Posted on 10/27/2020 2:57:50 PM PDT by george76
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is under a harsh new spotlight in the wake of Google's move to force conservative news site The Federalist to remove its comments section
...
Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
The section has been pivotal in the rise of today's social media giants by allowing not only Internet service providers – but also Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others – to be shielded from liability
...
But some critics feel that Google should no longer benefit from protections of Section 230 if the tech giant will not extend the same protections to other sites — Google did not offer those protections to The Federalist.
President Trump also signed an executive order in May that could remove some big tech protections if companies engage in "selective censorship" harmful to national discourse.
...
Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike
...
Google's move to force The Federalist to remove its comments section .. has raised new questions.
Google controls the majority of online advertising and essentially has the ability to dictate what media organizations can publish, because they depend on the tech giant for revenue.
“If you’re in the news business, you obey Google. When Google tells you to do something, you do it. You have no choice. They can bankrupt you in a minute,” Fox News' Tucker Carlson .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3893895/posts
Justice Thomas stresses that NYT v. Sullivan must be reviewed by the court. Section 230 protection removal does not solve the issue
Without section 230 Google will just become another publisher allowed to defame people they don’t like.
It means that since you dont control what is put out on your platform you are not liable for what is said. Big tech is controlling what is being put out on their platforms so they are liable. That is it in a nutshell. Means you can sue their ass off. They are no longer 230’able. Should be able to do it with an executive order. Classify them as publishers with all the liability baggage entailed in being a publisher.
Lin Wood is salivating.
Killl 230 and hold Big tech’s feet to the fire (law suits). Or just break ‘em up and put parts of ‘em out of business. “Social” media is killing our culture anyway, so why preserve it.
Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that Section 230 of the CDA should be narrowed / not removed.
They are too broad. I can understand the difficulty in trying to moderate the comments of a billion users. But that is not what’s at issue anymore. The issues are manipulation of what users can see, limiting the free flow of information, censorship, banning free expression that is not of a criminal nature etc.
Section 230 is just like regulations - they inherently favor larger and wealthier companies, which can devote huge resources to them while adding little to their per unit costs; smaller companies can’t do that, so it will drive them out of business. Better to break up Google into 10 or 20 competing companies.
Google, FB, twitter .. is controlling what is being put out on their platforms (and blocking = forced conservative news sites like The Federalist to remove its comments section) .. so they are liable..
What these companies are all doing should have come under review - in May, if not much earlier - by the Federal Elections Commission..
To me, that would be a very good thing!
Justice Thomas on 230 was irrelevant to my post. My point is that even a modified section 230 does not prevent big tech from throttling users, removing content, or defamation.
See Justice Thomas concurrence in McKee v. Cosby
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.