OT- is it time to repeal Section 230?

[mstateglfr]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-section-230-and-why-do-so-many-lawmakers-want-to-repeal-it/

Since the thread about storming the Capitol is active and there is a healthy discussion about whether Trump is to blame or Social Media is to blame(or perhaps both are to blame?)- I encourage anyone who is unfamiliar with what section 230 is to take a few minutes and read the link. Then google it and read other stuff about Section 230 as well.



Basically, Section 230 provides a shield to protect websites from being responsible if a user posts something illegal. This is pretty much why reddit, 4 chan, 8 chan, etc have exploded in popularity with those on the fringe of legal interests.
If Section 230 is repealed, then YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter would preview posts before allowing them to go live because they would be liable for content in those posts.

This subject is critical to how we as a society handle news and information moving forward. Regardless of if you support Section 230 or dislike it, it is vital that you understand the consequences of keeping it as well as the consequences of removing it.

 

[Msubulldogfan1]

Both sides of that is dangerous imo. Giving a big tech unchecked power to decide what gets said is not something I’m comfortable with.

 

[dawgstudent]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-section-230-and-why-do-so-many-lawmakers-want-to-repeal-it/

Since the thread about storming the Capitol is active and there is a healthy discussion about whether Trump is to blame or Social Media is to blame(or perhaps both are to blame?)- I encourage anyone who is unfamiliar with what section 230 is to take a few minutes and read the link. Then google it and read other stuff about Section 230 as well.



Basically, Section 230 provides a shield to protect websites from being responsible if a user posts something illegal. This is pretty much why reddit, 4 chan, 8 chan, etc have exploded in popularity with those on the fringe of legal interests.
If Section 230 is repealed, then YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter would preview posts before allowing them to go live because they would be liable for content in those posts.

This subject is critical to how we as a society handle news and information moving forward. Regardless of if you support Section 230 or dislike it, it is vital that you understand the consequences of keeping it as well as the consequences of removing it.

It will be taken advantage of and shut down the mom and pop websites like SixPackSpeak.com

 

[GloryDawg]

Don't really care on way or another. I will go to You Tube just out of being bored. I started a Facebook page to find Marine Buddies. Other than sports message boards I don't have any accounts.

 

[Leeshouldveflanked]

Isn’t Facebook and Twitter already doing that with “Fact Checkers”?

 

[jethreauxdawg]

I don’t know all the details of how it all works, but I don’t like when these websites put disclaimers on certain peoples posts. I don’t know what the answer is. Do I trust the Twitter owner to equally evaluate and censor all parties. Not a chance. Does it bother me that stupid stuff is easily passed as truth online, absolutely. I really have no clue what is best. I’m guessing allowing it all to be out there, uncensored, is best. The moment anything is censored, i think the censors are going to manipulate the info to what they believe.

 

[mstateglfr]

It will be taken advantage of and shut down the mom and pop websites like SixPackSpeak.com

For sure. Didnt mention this initially since I admittedly dont fully understand/know if posting something illegal equates to rumors and some of the outright incorrect statements on SPS(and other forums). Some of it could be viewed as illegal in a libelous way, perhaps. But rumors arent illegal and misunderstanding reality isnt illegal. Those seem to be the two biggest concerns for most forums, right?
I know I started this thread, but I for sure still need to understand more about the ramifications of changing or repealing Section 230.

 

[Dawgg]

No. Section 230 needs to remain in place.

Otherwise, dawgstudent is on the hook for all the dumbass **** we post.

 

[Dawgtruc]

Yes. There's not a more smug tyrant than Jack Dorsey. With Zuck a close 2nd. Not sure about the Google guy/

 

[mcdawg22]

We have to repeal 230 because dumb people believe **** they read on the internet.

 

[Leeshouldveflanked]

We have to repeal 230 because dumb people believe **** they read on the internet.

You mean Ozarka’s stories aren’t real?

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

It will be taken advantage of and shut down the mom and pop websites like SixPackSpeak.com

Can you imagine if you were responsible for what the idiots on this board say? If that law gets passed, let me know... I m willing to take the roll of the vacuum repair guy on Breaking Bad.

We can make you a Colorado State fan. You and the family can stay in the guest quarters at Fishwater's estate. I heard it has its own heated pool that's isolated from the view of the main house. #UnderwaterFlatScreen

 

[CochiseCowbell]

What if we went back to holding individuals responsible for their own individual actions?

If Joe Blow on six-pack encouraged me to piss on an OM fans leg & I did it, is it Joe's fault or mine?

 

[RocketDawg]

Both sides of that is dangerous imo. Giving a big tech unchecked power to decide what gets said is not something I’m comfortable with.

