Okay, so this seems to be a big thing political issue right now.
Essentially, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is, according to Wikipedia:
My take is that content providers such as You Tube, Twitter, Facebook and regular blogs (and maybe even this forum - although it may fall outside of US jurisdiction) can operate as they do because if someone puts something libellous on those platforms, the providers cannot be sued for it.
The caveats are to do with "in good faith". Presumably if they encouraged illegal or slanderous content to be uploaded, they would be in breach, but for some people, it seems they believe Section 230 means those platforms have NO RIGHT to restrict any content that is being uploaded.
On the right, people like Donald Trump and Lindsay Graham seem to have a problem with Section 230 because they see it as allowing the platforms to restrict content how they like and that editorial decisisons such as banning crazy loons from posting, is against the spirit of the law. (I have heard right-wing acquaintances actually argue that banning Alex Jones is illegal!)
On the left, some people seem to argue that Section 230 gives platforms too much leeway to do nothing about hate speech etc...
There also seems to be some anti-trust issues that some argue allow the platforms to curate the limits of acceptable speech however they want it, and given some platforms dominance, that arguably puts too much power in the hands of a few businesses.
Personally, I am of the opinion that it should stay as it is. But let's have a heated debate...
Essentially, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is, according to Wikipedia:
Quote:
|
Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action. |
The caveats are to do with "in good faith". Presumably if they encouraged illegal or slanderous content to be uploaded, they would be in breach, but for some people, it seems they believe Section 230 means those platforms have NO RIGHT to restrict any content that is being uploaded.
On the right, people like Donald Trump and Lindsay Graham seem to have a problem with Section 230 because they see it as allowing the platforms to restrict content how they like and that editorial decisisons such as banning crazy loons from posting, is against the spirit of the law. (I have heard right-wing acquaintances actually argue that banning Alex Jones is illegal!)
On the left, some people seem to argue that Section 230 gives platforms too much leeway to do nothing about hate speech etc...
There also seems to be some anti-trust issues that some argue allow the platforms to curate the limits of acceptable speech however they want it, and given some platforms dominance, that arguably puts too much power in the hands of a few businesses.
Personally, I am of the opinion that it should stay as it is. But let's have a heated debate...
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3aNhJXp
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire