Cars
Yesterday
1640
Electric cars depreciate 10 times faster than gasoline cars
Tech Industry
Yesterday
345
Did you get a job offer this year?
India
Yesterday
1013
What do vegetarian Indians eat for protein?
AMA
Yesterday
1174
I have worked at TikTok US core tech for 3 years. AMA.
Tech Industry
Yesterday
745
East Asian Men don’t talk to me bc I’m Vietnamese
Section 230 is what allows companies like Meta, Google / YouTube, Twitter, and other social media to scale. It basically says that as platforms they are neutral conduits of communication and should not be held legally responsible for the content they carry. This special privilege in law enabled them to scale up to gigantic companies with enormous influence, but has the been good for Americans? The assumption behind 230 turns out to be false: the platforms are not neutral at all. Instead they write policies for moderation that are steeped in political bias, and use their landing pages and algorithms to push partisan political messages. Their special privileges in law enabled them to amass huge market power, and yet they are using it for partisan politics. Since they are not neutral conduits of information their special exemption on being legally responsible for their content should be ended. Section 230 should be replaced with a section explicitly holding platforms like Facebook, Google search, and YouTube explicitly responsible for all content they publish. This will likely result in them having to abandon or reduce automated moderation and instead have human moderators review and approve all syndicated content and user postings. The may well invalidate their entire business model by eliminating the ability to scale through automation, but so be it. That will be better. They will be replaced by a multitude of smaller more crafted sites that have human moderation. Probably for the best. We tried the highly sca lol ed neutral platform idea but it failed in that it isn't in the end neutral.
Yes, it’s been good for Americans and economy. Thanks OP for wasting our time
It seems to be horrifyingly bad
This is a really stupid take
You probably support the left wing ideology that is being pushed by these platforms. Otherwise you would see how hypocritical it is for them to claim neutrality under 230 while going to court to insist they have a 1a right to be partisan.
Please cite in the law where neutrality is actually mentioned? It isn’t. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Your desire for big government to force viewpoints on property owners is expressly rejected in Section 230.
The claim was made in the debates at the time the law was passed was that Internet content providers should be thought of as being like common carriers, providing access to information as a service. The expectation is neutrality. We're not getting neutrality, we're actually getting activist platforms that aggressively push a politically partisan message. There have been numerous public discussions that these platforms are biased, such as when Twitter banned the President, but it's obvious they have absolutely no intention of backing down from there partisan nature. That includes Google and Facebook ad well as others As a result it's no longer in the interests of the American people to offer them special privileges and special legal protections. If they want to be partisan they can operate under the same rules as other partisan media like TV news or newspapers, which always take full responsibility for everything they publish.
I'm not sure where you get "big government to force viewpoints". Government will play no role. Once 230 is repealed the platforms will simply be accountable in civil court for the content they carry. Government will rarely, if, be a party to that, unless you platforms relay criminal content and are charged with violating the criminal law such as perhaps publishing death threats and such
Maybe if you cry harder about it Alex Jones will slide in your DMs.
You can expect to see whatever Republican is nominated to make this part of their campaign for President. The left thought they could abuse control over platforms with impunity, just like Disney thought it could operate with impunity in Florida, but they're going to find out the hard way that Americans can still vote. It's coming, and unless Biden pulls some pretty significant rabbit out of his hat, it's not looking like he's going to be President much longer. The activists controlling these platforms should decide whether they want to voluntarily reform towards neutrality, or forcibly be reformed by law. They've got about a year to figure that out.
Oh I am fully expecting the next Republican nominee's war cry to be a continuation of Trump's attack against any and all media. It's straight out of Goebbel's playbook and works wonders with low IQ, single information source voters.
Once amazon takes responsibility for the shit 3rd party sellers sell on amazon, we can talk.
I agree with you, Amazon should kick off a lot of those Chinese sellers. I don't think this is an Amazon vs Google topic, but glad you agree Google is a problem too.
Should probably ban newspapers and cable news too while we are at it.
They are human edited
Yea. Totally unbiased humans.