A mission for our 100K+ Members -- Help Eliminate CDA Section 230 Protections!

[sirhrmechanic]

Right now, the FCC is looking closely at revising or revoking the Section 230 protections for the social media giants. These protections, written into the Communications Decency Act (CDA), keep the social media giants from getting sued by stating that they are not publishers... Even though they now regularly publish, censor, suppress and 'decide' content. This is what has helped them grow so massive... to the point where they are interfering with elections and the very fabric of society. They have no fear of lawsuit... this gives them inflated stock value and an ability to do anything they want.

Each and every member of SH... and their families... should write their congressman and both their senators telling them that you support revision of the Section 230 of the CDA as soon as possible. And that any revision should hold social media and big tech companies responsible for any content unless they act in a completely neutral manner with regard to their services. In other words... any banning of speech, suppression, shadow banning, application of 'community standards'... is open to lawsuit and not protected.

This will A. Devastate their stock value. B. Open the door for them to be held accountable. C. Allow the growth of competition.

It's easy to do... You can even type in your zip code and get taken to your Congressman and Senators offices... and e-mail submission areas.

This is a bipartisan issue. Both sides of the aisle are unhappy with big Tech. The lefties think that it's a den of white supremacy and the right sees all the banning of content. The more mail they get on the subject from actual constituents, the more likely they will be to support the FCC's changes.

CDA Section 230 Reform. It can happen. Make Zuckerweenie Poor Again!

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[E. Bryant]

I'm curious to see the exact proposed revision that would keep the tech giants from doing their usual fuckery while, say, not allowing Sniper's Hide to get sued every time that Ban Cat does his job.

A useful reference:

Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act

Hello! Someone has referred you to this post because you’ve said something quite wrong about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I apologize if it feels a bit cold and rude to resp…

www.techdirt.com

 

[Romeo458]

We could delete any FB or twitter accounts,, and refuse to use the product or services instead of expecting government to fix it. No one forces you to have a FB account.

 

[79steeler]

I'm closing my FB account on the 13th No. I have already opened a Parler account to connect with family and friends. Parler is basically the same thing as FB and they support the 1st amendment! Great place for conservatives.

 

[Crang]

We could delete any FB or twitter accounts,, and refuse to use the product or services instead of expecting government to fix it. No one forces you to have a FB account.

The same could be said of your telephone carrier.....only they cant cut your calls if they dont like what you are saying.

 

[E. Bryant]

I'm closing my FB account on the 13th No. I have already opened a Parler account to connect with family and friends. Parler is basically the same thing as FB and they support the 1st amendment! Great place for conservatives.

Parler censors some sources, such as the right-wing Vox Day:

Login to read

That doesn't sound like any definition I hold for "free speech"

Unless you or someone that you personally know physically possesses the server upon which a platform is hosted, you're open to getting fucked.

 

[pmclaine]

Careful what you ask for.

Id rather see them be admonished for their violation of First Amendment Protections of free speech.

Im concerned that if the content sites become accountable for the words of their users whats to stop a firearms manufacturer from being accountable for the actions of their products users.

Slap Facebook with a class action First Amendment violation and remove a few hundred billion from their accounts because they did actively censor speech.

 

[Srikaleak]

Would this also remove protections for SnipersHide? I wouldn't want to be held liable for anything that goes on in the Bear Pit...

 

[W54/XM-388]

If Big Tech hates it with a passion, I kind of suddenly get interested in the idea....

Big Tech already makes it almost impossible to say anything they don't agree with.... so let's do it to them... without lube...

 

[W54/XM-388]

We could delete any FB or twitter accounts,, and refuse to use the product or services instead of expecting government to fix it. No one forces you to have a FB account.

Good luck getting traction on that, too many "conservatives" will complain about "censorship" but then go right back to supporting their sworn enemies and being good little products for those that hate us to sell because.... "Free" and "Easy" and "Convenient"....

I'm closing my FB account on the 13th No. I have already opened a Parler account to connect with family and friends. Parler is basically the same thing as FB and they support the 1st amendment! Great place for conservatives.

I have some significant reservations about Parler based first, on them having already started censoring people. Then you have to ask yourself, how are they paying the bills? It seems like yet another service where they hope to sell you as the product and eventually will start clamping down hard to have their "product" be a bit easier to sell to the buyers.

Unless you control the purse strings, you are the product.

 

[louu]

Careful what you ask for.

Id rather see them be admonished for their violation of First Amendment Protections of free speech.

Im concerned that if the content sites become accountable for the words of their users whats to stop a firearms manufacturer from being accountable for the actions of their products users.

Slap Facebook with a class action First Amendment violation and remove a few hundred billion from their accounts because they did actively censor speech.

The bill of rights only applies to the government not some fruitcake private company like Facebook

 

[pmclaine]

The bill of rights only applies to the government not some fruitcake private company like Facebook

Explain.

Wait my sarcasm meter is signalling.

My bad.

 

[anon]

The same could be said of your telephone carrier.....only they cant cut your calls if they dont like what you are saying.

I've never had a phone that I did not pay for.

If something is too good to be true, it is probably not true. If you paid nothing for a service they provide, expect to get what they want to give.

 

[Crang]

I've never had a phone that I did not pay for.

If something is too good to be true, it is probably not true. If you paid nothing for a service they provide, expect to get what they want to give.

If thats your philosophy- dont ever use a web browser or search engine again. The data they collect on you is the product. They arent free either. Still seem reasonable or is your point flawed?

 

[Romeo458]

The same could be said of your telephone carrier.....only they cant cut your calls if they dont like what you are saying.

Except phone is considered a utility, and governed differently that a private company. Also, if say Sprint starts doing that what is stopping you from switching to Tmobile?

Good luck getting traction on that, too many "conservatives" will complain about "censorship" but then go right back to supporting their sworn enemies and being good little products for those that hate us to sell because.... "Free" and "Easy" and "Convenient"....

Precisely, I've said in the past liberty will be extinguished because we are to accustomed to the comfortable safety of domestication

 

[Ravenworks]

But yet there is a big right in your face option to sign in using Facebook or Google on this very site.

 

[OldSalty2]

I've never had a phone that I did not pay for.

If something is too good to be true, it is probably not true. If you paid nothing for a service they provide, expect to get what they want to give.

Yeah, except you are paying to use the services.

Your data is the fee.

Imo there isnt a simple solution. On one hand, would massive exodus be enough to change their blatant censorship and hold on what is truth? Idk, maybe...but its going to take a herculean effort.

Why?

Because in many ways fb and google (these 2 especially) are engrained into social norms. Its morphed from a way to keep in contact with long lost "freinds" and family to being necessary part of being "socially aware" and modern communications. One could make an argument that fb and google are more like the gas and electric companies when put in the context of modern communications. In this context id also add to the argument that the footprint is too large and monopolized for "free market" forces to really make much difference. They have approached utility status. And if you look at both companies histories, you will see some very aggressive tactics used to undermine and discourage competition etc.

On the other hand more govt control is rarely the correct answer. Its often 2 edged sword and you have to be careful what you wish for. But, much like slander and defamation are actual litigationable issues, fb and google should be held to some account for their actions and how they have manifested themselves into arbiters of truth.

The issue could be self-controlled, but both companies have shown that they cannot truly be fair, because they can only be as fair as those who act on their behalf.

Its complicated, but at this point I have came to the opinion that lifting (or at least realigning) their immunity would be overall a good step forward.

 

[Crang]

Except phone is considered a utility, and governed differently that a private company. Also, if say Sprint starts doing that what is stopping you from switching to Tmobile?


Precisely, I've said in the past liberty will be extinguished because we are to accustomed to the comfortable safety of domestication

Well thats my point exactly. Technology for mass communication- be it a phone or social media should be classified as a public utility. Lets face it- your phone is gathering data on you like social media or any other tech does. That is the real product, despite you paying for some technologies and not others. The line is already blurred. Data privacy and freedom of speech both need to be addressed for all technologies- everyone is trying to have their cake and it it as long as they can.

I see Biden plans to put the former Google CEO in his administration. They are working hard to make sure reforms that protect us never happen.

