Drop the bomb on Facebook - repeal their safe harbor

[ProgressingAmerica]

Platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, and many others, have received legal "safe harbor" provisions as a part of certain laws, harbors they abuse and don't deserve.

Instead of growing government and making government stronger with increased regulations, one representative in congress Louie Gohmert has proposed repealing section 230 of the Communications act, based on expectations of even-handed treatment by platforms. But is repealing 230 this enough?

I say go big or go home. In the digital world, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is at the forefront of online copyright issues. Section 512 of the DMCA, like section 230 of the CDA, provides certain safe harbor protections.

Repeal these protections, and watch bias and harassment issues go away overnight.

Facebook's founder wants more regulation. Facebook's other founder wants the company broken up.

Both of their founders are Obamunists, and are scamming us. What good have they done to reward them with such treats and goodies? "Please give me more government" They haven't earned any rewards. Punish them with something they don't want and aren't asking for.

Increasing regulations would decrease their legal liabilities, which means that it would save Facebook billions of dollars. Decreasing them would bleed them dry.

The Coin Center(A lobbying group) describes the DMCA safe harbor this way:

"If we want these new networks to flourish as the web did, then we must ensure that mere infrastructure builders are insulated from crushing liability."

Conversely, the Mises Institute makes these three following observations:

1: Regulations Will Give Facebook More Monopoly Power

2: Zuckerberg and Facebook Will Help Write the New Rules

3: It Will Limit Facebook's Legal Exposure

We can reward Facebook all the way to the bank, or we can drop a bomb of "crushing liability" on them. The contrast couldn't be more clear.

[ProgressingAmerica]

A lot of you know who Zuckerberg is. But I suspect not as many know about Chris Hughes. Allow me to either remind or teach you of who this schuyster is.

According to Financial Times: "After co-founding Facebook, Chris Hughes directed Barack Obama’s digital campaign for president." https://www.ft.com/content/79d09784-7117-11e2-9b5c-00144feab49a

Facebook Co-Founder Chris Hughes Is Buying 'The New Republic' https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/03/12/148247430/facebook-co-founder-chris-hughes-is-buying-the-new-republic

This guy is as big government as they come. All of this harassment of conservatives on social media is a scam. It is nothing but a campaign to get us to go along with bigger and bigger government. Not even just to "go along" with it. It is a campaign to get us to DEMAND it.

[gaijin]

Great post.

[gaijin]

You wrote this? These are your insights..?

You should do this more often.

[humblegunner]

How is this “news”?

[ProgressingAmerica]

Yes, I wrote this. I’m tired of being told that my only option is to accept the inevitability of bigger government.

I’m not saying these are perfect solutions. But I am certain that we should not be doling out rewards to the very people creating the problem. Rewards which are sold to us under the guise of fixing the problem.

If we reward bad actors, they will act even worse after receiving the candy.

[Responsibility2nd]

Social media platforms are the railroad industries of today’s 21st century. They are todays monopolies just like Ma Bell was 50 years ago.

And as such they must be regulated as any utility.

[z3n]

These guys(Facebook, twitter, etc) can't have it both ways.

Law must be put in place where they apply for and file their services as EITHER publishing, or service provider.

A service provider is protected from many of the liabilities of the content that flows through their platforms. This is because their service is a mere conduit, like a communications utility. There are public safety limits to this, but for the most part, they permit their customers and users to be the publishers of content, while they merely transmit, in effect.

A service provider cannot, however, censor customers and users, even with 'terms' or EULAs, as contract law does not pre-empt civil rights.

A Publisher may in fact control the content on their platforms how they see fit, even if they are not generating it within their organization.

A publisher, on the other hand, can and should be liable for the results of their content. They should not be protected civily or criminally if their content brings harm or loss.

THIS SHOULD BE MADE LAW!
It would solve most of the problems we have with political censorship in my opinion.

[loveliberty2]

“Whatever you do,” cried Brer Rabbit, “Don’t throw me into the briar patch.”

Manipulation, by any other name is just that. Even Brer Rabbit knew that. Surely Zuckerberg has heard the story.

[Retrofitted]

Exactly! THIS is the problem in a nutshell. As soon as they took it upon themselves to control their content, they became publishers and are completely liable for ALL the content on their site. Period. EOS. -30-.

This is the single, simple law that stops everything in its tracks. It’s a magic bullet for all the insanity and craziness. Will it ever happen? Nope. But it should.

[humblegunner]

Exactly! THIS is the problem in a nutshell.

Indeed.

Personal blogs are trash.

[King Moonracer]

If they are going to censor conservatives, then they should be prosecuted for every vile piece of crap they leave up, especially all the hate from muzzies.