• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The "Rights" position on Social Media Liability and section 230.

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,093
511
126
I'm trying to understand the "Rights" position on Social media liability. Wouldn't yanking their liability protections make them have to police their posts even more? If that was the case, how would this Biden story every have gotten out? Am I missing something or is this just a scare tactic?
 
Nov 8, 2012
17,134
3,206
126
Precisely young padawan.

They would then be accountable for what they produce.

A utility (such as a phone company) isn't liable for what goes on with their networks.

A publisher on the other hand, is liable because they are able to read through and police their content. Ultimately though, they are liable for what they produce.


You can't have the protections of both. This has been long overdue.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,373
7,257
126
Precisely young padawan.

They would then be accountable for what they produce.

A utility (such as a phone company) isn't liable for what goes on with their networks.

A publisher on the other hand, is liable because they are able to read through and police their content. Ultimately though, they are liable for what they produce.


You can't have the protections of both. This has been long overdue.
And kiss your 'free speech' goodbye. When social media platforms are legally responsible for everything published on their platforms, they are naturally going to censor the living shit out of what is published on their platforms.

For someone trying to claim someone else can't have it both ways, you sure are stupid enough to think you should be able to have it both ways.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,217
1,246
136
I'm trying to understand the "Rights" position on Social media liability. Wouldn't yanking their liability protections make them have to police their posts even more? If that was the case, how would this Biden story every have gotten out? Am I missing something or is this just a scare tactic?
Yes. Every post, everything written on those sites they would be liable for. If someone slanders someone, they could be sued. And so on. There would be none of these sites.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,373
7,257
126
These forums will be gone without section 230.
You're not gonna trigger any Trumper concerns over that as their express intent is that the implementation of this would be disparate according to political affiliation.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
Social media companies are not simple utilities because their platforms do more than just deliver content, but they are not exactly publishers either. If a publisher chooses to write about fake news, the then the liability is on them. If a social media company chooses to filter those fake news stories, they’ve just become editors.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
I'm trying to understand the "Rights" position on Social media liability. Wouldn't yanking their liability protections make them have to police their posts even more? If that was the case, how would this Biden story every have gotten out? Am I missing something or is this just a scare tactic?
This is why just regurgitating Trump talking points gets his followers into trouble. They are incapable of any kind of a deep dive on any issue and just listen to Dear Leader.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,327
2,851
126
People who spread known misinformation as fact will be gone from the forums. That accounts for 90% of Trump supporters.
No, @Paratus is correct. No form of public communication would exist following such a change. On the public realm only direct editorial control would exist due to liability. Private communication platforms are also in question - but is less obviously threatened.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY