[–] antiliberalsociety 2 points 27 points (+29|-2) ago 

They're always calling for shit, show me the headline where it actually gets done

[–] Ken_bingo2 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

It is irrelevant anyways. 230 does not provide protections to them if they are engaged in publishing. Since they do edit content, they are not protected by it now.

[–] Gorillion 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Yep, we need to see "forcefully assrapes social media barons".

[–] Maroonsaint 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Idk what this means but I know until there are heads rolling it means nothin

[–] aaronC 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

230 protections mean that if you run a website, you're not legally responsible for what users post as long as you don't editorialize and you treat information fairly.

A good example is illegal images of minors. If someone came to Voat and started posting it, Putt wouldn't be legally responsible because the platform is free, uncensored, and he's not editoralizing or publishing, the users are. He's protected by Section 230.

Now imagine you go to a website that no longer has Section 230 protection, and someone posts those same images. Now the website owner is responsible, by censoring, editorializing, and publishing they have assumed responsibility for the content on their platform.

Losing 230 means you have to have people watching for any illegal content that's posted and instantly removing it. Having 230 means, as a site owner, you're only responsible if users report the content to you and you don't act on it, if it's blatantly illegal.

It makes it nearly impossible to run a large website, and it's impossible for any sort of startup to exist because they don't have the resources to police content. I highly doubt they'd get rid of the 230 protections, just the threat alone is enough to terrify these people.

[–] selpai 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Exactly. Removing 230 protections just means that only the largest most well funded websites will be able to employ the content filters that would be required to ensure that illegal/copyrighted/protected content isn't uploaded/posted. Removing section 230 isn't going to prevent censorship. Quite the opposite, it will force all websites to censor, and give them a legal & public excuse to do so.

The proper solution would be to recognize that sites like Twitter/Facebook/Etc. aren't platforms or content hosts. In actively deciding what content can & cannot be posted, they are become publishers. Section 230 need not apply to them.

[–] gazillions 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

"...just the threat alone is enough to terrify these people". No it is not. They are all in for war. They believe they are the new state and they want win or die. You've got them all over the internet deliberately pushing people to civil war and spreading hate non stop.

They lie to congress and laugh off a sitting President. The only thing they've stopped short of is offering money for a hit on the guy and his supporters.

They pay BLM and antifa to torch and burn small businesses for fucks's sake. That's what "donations" mean.

When a blm hyped nigger shoots a police officer, silicon valley did it. Silicon valley paid for the hit. It's indirect so they walk away laughing.

[–] bcboncs ago 

So would you say this is a step prior to Nationalizing the big tech media? In other words, big tech specifically would be bound by the rules of the US Govt?

[–] DemocratsRTerrorists 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Repealing section 230 will destroy the internet. Voat would be gone, thats for sure. If the intention is to not repeal it, and instead classify social media websites who editorialize posted content as publishers, then fine. But that distinction has to be made, and it has to be clear. Calling to repeal it is dangerous and ignorant, and makes this whole thing seem like a jewish set up.

[–] bigrex99 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I don't think anyone should be talking about repealing 230. That isn't the issue.

The issue is that Twitter/Facebook/Google are no longer "open platforms" that fall under section230, and are now "Publishers" and have to follow the rules of a publisher, with no protection from libel for any posts.

This would mean that Twitter/Facebook/Google are in effect "publishing" every comment on the site, and have to take legal ownership of every word, no matter who says it.

This would be a good thing, as anyone that has ever received a Twitter threat could sue Twitter for endangerment, etc.

[–] PsyOp 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 


[–] cm18 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

For big tech. He needed to clarify. Good. Big Tech IS abusing their monopoly. The problem is that Barr has been tinkering with the idea of gutting 230 or making it a "privilege" where you have to jump through hoops. The confusion that Barr is creating is screwing with Trump's message.

[–] AndWhitesLetItHappen 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

He's actually not allowed to touch that statute, that's why he's 'calling' for it.
It's Congress's domain.

[–] Corrector1 ago 

Section 230 is not the problem. Trump is just fulfilling the CIA / deep states agenda.

[–] Neongreen ago 

How about. If you have a market cap over 20 million dollars. Private or public. You don't get 230 protection.

[–] srsh ago 

Let me know when some legislation moves forward to make it happen. Until then it sounds like empty talk/ promises

load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)