Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bsu_alum9

Section 230

Recommended Posts

At its core, Section 230(c)(1), passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand what Trump thinks doing away with this will achieve.  Maybe he just wants big tech to be inundated with lawsuits?  It certainly wouldn't magically make all websites have to show both sides, or keep twitter from fact-checking him.

Can we let Baron handle the cyber?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Rick Santorum writes in the National Review this week, repealing Section 230 would also impact Parler, Rumble, and other websites favored by Conservatives or even by non-mainstream groups. Those sites would also lose their protections and be opened up to lawsuits.

It is not as easy as just pointing at "Big Tech".

Quote

Without Section 230, Yelp could be sued for negative restaurant reviews. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube — along with Parler and Rumble — could be sued for defamatory content posted by users. Like Twitter and YouTube, Parler and Rumble will need to moderate user content in order to attract advertisers. But without Section 230, they too could be sued for removing or restricting content.

<snip>

Repealing Section 230 would therefore make it impossible for sites to host provocative conservative content that would trigger a flood of lawsuits from naturally litigious progressives. The Left hates competition, so in no time they would push online Americans back into the arms of now government-regulated Big Tech and the mainstream media. Gutting Section 230 would be a gut-punch for emerging social-media platforms that provide a competitive portal for President Trump’s fans.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/help-conservative-alternatives-to-facebook-and-twitter-save-section-230/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He needs to sound off on everything as a play to the base.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

I don't really understand what Trump thinks doing away with this will achieve.  Maybe he just wants big tech to be inundated with lawsuits?  It certainly wouldn't magically make all websites have to show both sides, or keep twitter from fact-checking him.

Can we let Baron handle the cyber?

He let idiots convince him that he gets censored because of "Section 230", likely because those same idiots didn't understand what it meant. 

If Section 230 were to be replaced, even places such as the MWCBoard would have to get a whole lot more involved in moderation and removing posts. Twitter would straight up delete Trump's account because of all of the lies and calls for violence that he spews. Facebook was likely just cease to exist as a true social media website due to the rampant abuses that take place there. I mean, ridding ourselves of social media might be a good thing, but repealing Section 230 is just going to lead to more of the so-called "conservative censorship" that the dipshits on the right screech about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, retrofade said:

He let idiots convince him that he gets censored because of "Section 230", likely because those same idiots didn't understand what it meant. 

If Section 230 were to be replaced, even places such as the MWCBoard would have to get a whole lot more involved in moderation and removing posts. Twitter would straight up delete Trump's account because of all of the lies and calls for violence that he spews. Facebook was likely just cease to exist as a true social media website due to the rampant abuses that take place there. I mean, ridding ourselves of social media might be a good thing, but repealing Section 230 is just going to lead to more of the so-called "conservative censorship" that the dipshits on the right screech about.

I’d probably have to shut down the board if 230 was repealed. I certainly won’t be investing the time into moderating every single post and I would be exposed to too much liability.  Not worth it.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I’d probably have to shut down the board if 230 was repealed. I certainly won’t be investing the time into moderating every single post and I would be exposed to too much liability.  Not worth it.  

Yep. Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, places like this, and anything resembling social media all over the internet would die as a result. 

That said, I wouldn't expect Trump or his sycophants to understand that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, retrofade said:

Yep. Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, places like this, and anything resembling social media all over the internet would die as a result. 

That said, I wouldn't expect Trump or his sycophants to understand that. 

Would they?

What does 230 have to do with what the rest of the world does?

Wouldn't companies just relocate or spring up on more friendly foreign soils?

Would the US just censor them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...