that can host trillions of messages from being sued into oblivion by anyone who feels wronged by something someone else has posted — whether their complaint is legitimate or not.
Section 230 also allows social platforms to moderate their services by removing posts that, for instance, are obscene or violate the services’ own standards, so long as they are acting in “good faith.”The measure’s history dates back to the 1950s, when bookstore owners were being held liable for selling books containing “obscenity,” which is not protected by the First Amendment.
CompuServe was sued over that, and the case was dismissed. Prodigy, however, got in trouble. The judge in their case ruled that “they exercised editorial control — so you’re more like a newspaper than a newsstand,” Kosseff said.That didn’t sit well with politicians, who worried that outcome would discourage newly forming internet companies from moderating at all. And“Today it protects both from liability for user posts as well as liability for any claims for moderating content,” Kosseff said.
Section 230 is bad. These big tech companies intentionally censor certain voices or push narratives for a specific agenda and then hide behind section 230.
Bad headline AP. I expect better.
Deregulation. During the 90s just other companies competing with one another. To put the classes into little boxes. All to funnel agendas back into sect classes.
Our children are being fed content by AI and algorithms that is extremely harmful. This includes but not limited to pedos, sex traffickers, bullies, drug dealers and thinspiration content. We should all hope the justices educate themselves on this law.
It is complicated but I think these platforms need to do a better job at moderation. That being said, they have grown so big its impossible to moderate it effectively so holding them liable will just destroy them. Congress needs to find a middle ground
Speech isn't free on a publishers platform; social media IS a publisher. What exists now, under Section 230* isn't free speech, it's algorithmically amplified speech, full of institutional exceptions. No solution, and not regulating is not synonymous w equity and freedom.
Speech isn't free on a publishers platform; social media IS a publisher. What exists now, under section 230, isn't free speech, it's algorithmically amplified speech full of institutional exceptions. No solution, and not regulating is not synonymous w equity and freedom.
Cable news gets away with all falsehoods by claiming the opinions are that of the guest, one they have invited knowingly. Tragedy that media companies that have always benefited from Section 230, are now trying to curtail new generation media firms from having the same protection
Section 230 at face value doesn't seem to be the problem unless it somehow insulates the media company from 'advocating' certain speech by intentionally steering it towards people. At that point it appears they are liable the same as print or broadcast media.
Consumers vilify the corporate monsters they create...what a sweet symphony it is
Sites like Twitter, FB or any site with a comments section can't be legally liable for everything any user posts. It simply can't work. But they should be responsible for any editorializing, warnings, etc they apply.
Can't say you're not a publisher. If you're filtering and choosing what to publish. And what does or doesn't go on your platform. JustSaying
This is not likely to end well.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: ksatnews - 🏆 442. / 53 Read more »
Source: KPRC2 - 🏆 80. / 68 Read more »