Correct. They filter with bias, and that's not acceptable. So if Twitter, Facebook, and others are hiding behind 230, repeal it. We don't need censoring based on their political leanings - let the reader decide.

 

[mcdawg22]

What if we went back to holding individuals responsible for their own individual actions?

If Joe Blow on six-pack encouraged me to piss on an OM fans leg & I did it, is it Joe's fault or mine?

The problem with 230 being repealed is the Ole Miss fan may have the right to sue DS for a big screen.

 

[operch]

Do the fact checkers need to be fact checked?

 

[Dawgg]

Correct. They filter with bias, and that's not acceptable. So if Twitter, Facebook, and others are hiding behind 230, repeal it. We don't need censoring based on their political leanings - let the reader decide.

You could simply not use those services if you’re unhappy with their business practices.

 

[mstateglfr]

Correct. They filter with bias, and that's not acceptable. So if Twitter, Facebook, and others are hiding behind 230, repeal it. We don't need censoring based on their political leanings - let the reader decide.

If its repealed, why would that resolve your beef that they fact check(filter) with bias? If they are liable for stuff posted on their site, then they will filter even more than ever.

 

[00Dawg]

So we need a replace, and not a repeal. To satisfy me...

That would have to include a ban on "fact checking", and any sort of limitations on political ads (the latter due to free speech concerns). If someone wants to use actual numbers to demonstrate the Georgia elections need a full-on investigation, they shouldn't get a "this claim is disputed" tag.
It would also mean things like claims of having a COVID vaccine by the end of 2020 wouldn't get a "fact check", either.

 

[msstatelp1]

No don't repeal it. Change the slander and libel laws so its easier to sue people for lying. Claim that a guy named Barrack Hussein Obama is a Muslim? Have proof or get sued. Quit letting people use the "Well, that's just my opinion" excuse.

 

[paindonthurt_]

Yeah it’s all trumps fault.

Didn’t seem to be a big deal when CHAZ happened or any of the other “peaceful protests”.

Perception of the capitol is bad.

But is it really worse than shutting down a decenct size portion of a city? Threatening lives of people
Who love there and closing businesses?

When did politicians become more important than the people they serve?

 

[MedDawg]

Can you imagine if you were responsible for what the idiots on this board say? If that law gets passed, let me know... I m willing to take the roll of the vacuum repair guy on Breaking Bad.

We can make you a Colorado State fan. You and the family can stay in the guest quarters at Fishwater's estate. I heard it has its own heated pool that's isolated from the view of the main house. #UnderwaterFlatScreen

Make him a USM fan and there would only be a 1 in 11 chance he would be found.

 

[GloryDawg]

I don’t know all the details of how it all works, but I don’t like when these websites put disclaimers on certain peoples posts. I don’t know what the answer is. Do I trust the Twitter owner to equally evaluate and censor all parties. Not a chance. Does it bother me that stupid stuff is easily passed as truth online, absolutely. I really have no clue what is best. I’m guessing allowing it all to be out there, uncensored, is best. The moment anything is censored, i think the censors are going to manipulate the info to what they believe.

Here is the answer. Facebook and Twitter do censor Conservative so just leave and go to another. There is a conservative friendly platform. Heck if 30 million conservatives just delete their accounts those platforms would take notice. It would kill thier stock.

 

[o_1984Dawg]

You obviously know nothing about Capitol Hill, Seattle.

But trying to compare shutting down a few blocks to shutting down democracy... okay.

 

[RocketDawg]

Why should the "fact check" at all? That's not their function. It's the reader's perogative whether they want to believe what they read. Leave everything up as posted (unless it's to incite a riot or terroristic) with no responsibility what anyone posts. They shouldn't be liable, nor should they filter or "fact check" anything.

 

[RocketDawg]

For sure. Didnt mention this initially since I admittedly dont fully understand/know if posting something illegal equates to rumors and some of the outright incorrect statements on SPS(and other forums). Some of it could be viewed as illegal in a libelous way, perhaps. But rumors arent illegal and misunderstanding reality isnt illegal. Those seem to be the two biggest concerns for most forums, right?
I know I started this thread, but I for sure still need to understand more about the ramifications of changing or repealing Section 230.

Me too. I haven't read it - just have limited knowledge from news sources, which themselves are biased.

Basically, I don't think Twitter and Facebook and others like it should filter or fact check anything. They're not Snopes. But they sholdn't have liability for what their posters write either. Let the reader decide to believer or not.

But take this site for instance. Nobody, except the owner DawgStudent, should be able to remove things or fact check things. If he, as the owner and moderator, doesn't like something, then let him remove it. He sets the rules. Personally, I like political opinions of the day to be expressed here, but they do get out of hand and if DS wants to ban them, it's his perogative.

