Friday, October 16, 2020

"This should trouble you immensely"

Clay Travis calls out the troubling behavior of the Big Tech media cabal:

Democrats impeached the president for his call with Ukraine’s president asking for Ukraine to look into this issue. Now that the Hunter Biden emails have surfaced, it appears the president was 100% correct. Did Joe Biden have a secret meeting with Ukraine officials, cover it up, and then lie about it?

That’s certainly what Hunter Biden’s email would suggest.

Now, again, you may not care. Or may not think a story like this should impact your presidential vote. But for a technology company to unilaterally and arbitrarily suspend all discussion of this issue?

That should be terrifying to anyone. Whether you’re a Democrat, Republican or an independent, this should trouble you immensely.

There absolutely, positively have to be content neutral rules in place for major tech companies, which are acting as default monopolies when it comes to online news distribution in our country. If those tech companies decide to favor one political party’s side over the other, that’s not proper behavior and we need major investigations to uncover how and why this is occurring.

Not allowing a story like this to circulate artificially constrains the marketplace of ideas and keeps the American public from being exposed to all arguments and perspectives about an important election decision. When editors at Twitter and Facebook are artificially manipulating which stories you see — and favoring one political party in the process — it’s also no longer possible for the tech platforms to claim they are not exercising editorial decision making.

Get rid of Section 230. End the platform/publisher dance. This isn't that hard. 

Labels: , ,


Blogger Kingly Gift October 16, 2020 2:10 PM  

To the lawyers here; assuming section 230 stops protecting the BigTechs from lawsuits, who has standing to sue them when they don't apply community standard rules equally? The FCC or some other gov agency? Or the parties who were censored/kicked off?

Blogger Michael October 16, 2020 2:13 PM  

"Get rid of Section 230. End the platform/publisher dance. This isn't that hard"

That was exactly my thought when I saw the clip of Cruz and Graham decrying this behavior and demanding the subpoena and questioning of social media CEOs. Um...aren't they just doing what you let them? Change the law or STFU

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 16, 2020 2:22 PM  

Section 230 is perfectly fine. For ISPs, hosting companies, even blogspot. But once you ban someone for disagreeing with you, you're no longer a common carrier.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 16, 2020 2:25 PM  

Kingly Gift wrote:who has standing to sue them when they don't apply community standard rules equally?
Anyone defamed, threatened or harassed using their platforms.

Blogger Lazarus October 16, 2020 2:41 PM  

A-A-A-A-A-ND my goto Q site is gone.

Blogger buzzardist October 16, 2020 2:48 PM  

“Section 230 is perfectly fine” is akin to saying that libertarianism is a practically feasible political model. It offered a naive ideal. In practice, it’s a disaster.

Tech companies want to shape society. They want to exercise power. There always have to be legitimate reasons, even under 230, for banning people. If someone is using the platform to trade kiddie porn, it should be obvious: call the police, and ban. But this always leaves room for tech companies to put their thumb on the scale. Potentially criminal behavior? Big tech can shoehorn gun shows into that. Abusive behavior? Hateful behavior? Distributing false, harmful information? Violating terms of service? We’re back to being able to ban essentially anyone we don’t like. There are a thousand and one ways for a tech company to dance the line on 230.

As long as tech has power-hungry people, SJWs, and other bad actors, 230 is a pipe dream ideal that will never work as intended. We’re better dropping the charade, living in reality, and disrupting the tech industry status quo.

Blogger Lance E October 16, 2020 2:50 PM  

"we need major investigations"

Why? We already know exactly what those investigations are going to uncover: complex and unpredictable algorithms, seeded by totally one-sided training data, with enormous relevancy weight and rule immunity given to the legacy media, and enormous trust weight (i.e. for flags) given to the "fact checkers" and NGOs like SPLC/ADL, and no small amount of direct interference from individual SJWs on the Trust and Safety teams, often in coordination with the same legacy media and NGOs.

