31–40 of 59 posts
Who actually wants to end Section 230? Most of the complaints I've heard about it have just been that it should be changed to only apply to platforms (which don't censor), and not to publishers (which do).
Both Biden and Trump, for a start: https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/09/biden_tech_reform_sec...
The First Amendment applies only to government action. This author is seriously confused.
The First Amendment applies only to government, but the idea of free speech applies to everyone. It has also come out recently that social media platforms are receiving directions from the US government about what content to take down, making them state actors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anyone can know what's going to happen with or without their participation, but granting that for the sake of argument, he also quoted "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action". (Edit: also "organize actions that spill over into the physical world") The article, IMO, made it clear enough that information that causes violence but wasn't intended to cause violence is protected by the 1st…
The bullet's heading is "incitement", the purpose of the bullet is to explain the clear "incitement" standard that Twitter could rely on to block content likely to cause harm, and we've reached a point where we're using the word "inciting" to define it. Like I said, this is a hash of an argument. There is a clear legal standard for incitement. Sacks hasn't articulated it. Either he doesn't know what it is, or he does…
But I don't think it's a fair criticism of his article. I clearly understood from his writing that the "Incitement" exception only covers information intended to cause violence in the near future.
I don't know if he's familiar with the precise legal language, but even if he is, it wouldn't be appropriate to use it in this article for laypeople. He's using common English.
> Fighting Words. In the 1942 case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes “fighting words,” which are defined as speech that “tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” through the use of “personally abusive” language that “when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction.” Cer…
Carelessness in fact checking seems to becoming more common even among otherwise competent people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The First Amendment applies only to government, but the idea of free speech applies to everyone. It has also come out recently that social media platforms are receiving directions from the US government about what content to take down, making them state actors.
This is an article about the implications of the First Amendment and their applicability to private entities, not about the amorphous concept of "free speech".
In the past, journalists were the check against government over-reach, corruption, and fraud. That has been thrown out the window, as it is clear to the objective observer that the majority of media and government work very closely together to push a coordinated narrative, and have been for some time.
When citizen journalists emerged, whistleblowers and independent bloggers began publishing stories (some of them trash, others being very good at what they do) - yet they rely on social media for reach. If their stories oppose the narrative of both mainstream media and government, they are labeled (without any real evidence) as misinformation or "russian" propaganda. This in itself is propaganda.
Frankly, I'm tired of the nanny state. Neither myself or any other functional adult needs media, government, or party to tell us what to think, do, or say. The whole mess is antithetical to the core principles of the United States.
I don't see how anything will happen on 230. Conservatives want to change it to allow any kind of speech including racism and fake news and the platform can't censor it and liberals want to ban anything they consider hate speech or "not woke" speech.
As said somewhere else on here, "i've never seen 'hate speech' that isn't actual hate speech"
Though, what's particularly interesting about this article is that Sacks is a friend of Elon's and as a result has now become directly involved with the reshaping of Twitter. I am certain Sacks no longer emphatically supports the idea that "these tech behemoths are too large and powerful, pose a threat to democracy and free speech, and need to be reined in for the good of America" now that it applies to his friends.
Am I missing important context? If someone can point to resources that would better explain this to me, I'd appreciate it.