Section 230 Turns 30; Both Parties Want It Gone–For Contradictory Reasons
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: Section 230 Turns 30; Both Parties Want It Gone–For Contradictory Reasons
#2Section 230 is the reason why media was able to be consolidated into a few large corporations while eliminating higher-quality news organizations.
Section 230 allows anyone to be a journalist without facing consequences for false or incorrect information. This means a post on Facebook or YouTube or their own website has equal weight as a traditional news report that relies on higher standards, like verification through multiple sources.
So a company like Facebook can host any false or unverified article posted by some random weirdo, since Facebook can't be sued for hosting that info, and the controversy draws eyeballs and draws attention away from more traditional news content. So now the attention shifts to low-quality social media and away from traditional media.
Note that traditional media still had their own problems propagated through their ownership. We never really had high-quality independent media in the US, although the current indie-media landscape might have opportunities for growth the way they wouldn't have if traditional media still existed.
Re: Section 230 Turns 30; Both Parties Want It Gone–For Contradictory Reasons
#3Section 230 is the reason why media was able to be consolidated into a few large corporations while eliminating higher-quality news organizations. Section 230 allows anyone to be a journalist without facing consequences for false or incorrect information. This means a post on Facebook or YouTube or their own website has equal weight as a traditional news report that relies on higher standards, like verification throu…
Section 230 is the only reason you can post here.
Without Section 230, if every place that hosts words is liable. No one is going to host user content.
I don't think anything you are saying is remotely correct. It's all a very specific weird narrow theory, picking very specific people you want to hurt & affect. But what you are asking for has such a broader zone of suffering & pain than Facebook.
Truly one of the greatest magnets for weird ass conspiracy theory horseshit. Fucking so awful, because it's that one tiny polar holding up the entire internet.
Re: Section 230 Turns 30; Both Parties Want It Gone–For Contradictory Reasons
#4Section 230 is the reason why media was able to be consolidated into a few large corporations while eliminating higher-quality news organizations. Section 230 allows anyone to be a journalist without facing consequences for false or incorrect information. This means a post on Facebook or YouTube or their own website has equal weight as a traditional news report that relies on higher standards, like verification throu…
> Section 230 allows anyone to be a journalist without facing consequences for false or incorrect information. This means a post on Facebook or YouTube
Who doesn't face consequences for whose information? Nothing about Section 230 prevents you from being liable for your own words. Section 230 makes Facebook and YouTube immune from liability for what you post (barring exceptions specified in Section 230). Do note that the First Amendment also protects Facebook and YouTube from liability for what you post, but Section 230 immunity lets most such cases get dismissed before the discovery phase of a lawsuit.
> This means a post on Facebook or YouTube or their own website has equal weight as a traditional news report that relies on higher standards, like verification through multiple sources.
Equal weight how? If you mean that readers give similar truthfulness probabilities to posts on Facebook/YouTube/X/Twitter, I don't think that's the case.
> Section 230 is the reason why media was able to be consolidated into a few large corporations while eliminating higher-quality news organizations.
Could you explain in further detail how Section 230 is particularly responsible for media consolidation? Also, by "media", are you placing primarily social media companies in the same category as primarily news companies?
Re: Section 230 Turns 30; Both Parties Want It Gone–For Contradictory Reasons
#5Section 230 is the reason why media was able to be consolidated into a few large corporations while eliminating higher-quality news organizations. Section 230 allows anyone to be a journalist without facing consequences for false or incorrect information. This means a post on Facebook or YouTube or their own website has equal weight as a traditional news report that relies on higher standards, like verification throu…
Section 230 is the only reason you can post here. Without Section 230, if every place that hosts words is liable. No one is going to host user content. I don't think anything you are saying is remotely correct. It's all a very specific weird narrow theory, picking very specific people you want to hurt & affect. But what you are asking for has such a broader zone of suffering & pain than Facebook. Truly one of the gre…
LOL WUT? I run my own server in your basement. That's what I do.
And, no, it doesn't mean no one is going to host user content. It means every user content will have an editor over them, like the "Letters to the Editor" that newspapers had.
If you want unedited and unliable speech, you can always run your own servers.
Re: Section 230 Turns 30; Both Parties Want It Gone–For Contradictory Reasons
#6Section 230 is the reason why media was able to be consolidated into a few large corporations while eliminating higher-quality news organizations. Section 230 allows anyone to be a journalist without facing consequences for false or incorrect information. This means a post on Facebook or YouTube or their own website has equal weight as a traditional news report that relies on higher standards, like verification throu…
> Section 230 allows anyone to be a journalist without facing consequences for false or incorrect information. This means a post on Facebook or YouTube Who doesn't face consequences for whose information? Nothing about Section 230 prevents you from being liable for your own words. Section 230 makes Facebook and YouTube immune from liability for what you post (barring exceptions specified in Section 230). Do note that…
> Who doesn't face consequences for whose information?
People don't consequences because the cost for punishment is too high. You now have to hire a lawyer to sue some random person on the internet that deliberately lied about you.
What do you think the cost of consequences should be? How much should I pay a lawyer to sue someone that posts libel?
Re: Section 230 Turns 30; Both Parties Want It Gone–For Contradictory Reasons
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Section 230 is the only reason you can post here. Without Section 230, if every place that hosts words is liable. No one is going to host user content. I don't think anything you are saying is remotely correct. It's all a very specific weird narrow theory, picking very specific people you want to hurt & affect. But what you are asking for has such a broader zone of suffering & pain than Facebook. Truly one of the gre…
LOL WUT? I run my own server in your basement. That's what I do. And, no, it doesn't mean no one is going to host user content. It means every user content will have an editor over them, like the "Letters to the Editor" that newspapers had. If you want unedited and unliable speech, you can always run your own servers.
>If you want unedited and unliable speech, you can always run your own servers.
Without Section 230, you personally are just as liable for the content on your basement server as big corporations are on their platforms, but those big platforms have the budget for a legal team and a staff of moderators and editors, and you probably don't.
Re: Section 230 Turns 30; Both Parties Want It Gone–For Contradictory Reasons
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Section 230 allows anyone to be a journalist without facing consequences for false or incorrect information. This means a post on Facebook or YouTube Who doesn't face consequences for whose information? Nothing about Section 230 prevents you from being liable for your own words. Section 230 makes Facebook and YouTube immune from liability for what you post (barring exceptions specified in Section 230). Do note that…
> Who doesn't face consequences for whose information? People don't consequences because the cost for punishment is too high. You now have to hire a lawyer to sue some random person on the internet that deliberately lied about you. What do you think the cost of consequences should be? How much should I pay a lawyer to sue someone that posts libel?
> You now have to hire a lawyer to sue some random person on the internet that deliberately lied about you.
While social media companies are immune to liability for what users post, if you file a libel lawsuit the companies have to follow court orders (unless the company's lawyers convince the court otherwise) to disclose the identity of a user who allegedly posted libel.
> You now have to hire a lawyer...
> What do you think the cost of consequences should be? How much should I pay a lawyer to sue someone that posts libel?
Unless you study law, you would have needed a lawyer to sue for defamation/libel before the age of the internet anyway. Whatever the costs are, the consequences should fall on the person who posted the libel, not on the company offering the posting service.
Re: Section 230 Turns 30; Both Parties Want It Gone–For Contradictory Reasons
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who doesn't face consequences for whose information? People don't consequences because the cost for punishment is too high. You now have to hire a lawyer to sue some random person on the internet that deliberately lied about you. What do you think the cost of consequences should be? How much should I pay a lawyer to sue someone that posts libel?
> You now have to hire a lawyer to sue some random person on the internet that deliberately lied about you. While social media companies are immune to liability for what users post, if you file a libel lawsuit the companies have to follow court orders (unless the company's lawyers convince the court otherwise) to disclose the identity of a user who allegedly posted libel. > You now have to hire a lawyer... > What do…
So you're saying the internet, which is a machine designed to disseminate information, has no effect on libel compared to before-the-internet?
And that anyone should be able to publish libel as long as it costs someone else to sue them?
Re: Section 230 Turns 30; Both Parties Want It Gone–For Contradictory Reasons
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
LOL WUT? I run my own server in your basement. That's what I do. And, no, it doesn't mean no one is going to host user content. It means every user content will have an editor over them, like the "Letters to the Editor" that newspapers had. If you want unedited and unliable speech, you can always run your own servers.
>If you want unedited and unliable speech, you can always run your own servers. Without Section 230, you personally are just as liable for the content on your basement server as big corporations are on their platforms, but those big platforms have the budget for a legal team and a staff of moderators and editors, and you probably don't.
And do you know WHY you wouldn't get sued under section 230 when publishing content on a major corporate website?
Because lawsuits aren't free.