Much less dangerous to just allow technology companies to be sued for damages for spreading dangerous bullshit, as opposed to trying to regulate misinformation directly.
Much less dangerous to just allow technology companies to be sued for damages for spreading dangerous bullshit, as opposed to trying to regulate misinformation directly.All we need to do is start prosecuting politicians for deliberately spreading dangerous misinformation. And we know the GOP is scared of being prosecuted because for years they and their corporate sponsors have been whining about their right to spread lies, calling it Free Speech.
Strikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee threeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeees out!!!!!!!!!!!
Marjorie Taylor Greene: Twitter bans congresswoman over Covid misinformation
The congresswoman was suspended after tweeting falsely about high levels of vaccine related deaths.www.bbc.com
You want social media companies to be sued for the statements of their users? This seems like a very bad idea.Much less dangerous to just allow technology companies to be sued for damages for spreading dangerous bullshit, as opposed to trying to regulate misinformation directly.
All we need to do is start prosecuting politicians for deliberately spreading dangerous misinformation. And we know the GOP is scared of being prosecuted because for years they and their corporate sponsors have been whining about their right to spread lies, calling it Free Speech.
You sure about that?She gives dumb blondes a bad name.
All we need to do is start prosecuting politicians for deliberately spreading dangerous misinformation. And we know the GOP is scared of being prosecuted because for years they and their corporate sponsors have been whining about their right to spread lies, calling it Free Speech.
When they've actively promoted them, yes.You want social media companies to be sued for the statements of their users? This seems like a very bad idea.
Not true, 230 was made for everyone. Regardless, knowingly spreading and promoting bullshit is (for the most part) protected by the first amendment so section 230 wouldn't even matter.When they've actively promoted them, yes.
There has to be something between do nothing and the internet falling apart. Facebook, et. al. make a shit ton of money knowingly spread and promoting bullshit and knowingly driving people to radicalize and to suicide, they shouldn't be allowed to do them with no recourse.
Section 230 was designed for places like Geocities or passive forums, not for companies to take third party postings and actively push them onto millions of other people.
If you remove section 230 protections that means companies can either not moderate at all, so the entire internet becomes 4chan, or they will moderate so strictly everything is censored, or they will shut down entirely.Funny thing is, if you put the financial load on the forum/company, they would likely be even more aggressive at booting evil speakers.
The Donny Gang would have no public voice at all outside of their own site(s).
Anandtech doesn't promote your posts, Facebook does.Not true, 230 was made for everyone. Regardless, knowingly spreading and promoting bullshit is (for the most part) protected by the first amendment so section 230 wouldn't even matter.
Section 230 essentially protects say, Anandtech, if I defame you on this platform. It says you have to sue me, the perpetrator, and not Anandtech, the forum service. Without section 230 I guarantee you this forum would be closed in a matter of minutes.
There is obviously some ability to have something between completely static websites and industrialized hatred and propaganda.If you remove section 230 protections that means companies can either not moderate at all, so the entire internet becomes 4chan, or they will moderate so strictly everything is censored, or they will shut down entirely.
Section 230 is awesome, don't screw with it.
Anandtech doesn't promote your posts, Facebook does.
Facebook specifically started purposely spreading and promoting anger 15 years after 230 was created. Your argument is basically like saying the second amendment covers tanks and nukes
Propaganda is protected by the first amendment.There is obviously some ability to have something between completely static websites and industrialized hatred and propaganda.
Really? Think suing Sean Hannity would go anywhere in court? Doesn't sound like the current 230 works.Not true, 230 was made for everyone. Regardless, knowingly spreading and promoting bullshit is (for the most part) protected by the first amendment so section 230 wouldn't even matter.
Section 230 essentially protects say, Anandtech, if I defame you on this platform. It says you have to sue me, the perpetrator, and not Anandtech, the forum service. Without section 230 I guarantee you this forum would be closed in a matter of minutes.
I don't think suing Sean Hannity is likely to go anywhere, no, but I'm not sure what section 230 has to do with that as that would be defamation law and even then not applicable.Really? Think suing Sean Hannity would go anywhere in court? Doesn't sound like the current 230 works.
She gives horses a bad name.She gives dumb blondes a bad name.
She had a shot at the Triple Crown in her primeShe gives horses a bad name.
The first amendment doesn't make you immune from the liability of your speech. If a forum is pushing suicide on kids and providing them them detailed instructions, that forum should be able to be sued for damages, but because of 230 there are no consequences. Just like I said Facebook should be able to be sued for actual damages they've caused.It's not, I'm saying that first and foremost promoting and spreading anger is protected by the first amendment unless it is reasonably considered to incite imminent lawless action. Imminent meaning RIGHT NOW, not some radicalizing thing where they will go kill someone tomorrow. After all this is why the first amendment protects Nazis and Klansmen despite their evil and clearly violent ideology.
So first and foremost the first amendment protects them. So hate and lies are open season unless you're repealing the first amendment. What the first amendment doesn't generally protect is defamation, which is the main thing 230 is protecting against, and defamation isn't really what you're concerned about as far as I can tell.
The first amendment doesn't make you immune from the liability of your speech. If a forum is pushing suicide on kids and providing them them detailed instructions, that forum should be able to be sued for damages, but because of 230 there are no consequences. Just like I said Facebook should be able to be sued for actual damages they've caused.
I was not aware of any blonde neanderthal women. I bet it's dyed blonde.She gives dumb blondes a bad name.
And now we're insulting neanderthals. Before that it was horses. Can we stop comparing MTG to anything other than horrible pathogens like Smallpox or Anthrax?I was not aware of any blonde neanderthal women. I bet it's dyed blonde.