 

[Romeo458]

Well thats my point exactly. Technology for mass communication- be it a phone or social media should be classified as a public utility. Lets face it- your phone is gathering data on you like social media or any other tech does. That is the real product, despite you paying for some technologies and not others. The line is already blurred. Data privacy and freedom of speech both need to be addressed for all technologies- everyone is trying to have their cake and it it as long as they can.

I see Biden plans to put the former Google CEO in his administration. They are working hard to make sure reforms that protect us never happen.

Data privacy and freedom of speech was eliminated with the patriot act not facebook and cell phones. Government has already taken enough control, why give them more?

 

[OldSalty2]

Data privacy and freedom of speech was eliminated with the patriot act not facebook and cell phones. Government has already taken enough control, why give them more?

What is govt taking, exactly, by addressing 230 in regards to fb, google and twatter?

One could make an argument that by lifting or easing 230 immunity they are giving some power back to the people.

 

[Romeo458]

What is govt taking, exactly, by addressing 230 in regards to fb, google and twatter?

One could make an argument that by lifting or easing 230 immunity they are giving some power back to the people.

Inch by inch as usual. Instead of us taking personal responsibility in what products we use, allowing government to alter this regulation a little now in ten years what stops the government from decorating can be published by individuals on websites like this?

I, just like many others would love to see Facebook take a public flogging, but the tools that are used against our enemies today will be used by our enemies tomorrow against us I just like many others with love to see Facebook take a public flogging, but the tools that are used against our enemies today will be used by our enemies tomorrow against us. That is the way American politics works now.

 

[Crang]

Data privacy and freedom of speech was eliminated with the patriot act not facebook and cell phones. Government has already taken enough control, why give them more?

Patriot Act we lost privacy from government. Do you think this means we cant have data privacy from businesses monetizing our every move? Thats how these companies make their money. Im not sure why declaring newer technologies like social media public utilities to preserve some freedom of speech is giving the government more control. Keep in mind elements of the government are actively using these technologies to suppress evidence of election fraud right now based on the guise that Trumps position is incorrect. They sensor all opinions and articles contrary to their narrative utilizing the same 230 protections we are discussing.

 

[OldSalty2]

Inch by inch as usual. Instead of us taking personal responsibility in what products we use, allowing government to alter this regulation a little now in ten years what stops the government from decorating can be published by individuals on websites like this?

I, just like many others would love to see Facebook take a public flogging, but the tools that are used against our enemies today will be used by our enemies tomorrow against us I just like many others with love to see Facebook take a public flogging, but the tools that are used against our enemies today will be used by our enemies tomorrow against us. That is the way American politics works now.

You do realize 230 already exists, correct? And how it impacts fb, google and twitter. So I ask again, what exaclty is govt taking by restructuring or even lifting immunity for these 3 companies?

 

[anon]

The problem is that the government made a law, that in its current form, is being used to abridge the freedom of speech and press. There are rather narrow definitions of the speech that is prohibited. Limiting speech outside of the prohibited becomes editorial, and at that point the companies are assuming ownership of the sites content, and denying civil liberties. Now if they had no law granting them immunities, then there would be no grounds to claim liberties were being denied.

But, I don't use FB or Twatter, so what do I know ...

 

[Romeo458]

Patriot Act we lost privacy from government. Do you think this means we cant have data privacy from businesses monetizing our every move? Thats how these companies make their money. Im not sure why declaring newer technologies like social media public utilities to preserve some freedom of speech is giving the government more control. Keep in mind elements of the government are actively using these technologies to suppress evidence of election fraud right now based on the guise that Trumps position is incorrect. They sensor all opinions and articles contrary to their narrative utilizing the same 230 protections we are discussing.

Facebook and Twitter or not necessities of everyday life they do not fall under the definition of a public utility. They are entertainment and distraction.

 

[Romeo458]

You do realize 230 already exists, correct? And how it impacts fb, google and twitter. So I ask again, what exaclty is govt taking by restructuring or even lifting immunity for these 3 companies?