 

[RocketDawg]

No don't repeal it. Change the slander and libel laws so its easier to sue people for lying. Claim that a guy named Barrack Hussein Obama is a Muslim? Have proof or get sued. Quit letting people use the "Well, that's just my opinion" excuse.

A person can pretty much say what they want about public figures without having to worry about slander. If you could prosecute someone for telling an untruth about a public figure, just about all politicians running for office would be in jail.

 

[RocketDawg]

You obviously know nothing about Capitol Hill, Seattle.

But trying to compare shutting down a few blocks to shutting down democracy... okay.

One is far left, the other far right. Both should have been shut down immediately. Protest is one thing; having it turn violent is another animal altogether. We're rapidly heading toward third world status if the crap from both extremes isn't quelled.

 

[paindonthurt_]

Is “minor threat” to democracy worse than ruining people’s lives or property? Seems they go hand in hand to me.

 

[paindonthurt_]

They can’t play by the same rules.

Let me be clear. Today was wrong. So are these other so called “peaceful” protests.

 

[RocketDawg]

Absolutely.

 

[dog12]

If its repealed, why would that resolve your beef that they fact check(filter) with bias? If they are liable for stuff posted on their site, then they will filter even more than ever.

If 230 is repealed, then the media platforms have no protection from defamatory content that appears on their platform.

Thus, if 230 is repealed, then Facebook, Twitter and YouTube would be liable for content on their website that equates to libel or slander against Trump or Biden.

With 230 in place, the media platforms can effectively censor any content they deem to be "misinformation."

That is how Facebook, Twitter and YouTube can selectively censor conservative voices that post content on their websites.

In my opinion, that is 17ing bullsh*t.

If 230 is repealed, at least the media platforms would be forced to evaluate whether "progressive" content is defamatory and remove it if it is.

The way things are currently, "progressive" voices have free reign on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

At least that's my understanding and my viewpoint.

 

[Go Budaw]

What if we went back to holding individuals responsible for their own individual actions?

If Joe Blow on six-pack encouraged me to piss on an OM fans leg & I did it, is it Joe's fault or mine?

Nobody’s fault. You both would have done the world a tremendous service.

 

[SteelCurtain74]

Here is a good article that explains the origins of Section 230.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/...t-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview

I, as some of you, don't know enough currently to make an informed decision on what should be done. With that said however, after watching the recent Congressional hearings with Zuckerberg and Dorsey, I don't get the feeling that they are just misunderstood actors in this. I think there is a definite bias with their platforms. That's fine with me, just be upfront about it and then I can make the decision as to if I want to continue to be on those platforms.

 

[dog12]

Why should the "fact check" at all? That's not their function. It's the reader's perogative whether they want to believe what they read. Leave everything up as posted (unless it's to incite a riot or terroristic) with no responsibility what anyone posts. They shouldn't be liable, nor should they filter or "fact check" anything.

This is correct.

Even if Facebook and Twitter did no fact-checking whatsoever, they still would not be liable for ANY content on their platform (per 230).

Facebook and Twitter use "fact-checking" to censor content (i.e., speech) with which they don't agree.

Also, Facebook and Twitter use "fact-checking" to sway public opinion in the direction they want it to go.

This is how they promote their agenda (propaganda?) and silence conservative voices.

 

[Arthur2478]

If Section 230 is repealed, then YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter would preview posts before allowing them to go live because they would be liable for content in those posts.

Preview all posts??? Ha! More than 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. Good luck with that.

 

[msstatelp1]

A person can pretty much say what they want about public figures without having to worry about slander. If you could prosecute someone for telling an untruth about a public figure, just about all politicians running for office would be in jail.

That's the point. Make it so no one, even politicians, can't tell half-truths or out right lies without suffering consequences. See how quick these political ads would change if the people paying for them faced being sued.

 

[Dawgbite]

You mean Ozarka’s stories aren’t real?

Oh, they’re real and they’re fabulous!

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

If anything section 230 should be deemed to not apply.

A major difference between, say, SPS and Facebook is that SPS does no curation of content. There's no recommendation of what thread I should read next. I can set up alerts to let me know when M-State girlfriend posts, but that's my own doing.

Facebook, and Twitter and even Reddit, will make recommendations based on mining my data. They might see that I've been earning major tendies from reading r/wsb and recommend I slow my **** down and check out r/investing. This recommendation is something that they generated.

Facebook tends to be far worse than Reddit on this front. If I go to Reddit I generally see the thread the same as any other user. Facebook will display posts and threads in a unique order for each user. It's crazy.

 

[bruiser.sixpack]

Well, I feel pretty confident that the photos of the bearded guy and the guy with the cow horns headdress, and exact same tattoos in the exact same spots on his arms showing both of them at a BLM protest in Arizona and also at the Capitol today, will be “fact-checked” right off Facebook soon.