They're not shy about this at all. It's published, documented policy, right there in the open for anyone to read. The congresscucks just refuse to do anything about it, or maybe they're actually too stupid to understand it.

Blogger Mr. Deficient October 16, 2020 2:58 PM  

The leader of the FCC said he was going head to "Clarify" section 230.

It can't be a bad sign.

Blogger Jack Amok October 16, 2020 3:03 PM  

Anyone defamed, threatened or harassed using their platforms.

Also anyone harmed by material published on the platform - for instance victims of fraud. If someone uses twitter to distribute links to a fraudulent product (say, fake sports memorabilia or - remember when we went to stadiums? - fake game or concert tickets), and twitter is no longer a common carrier, they can be sued for fraud right along with the crooks they helped publicize.

There is probably less room to sue for having your content removed, though of course if they violated their own TOS you can try. But dumb progs have created a whole bunch of "bake my cake" laws, so there's probably an opening there.

Blogger Ska_Boss October 16, 2020 3:25 PM  

The good news is that chairman Pai is on the case. Clarification of its meaning is a necessary first step.

Blogger Jack Ward October 16, 2020 3:25 PM  

Can the President use executive order to end the 230 exemptions for a particular company?

Blogger OneWingedShark October 16, 2020 3:26 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Section 230 is perfectly fine. For ISPs, hosting companies, even blogspot. But once you ban someone for disagreeing with you, you're no longer a common carrier.
Exactly this, simply start allowing the implementation of editorial/publishing procedures to be the refutation of "platform" status.

Getting rid of Section 230 will, I anticipate, be used to hold platforms and providers accountable in a selective manner as is now being done in BLM/Antifa vs self-defense cases — thus making it far too risky for small- and medium-sized businesses to compete with the established/connected big-business. IOW, this could kill the "Build your own platform" movement.

Blogger Rick October 16, 2020 3:40 PM  

In light of current events, I think we should dust off that rumor about Lifelog.

Blogger Jack Amok October 16, 2020 4:00 PM  

Exactly this, simply start allowing the implementation of editorial/publishing procedures to be the refutation of "platform" status.

230 already contains a "good faith" clause that requires any restriction of content to be "in good faith" or the company loses protection and becomes a publisher liable for all non-restricted content. A court could (gfawh) enact this today. I believe the FCC and FEC together could hammer a bad-faith platform for campaign finance violations today, with no modifications to 230. No doubt any number of Hawaiian judges would fall all over themselves to break quarantine to rule against it, but, that will be true of anything for a while.

All the tools exist right now. All we need are men with the will to use them.

Blogger Jeff aka Orville October 16, 2020 5:34 PM  

There are three hard drives, and they are blackmail from the CCP. Neon Revolt just posted a translated vid from Chinese dissident Guo Wengui. It names the Bidens, Pelosi, Bloomberg, along with other R and D politicians.

He says Trump has all three. Maybe this is what Trump said, when he keeps saying "we have it all". Drive three supposedly has the bioweapon scheme...Covid?

Blogger Jeff aka Orville October 16, 2020 5:37 PM  

and now the three drives are being written up in the UK media

Blogger urthshu October 16, 2020 5:53 PM  

>>now the three drives are being written up in the UK media

Read the article and now I have less confidence in the hard drives.

Blogger Shane Bradman October 16, 2020 6:44 PM  

Say it with me, "Predator Biden". This is the key issue why Creepy Joe can't win. They impeached Trump over this, and failed horribly, so they're aware of what a big deal it is.

Blogger Unknownsailor October 16, 2020 7:28 PM  

I was listening to NPR talk about the Hunter Biden thing while driving to CA. They were seriously advancing the proposition that the entire thing is the product of a Russian sourced disinformation campaign.

I don't know how the lemmings of the left arrived on that Russian counter intel thing, but they just will not let it go. Even after all this time, and literally reams of documentary evidence that refutes it, they still cling to it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 16, 2020 8:14 PM  

The alternative to section 230 is to have every hosting company, interner service provider, telecom backbone, cellular carrier, cable company, or other service provider to be on the hook for every packet crossing their network, forcing them to inspect every packet, break every encryption, and recreate every conversation in real time.

