Zuckerberg Throws the Open Internet Under the Bus; Support Section 230 Reform(techdirt.com)
techdirt.com
Zuckerberg Throws the Open Internet Under the Bus; Support Section 230 Reform
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201027/14034445599/zuckerberg-facebook-throw-open-internet-under-bus-support-section-230-reform.shtml
10 comments
As the dominant player in the market one would expect facebook to be in favor of introducing legislative barriers to entry
The largest operators in any industry tend to support (and even lobby for) all kinds of costly regulations to create a moat around their business and cause the cost to enter said industry to be too steep for most.
It's interesting, because usually that lobbying is for something that generally helps people and can sometimes be seen as good legislation (such as tobacco regulation).
In this case, however, only harm is the outcome of removing the strengths provided by the first amendment.
It's interesting, because usually that lobbying is for something that generally helps people and can sometimes be seen as good legislation (such as tobacco regulation).
In this case, however, only harm is the outcome of removing the strengths provided by the first amendment.
The proposed benefit of the legislation that takes these companies into responsibility is, depending on what political camp you're in, either reducing hate speech on digital platforms or reducing arbitrary censorship.
Debatable on either front but pretty tangible in either case. It's not even clear what the first amendment means in this context because it can be evoked on either side, the freedom of private platforms to moderate as they see fit or the freedoms of users to speak on essential infrastructure.
Debatable on either front but pretty tangible in either case. It's not even clear what the first amendment means in this context because it can be evoked on either side, the freedom of private platforms to moderate as they see fit or the freedoms of users to speak on essential infrastructure.
When you selectively moderate, and exercise your first amendment as a platform, you are no longer simply a conduit - you are the conductor and you endorse all speech not removed.
Thus, all of these censor loving platforms should be held accountable.
Thus, all of these censor loving platforms should be held accountable.
Do you think you should be held accountable because you moderate the comment section of your blog, or Hackernews should be held accountable because they moderate their website according to their own standards?
This is the consequence of what you're proposing, a politically right or left leaning website say, simply by virtue of exercising freedom of association, would automatically become liable for content.
It seems pretty clear that this is unworkable and would, instantly, destroy the entire public internet.
This is the consequence of what you're proposing, a politically right or left leaning website say, simply by virtue of exercising freedom of association, would automatically become liable for content.
It seems pretty clear that this is unworkable and would, instantly, destroy the entire public internet.
There is a difference between moderation and selective moderation.
If a website moderates per pre-defined and agreed upon terms, then they should not be liable. If a website is going to moderate with a left-lean or right-lean, it should be up front about this agenda instead of selectively censoring or flagging comments.
If a website moderates per pre-defined and agreed upon terms, then they should not be liable. If a website is going to moderate with a left-lean or right-lean, it should be up front about this agenda instead of selectively censoring or flagging comments.
Those definitions are fiction not founded by any law on the book. Nor in any jurisprudence - they are bullshit propaganda and are like citing "admirality law" by a sovereign citizen - proof of being actively incredibly wrong.
The courts have already ruled that even with right of way the government has no right to content standards on cable - now it magically is going to apply to non-excluding websites? Utter nonsense.
The courts have already ruled that even with right of way the government has no right to content standards on cable - now it magically is going to apply to non-excluding websites? Utter nonsense.
The nutjobs on both sides(Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren) are in favor of sweeping changes, along with every big institutional player and company that's looking to erect barriers to entry.
Anyone who's interested in freedom should at least be very suspicious of the loud, censorious and moneyed all arguing this as an exigent matter.
Anyone who's interested in freedom should at least be very suspicious of the loud, censorious and moneyed all arguing this as an exigent matter.
I only see one workable solution for this and that is to add a trusted third party layer that will enable users to select who they want to fact check their newsfeeds, pretty much like how we have the option to choose our default search engine today.
Whatever your opinion on the law, this statement by Zuckerberg says all you need to know about why he would take this position. Climb the ladder, and then kick it out from under you.
Zuckerberg realizes that it is significantly cheaper to adjust to more social media regulation than it is to compete against competitors (e.g. Tok Tik). Removing or significantly reforming section 230 would ensure Facebook's position for many years to come. To paraphrase Thompson: Facebook grew virally, and so can it decline virally. Reform of 230 precludes the latter.