anonymouse

godofbiscuitssf said:

anonymouse said:

godofbiscuitssf said:

AnObserver said:

I agree. Too many who have no knowledge about how things really work are in control.

Except in this case, they're backing into the right answer.  Facebook, Twitter, and most others these days are CURATORS, not just platforms that repost and relay other people's opinion.  Curation IS opinion, IS editor.ial content.  They are owners of that, and they've been hiding behind Section 230 to blast their own agendas and opinions while individual users are still on the hook legally and financially for their own posts.  

That obviously isn't equal treatment under the law.  Section 230 needs to be gutted, or killed.  It's not like corporations don't have a million other avenues of protection for themselves, and where they don't, they have lawyers.  Endless supplies of lawyers.

I don't know how you have formed your ideas about this but you still have it completely backwards. Repealing Section 230 isn't going to stop, to use your word, "curation" of content by FB and others, it's just going to mean that they delete a lot of content that they now leave up. Individual users would still be "on the hook for their own posts," but anything the "curators" deem to put them on the hook as well, like false and defamatory posts from political operatives, will be removed. Without Section 230 a lot of individual "voices" are going to be muted, but the so called "curators" aren't going to be muted.

It's really amazing how so many people, especially those who have benefited the most from Section 230, have the rather wild idea that Section 230 is somehow muzzling them or somehow giving "curators" some sort of special "immunity" to "censor" when the reality is exactly the opposite.

I didn’t say it would stop curation. I said that big corporations weren’t just reposting other people’s opinions and acting as a “community board”, they were acting as an editorial entity themselves in ADDITION to posting thr content of others.  

Right now, Twitter and Facebook, through curation of user feeds, gets to be an agent free to give their users a view of the truth, or what “the majority believe” about a person, all without fear or reprisal or consequence because of Section 230. 

However, If an individual says something similar that is counter factual that causes harm, they’re subject to libel laws. 

We all benefited by 230 before platforms started with their engagement algorithms. facebook’s engagement tactics are well known, and border on election interference in their bias toward right wing candidates and rightwing extremist viewpoints.  

That’s not simple store and forward of the content of others.  That’s Facebook pushing its own content and own agenda.  For its own purposes. That makes their participation subject to the user side of Section 230 in addition to the hosting side. 

tundraboy said:

-anonymouse said:

I don't know how you have formed your ideas about this but you still have it completely backwards. Repealing Section 230 isn't going to stop, to use your word, "curation" of content by FB and others, it's just going to mean that they delete a lot of content that they now leave up. Individual users would still be "on the hook for their own posts," but anything the "curators" deem to put them on the hook as well, like false and defamatory posts from political operatives, will be removed. Without Section 230 a lot of individual "voices" are going to be muted, but the so called "curators" aren't going to be muted.

Yes the curators won't be muted.  But now they will be legally responsible for the information that they put on their sites.  Just like any publisher. Because if you are curating a site, then you are a de facto publisher.

That's all that repeal advocates want.  You should be legally answerable for what you allow to be printed on your newspaper, broadcasted on your TV network, displayed on your highway billboard, and now, posted on your website.

Seriously, what is wrong or bad about that?

And how exactly do you see this benefitting the people who want to repeal it? Or are you hoping repealing it will muzzle only the views you disagree with?

Section 230 is basically like a First Amendment Light for the internet. By removing liability for what individuals post, it allows content platforms to moderate with a light hand and individuals to express their viewpoints. Unless you are in favor of suppressing speech on the internet, it's hard to see how you could be in favor of repealing Section 230 because all Section 230 does is encourage content hosters to allow it. None of the issues you highlight will be solved by repealing Section 230.

godofbiscuitssf said:

AnObserver said:

I agree. Too many who have no knowledge about how things really work are in control.

Except in this case, they're backing into the right answer.  Facebook, Twitter, and most others these days are CURATORS, not just platforms that repost and relay other people's opinion.  Curation IS opinion, IS editor.ial content.  They are owners of that, and they've been hiding behind Section 230 to blast their own agendas and opinions while individual users are still on the hook legally and financially for their own posts.  

That obviously isn't equal treatment under the law.  Section 230 needs to be gutted, or killed.  It's not like corporations don't have a million other avenues of protection for themselves, and where they don't, they have lawyers.  Endless supplies of lawyers.

I don't know how you have formed your ideas about this but you still have it completely backwards. Repealing Section 230 isn't going to stop, to use your word, "curation" of content by FB and others, it's just going to mean that they delete a lot of content that they now leave up. Individual users would still be "on the hook for their own posts," but anything the "curators" deem to put them on the hook as well, like false and defamatory posts from political operatives, will be removed. Without Section 230 a lot of individual "voices" are going to be muted, but the so called "curators" aren't going to be muted.

It's really amazing how so many people, especially those who have benefited the most from Section 230, have the rather wild idea that Section 230 is somehow muzzling them or somehow giving "curators" some sort of special "immunity" to "censor" when the reality is exactly the opposite.

The other unintended consequence of repealing Section 230 is that it will actually affect the right more than the left, and in ways exactly opposite of how the right thinks repealing it will change things. It's well documented that the the vast majority of misinformation, including outright brazen lies, originates from the right. If suddenly the posting of this material becomes actionable, with companies like FB sharing in liability, they'll have no choice but to apply draconian moderation to this stuff, whereas now they have the cover of Section 230 to treat it with a light hand because it's not their problem. Some companies/sites might close their forums, but companies like FB and the company formerly known as Twitter have their entire business model built around user generated content, so they can't just shut it off, but now they may be on the hook.

I've never really understood why Trump, et al. think Section 230 is somehow muzzling them when in fact Section 230 is what has allowed them to post malicious nonsense and get away with it.

Also, changes to the law requiring companies to allow all content will be unconstitutional since that would infringe the First Amendment rights of the site operators.

CheeseFreeze said:

anonymouse said:

CheeseFreeze said:

Kuminga said:

Is there anymore doubt the EU is evil and anti American?

Trump is right in this one 

What an arrogant & narcissistic thing to say. Have you considered the USA being anti-European? 

Also, this article is sensationalist nonsense written by someone who’s clearly incredibly biased. It totally misrepresents the demands of EU and places the conflict in the wrong context. 

I recommend people to actually read EU’s arguments (easy to Google) instead of this brain rot article.

In exactly which particulars is the article wrong and what exactly is the EU's position where you believe it differs from what is stated in the article. Please be specific and cite sources in your response.

Ok, I won't hold my breath for that, but, frankly, it's hard not to see how the EU putting the screws on American tech companies doesn't lend credence to Trump's rhetoric. This is a boon for the radical elements in charge of our government right now, which will end up backfiring on the EU, and all because the EU wants to appropriate Apple's, and other tech companies', IP and shake them down for cash. 

Sure. Here is the actual *information* summarized, without the usual AppleInsider craziness:   

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_816 

The European Commission has issued two legally binding decisions under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to ensure that Apple enhances interoperability between its iOS operating system and third-party devices and applications. 

Key Requirements:

1. Interoperability with Connected Devices:

• Apple must grant third-party device manufacturers access to specific iOS features to facilitate seamless integration. This includes functionalities such as notifications, background processes, and various wireless technologies (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, NFC). 

2. Transparency and Predictability for Developers:

• Apple is required to provide clearer guidelines and technical documentation to developers. This aims to make the process for requesting interoperability with iOS devices more transparent and predictable, ensuring that developers have the necessary information to integrate their products effectively. 

These measures are designed to promote competition and innovation by allowing third-party devices and applications to work as seamlessly with iOS as Apple’s own products, thereby offering consumers more choices. 

While Apple has expressed concerns that these directives might hinder innovation and place the company at a disadvantage compared to others, the European Commission maintains that these steps are essential for ensuring a fair and open digital market. 

These decisions are part of the European Commission’s ongoing efforts to enforce the DMA, targeting major tech companies to ensure they do not engage in anti-competitive practices. 

The reason why Apple specifically is targeted is the fact Android already does comply. Again, AppleInsider likes to look at it this from the lens of a cult. Maybe they should be acquired by Fox News?

Sorry, but you failed to answer the question nor did you provide a foundation for your previous accusations.

CheeseFreeze said:

Kuminga said:

Is there anymore doubt the EU is evil and anti American?

Trump is right in this one 

What an arrogant & narcissistic thing to say. Have you considered the USA being anti-European? 

Also, this article is sensationalist nonsense written by someone who’s clearly incredibly biased. It totally misrepresents the demands of EU and places the conflict in the wrong context. 

I recommend people to actually read EU’s arguments (easy to Google) instead of this brain rot article.

In exactly which particulars is the article wrong and what exactly is the EU's position where you believe it differs from what is stated in the article. Please be specific and cite sources in your response.

Ok, I won't hold my breath for that, but, frankly, it's hard not to see how the EU putting the screws on American tech companies doesn't lend credence to Trump's rhetoric. This is a boon for the radical elements in charge of our government right now, which will end up backfiring on the EU, and all because the EU wants to appropriate Apple's, and other tech companies', IP and shake them down for cash.