I am not a scholar on this 230 law nor do I claim to be or care to be. I understand however that if the government lifts the immunity for these 3 companies it's going to apply to everyone because if a law does not apply to everyone it is unjust, unless of course you are government

 

[OldSalty2]

I am not a scholar on this 230 law nor do I claim to be or care to be. I understand however that if the government lifts the immunity for these 3 companies it's going to apply to everyone because if a law does not apply to everyone it is unjust, unless of course you are government

There are entities that do not have immunity.

A question, why does fb, google and twitter even need immunity when they are deciding on what can and cannot be posted?

 

[Romeo458]

There are entities that do not have immunity.

A question, why does fb, google and twitter even need immunity when they are deciding on what can and cannot be posted?

I personally do not feel they should have any immunity to censor with a political bias as they do. However the point I am trying to make is it seems to me that people would rather have government deal with this then to stop using their products and services.

My further point is anytime we ask the government to do something for us that we should be doing for ourselves, does it ever go well? I am not looking at what will happen tomorrow with this I am looking at how will be "reinterpreted" down the road.

Truth be told this issue is complex as shit and I do not want to start writing an essay for a response.

 

[Crang]

Facebook and Twitter or not necessities of everyday life they do not fall under the definition of a public utility. They are entertainment and distraction.

Actually they are how many businesses interact with their customers, advertise, push promotions in mass, etc.. I work in tech and many of our solutions are integrated with Facebook and Twitter for business purposes- it has nothing to do with entertainment or distraction. Sales, marketing, etc. Actually they are more used than an old fashioned phone call. Anyone answer their phone anymore and talk to a sales guy making a cold call anymore? Not much. Interacting through social media and drawing them and getting them entered into a marketing nurture campaign is how its done now. I could easily make the case phones are irrelevant for marketing in particular. These are now utilities.

 

[OldSalty2]

I personally do not feel they should have any immunity to censor with a political bias as they do. However the point I am trying to make is it seems to me that people would rather have government deal with this then to stop using their products and services.

My further point is anytime we ask the government to do something for us that we should be doing for ourselves, does it ever go well? I am not looking at what will happen tomorrow with this I am looking at how will be "reinterpreted" down the road.

Truth be told this issue is complex as shit and I do not want to start writing an essay for a response.

Your points are valid. Last one I will make.

These are monopolies and there is no competition strong enough to break their current hold.

If they want to get out of the
speech police business, then by all means...keep the immunity. But once they tilt the hand of information, then I say, lets see if those decisions can withstand the same scrutiny that other publishers are not afforded.

 

[E. Bryant]

There are entities that do not have immunity.

A question, why does fb, google and twitter even need immunity when they are deciding on what can and cannot be posted?

Every website presumably needs some ability to filter content based upon some standards. Otherwise, Frank asks us to clean up our act, I post a picture of my butthole in response, Ban Cat does his job, and then I can sue Frank. Section 230 protects Frank and Ban Cat from nuisance lawsuits.

The problem with Big Tech isn't Section 230, or at least the solution is not to revoke that protection. The issue is that they are monopolies.

 

[OldSalty2]

Every website presumably needs some ability to filter content based upon some standards. Otherwise, Frank asks us to clean up our act, I post a picture of my butthole in response, Ban Cat does his job, and then I can sue Frank. Section 230 protects Frank and Ban Cat from nuisance lawsuits.

The problem with Big Tech isn't Section 230, or at least the solution is not to revoke that protection. The issue is that they are monopolies.

What you say is true, but being monopolies isnt the only issue.

Posting butthole pics, w/e sure. but i know you are smart and can see thats not what is happening. and using extreme examples where a vast majority are going to agree cannot advance the discussion.

 

[Romeo458]

Yes they are monopolies. Monopolies form when people use a product or service to that extent. Facebook and the like is designed to be addictive that is why people have such a hard time turning it off. Like every addictive they need a replacement where they can still get their fix. Google has also cornered the market on several technologies but they have solid competitors.

The two ways to break the monopoly are government intervention, or the people stop using the product. Typically people stop using a product when it goes to shit, Facebook is at that point and people are starting to log off permanently because other options are coming to light.