Blogger Boaty Bear October 16, 2020 9:04 PM  

The Daily Mail doesn't have to work very hard to gaslight you does it, have you learned nothing?

The Daily Mail of the MSEnemedia!

Blogger Pathfinderlight October 16, 2020 9:21 PM  

The original purpose of Section 230 was to prevent message boards and such from being sued into oblivion by creating a platform/publisher distinction and allowing the web hosts to moderate based on their common sense. The legal background was a bad ruling caused by existing law at the time.

Since then, tech companies are now operated nearly uniformly by dishonest leftists who see no difference between a vote for a national populist candidate and gassing people.

In engineering, we have a saying...common sense is less common than you'd think. Loose concepts like good faith, common sense, and the like work fine when all parties are Christian. But once parties involved are not, an entirely different logical framework is needed.

Blogger Pathfinderlight October 16, 2020 9:38 PM  

This must be why the Donald hasn't been pushing hard on Joe's obvious mental disorder.

If he's not competent to stand trial, how in God's name is he supposed to be competent to run the country?

Blogger Beloved October 16, 2020 9:56 PM  

I had a small amount of money stolen last week. When I asked my guest if he'd done it, he denied it. I had no proof so let it go.

Yesterday I found undeniable proof that he was the theif and confronted him with it. He denied it, repeatedly, and even tried to prove his innocence through absence of irrelevant evidence.

Such is the way with thieves and liars, they will never admit guilt when confronted with damning evidence.

Blogger Damelon Brinn October 16, 2020 11:22 PM  

It looks like we're going to find out whether the media's (including social media) control over the narrative is absolute. They're going all-in on trying to stop or discredit this story, abandoning subtlety and risking the loss of whatever credibility they had left.

Blogger JamesB.BKK October 16, 2020 11:51 PM  

These platforms have been routinely threatened by Democrats to control and delete anti-Dem narrative content. They are carrying out the will of at least part of the state apparatus, even if they were not intended to do so at their birthings with support of DARPA and Stanford spooks to be sold off for a pittance.

Blogger Doktor Jeep October 17, 2020 12:00 AM  

Finally! We're saved! There will be hearings scheduled weeks if not months apart as the republicans "look into this matter".
That'll show big tech.
Finally the cavalry arrived just in time.

Blogger Jack Amok October 17, 2020 2:10 AM  

230 is a pipe dream ideal that will never work as intended

Let me make this easy for you. 230 is like laws that say you can't sue Ruger because some vibrant shot your brother with one of their guns. They're not - if they are a neutral provider of their product/service - responsible for how their products are used.

But if they sell the vibrant a gun but refuse to sell one to your brother because they think he deserves to get shot, that's a different matter.

Blogger Bezzle October 18, 2020 11:16 PM  

GAB has an interesting take on the matter:

"...The “Repeal Section 230” Narrative is Being Pushed by Silicon Valley, Don’t Fall For It

The Big Tech giants want to be regulated.

Yes, you read that right.

Big Tech knows that if online speech is regulated by the federal government, either directly or indirectly via regulation of tech companies, they can and will weaponize it against The People and stifle competition...."

--It wouldn't be the first time or even the tenth time that Big Tech tried to sucker us into making its allied lawyers rich. (Trump in the past has wisely resisted such overtures while initially pretending to support them.)

Blogger Valar Addemmis October 19, 2020 11:52 AM  

Wholesale 230 repeal isn't something that's going to happen. What is going to happen is either regulatory clarification or redrafting (or both) to stop the current practice of using it as both a shield and a sword.

Anyone saying that the only options are the current situation or full repeal which will kill the internet is shilling for Big Tech. My opinion of Gab drops even further.

I thank Vox for opening my eyes on Gab's nonsense before I did something like doing a lifetime sub, since it was initially something I really wanted to support.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts