech shut down all discussion of it. Now the AMA comes out and says never mind, the 70 year old drug is proven and it works. The damage has been done.
They still allow Biden and Harris to promote flat out lies of presidential statements and because they do people like you think they are still true. How many unarmed sources were there on the Russian collusion delusion? All fake, but allowed.
The AMA did no such thing. Source, AMA.
Back on topic, though. 230 needs to exist, even if Limbaugh is allowed to say what he wants. He's got no business complaining if he gets fact-checked here, on Twitter, on Facebook, or anywhere else. Complete moderation of a post beyond the rules of the platform, or attaching a fact-check to a post by an individual in no way make the venue a publisher. The former is required by 230 as it stands, and given that businesses themselves have first amendment rights, the fact-check is explicitly allowed, until/if things change.
For instance: If Twitter itself published a slanderous post, then they'd be liable for that. If a user of Twitter posted it, and they deleted it or attached a fact-check to it disproving the slander, that doesn't make them a publisher in any way.
The AMA statement makes no claims whether or not Hydroxychloroquine works. They explicitly state that the supply would be limited for lupus patients and others if it was widely prescribed. They are themselves failing to properly inform the public. Does it work or doesn’t it? They don’t say.
And for the record, my own doctor says it works as long as a patient is given it early in their illness.
No company should be held responsible for what users do with their product. Why should internet companies be any different? Can a phone company be held liable for callers using their service for terror plots? Or vehicle manufacturers when their vehicle is used to plow into a crowd of people? Or gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed with their guns? Or course not and it should be the same for rules for all companies.
You made way too much sense in your first post. I was going to warn you about people like George but it appears I’m too late.
No company should be held responsible for what users do with their product. Why should internet companies be any different? Can a phone company be held liable for callers using their service for terror plots? Or vehicle manufacturers when their vehicle is used to plow into a crowd of people? Or gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed with their guns? Or course not and it should be the same for rules for all companies.
That is a legitimate argument. But,..
When people and organizations use a platform to spread disinformation that harms people and society (say hate speech) then it becomes a systemic problem. Since there is no effective way to stop those spreading the disinformation (particularly if they are from another nation) then the onus falls on the platform itself to police how it is being used. If they cannot do an effective job (which their obviously have not) then it is time for government to step in.
George the problem is when these platforms become selective in what they allow. Take a look at hydroxychloroquine, for months people needlessly died because they weren’t informed about it because big tech shut down all discussion of it. Now the AMA comes out and says never mind, the 70 year old drug is proven and it works. The damage has been done.
They still allow Biden and Harris to promote flat out lies of presidential statements and because they do people like you think they are still true. How many unarmed sources were there on the Russian collusion delusion? All fake, but allowed.
The AMA did no such thing. Source, AMA.
Back on topic, though. 230 needs to exist, even if Limbaugh is allowed to say what he wants. He's got no business complaining if he gets fact-checked here, on Twitter, on Facebook, or anywhere else. Complete moderation of a post beyond the rules of the platform, or attaching a fact-check to a post by an individual in no way make the venue a publisher. The former is required by 230 as it stands, and given that businesses themselves have first amendment rights, the fact-check is explicitly allowed, until/if things change.
For instance: If Twitter itself published a slanderous post, then they'd be liable for that. If a user of Twitter posted it, and they deleted it or attached a fact-check to it disproving the slander, that doesn't make them a publisher in any way.
The AMA statement makes no claims whether or not Hydroxychloroquine works. They explicitly state that the supply would be limited for lupus patients and others if it was widely prescribed. They are themselves failing to properly inform the public. Does it work or doesn’t it? They don’t say.
No company should be held responsible for what users do with their product. Why should internet companies be any different? Can a phone company be held liable for callers using their service for terror plots? Or vehicle manufacturers when their vehicle is used to plow into a crowd of people? Or gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed with their guns? Or course not and it should be the same for rules for all companies.
You made way too much sense in your first post. I was going to warn you about people like George but it appears I’m too late.
No company should be held responsible for what users do with their product. Why should internet companies be any different? Can a phone company be held liable for callers using their service for terror plots? Or vehicle manufacturers when their vehicle is used to plow into a crowd of people? Or gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed with their guns? Or course not and it should be the same for rules for all companies.
That is a legitimate argument. But,..
When people and organizations use a platform to spread disinformation that harms people and society (say hate speech) then it becomes a systemic problem. Since there is no effective way to stop those spreading the disinformation (particularly if they are from another nation) then the onus falls on the platform itself to police how it is being used. If they cannot do an effective job (which their obviously have not) then it is time for government to step in.
George the problem is when these platforms become selective in what they allow. Take a look at hydroxychloroquine, for months people needlessly died because they weren’t informed about it because big tech shut down all discussion of it. Now the AMA comes out and says never mind, the 70 year old drug is proven and it works. The damage has been done.
They still allow Biden and Harris to promote flat out lies of presidential statements and because they do people like you think they are still true. How many unarmed sources were there on the Russian collusion delusion? All fake, but allowed.
The AMA did no such thing. Source, AMA.
Back on topic, though. 230 needs to exist, even if Limbaugh is allowed to say what he wants. He's got no business complaining if he gets fact-checked here, on Twitter, on Facebook, or anywhere else. Complete moderation of a post beyond the rules of the platform, or attaching a fact-check to a post by an individual in no way make the venue a publisher. The former is required by 230 as it stands, and given that businesses themselves have first amendment rights, the fact-check is explicitly allowed, until/if things change.
For instance: If Twitter itself published a slanderous post, then they'd be liable for that. If a user of Twitter posted it, and they deleted it or attached a fact-check to it disproving the slander, that doesn't make them a publisher in any way.
The AMA statement makes no claims whether or not Hydroxychloroquine works. They explicitly state that the supply would be limited for lupus patients and others if it was widely prescribed. They are themselves failing to properly inform the public. Does it work or doesn’t it? They don’t say.
No company should be held responsible for what users do with their product. Why should internet companies be any different? Can a phone company be held liable for callers using their service for terror plots? Or vehicle manufacturers when their vehicle is used to plow into a crowd of people? Or gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed with their guns? Or course not and it should be the same for rules for all companies.
You made way too much sense in your first post. I was going to warn you about people like George but it appears I’m too late.
No company should be held responsible for what users do with their product. Why should internet companies be any different? Can a phone company be held liable for callers using their service for terror plots? Or vehicle manufacturers when their vehicle is used to plow into a crowd of people? Or gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed with their guns? Or course not and it should be the same for rules for all companies.
That is a legitimate argument. But,..
When people and organizations use a platform to spread disinformation that harms people and society (say hate speech) then it becomes a systemic problem. Since there is no effective way to stop those spreading the disinformation (particularly if they are from another nation) then the onus falls on the platform itself to police how it is being used. If they cannot do an effective job (which their obviously have not) then it is time for government to step in.
George the problem is when these platforms become selective in what they allow. Take a look at hydroxychloroquine, for months people needlessly died because they weren’t informed about it because big tech shut down all discussion of it. Now the AMA comes out and says never mind, the 70 year old drug is proven and it works. The damage has been done.
They still allow Biden and Harris to promote flat out lies of presidential statements and because they do people like you think they are still true. How many unarmed sources were there on the Russian collusion delusion? All fake, but allowed.
The AMA did no such thing. Source, AMA.
Back on topic, though. 230 needs to exist, even if Limbaugh is allowed to say what he wants. He's got no business complaining if he gets fact-checked here, on Twitter, on Facebook, or anywhere else. Complete moderation of a post beyond the rules of the platform, or attaching a fact-check to a post by an individual in no way make the venue a publisher. The former is required by 230 as it stands, and given that businesses themselves have first amendment rights, the fact-check is explicitly allowed, until/if things change.
For instance: If Twitter itself published a slanderous post, then they'd be liable for that. If a user of Twitter posted it, and they deleted it or attached a fact-check to it disproving the slander, that doesn't make them a publisher in any way.
The AMA statement makes no claims whether or not Hydroxychloroquine works. They explicitly state that the supply would be limited for lupus patients and others if it was widely prescribed. They are themselves failing to properly inform the public. Does it work or doesn’t it? They don’t say.
I never said that it did. What the OP said was "the AMA comes out and says never mind, the 70 year old drug is proven and it works."
The AMA has said no such thing.
Very well. That distinction is important.
Which is why social media needs to be held accountable when their platform is used to propagate proaganda and disinformation.
The spreaders of propaganda and disinformation like to claim "Freedom of Speech" -- but there has never, ever been 100% freedom of speech in any country at any time.
Comments
To me that is the line this change seems to do nothing to improve. Instead putting an odd burden on those acting sensibly..
George the problem is when these platforms become selective in what they allow. Take a look at hydroxychloroquine, for months people needlessly died because they weren’t informed about it because big tech shut down all discussion of it. Now the AMA comes out and says never mind, the 70 year old drug is proven and it works. The damage has been done.
They still allow Biden and Harris to promote flat out lies of presidential statements and because they do people like you think they are still true. How many unarmed sources were there on the Russian collusion delusion? All fake, but allowed.
Back on topic, though. 230 needs to exist, even if Limbaugh is allowed to say what he wants. He's got no business complaining if he gets fact-checked here, on Twitter, on Facebook, or anywhere else. Complete moderation of a post beyond the rules of the platform, or attaching a fact-check to a post by an individual in no way make the venue a publisher. The former is required by 230 as it stands, and given that businesses themselves have first amendment rights, the fact-check is explicitly allowed, until/if things change.
For instance: If Twitter itself published a slanderous post, then they'd be liable for that. If a user of Twitter posted it, and they deleted it or attached a fact-check to it disproving the slander, that doesn't make them a publisher in any way.
And for the record, my own doctor says it works as long as a patient is given it early in their illness.
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-statements/ama-apha-ashp-issue-joint-statement-about-covid-19-medications