The amount of content moderation a platform should be able to do while still maintaining their protections needs to be limited. Removal of illegal content, such as threats of violence and child porn should be the only moderation allowed, while still maintaining protection.
Platforms like that already exist. Ever heard of 4chan? But there is a LOT of content that is grossly offensive, hate speech, adult porn, blatantly off-topic or trolling, etc. which is perfectly legal under the First Amendment, but I and most other people really don't want to see on the social media platforms where we are active participants. Parents of children or teens especially do NOT want them to encounter this when they are watching RUclips or participating in a discussion board with others of their age.
If it became illegal for platforms to moderate legal content under the First Amendment like racism, hate speech (without threats of violence) and adult porn, then (a) it would fracture the global Internet as other countries begin blocking access to American websites hosting this stuff, and (b) it would lead to calls to repeal or change the First Amendment to make porn, racism and hate speech illegal. And that would open up an even bigger can of worms. So despite the imperfections in the current system, I actually consider it a reasonable compromise that has worked well over the more than 20 years it has existed. Any changes should be made with the gravest caution regarding the possible repercussions and unintended consequences.
@@photios4779 There are already calls to change the First Amendment. The fact of the matter is that platforms can censor your speech and shut you down simply because they disagree, and then face no repercussions. Also, it wouldn't be illegal to moderate that sort of thing. The platform would just become a publisher, and lose their protection. So what if the internet fractures? That's destined to happen at some stage anyway.
@Malcolm in the Middle So you’re advocating the choice between an anything-goes cesspit of hate, racism and abuse (the result of zero moderation) vs. an overzealously moderated platform (the consequence of liability). What happens if you have a discussion site about cooking and someone joins and starts posting all about politics, a topic not relevant to your site. Would they be forced to keep that content up to retain their immunity, or would removal of off-topic content makes them liable for the on-topic content? As for the claims that tech companies have an anti-conservative bias, that is utter nonsense. Tech companies don’t remove content because they disagree with your political stance. The suggestion itself is farcical when you see just how popular conservative content is on places like Facebook - conservative content usually occupies most of the top ten shared posts. The platforms apply their rules equally: If you violate rule X, you receive enforcement Y. If more conservatives are being affected by a platform’s rules, that just means they’re violating those rules more. One side will be moderated more than the other if one side is violating the rules more than the other. There’s no bias there.
@@Thomas15 If you have a board about cooking, and you remove all posts or comments not about cooking, then of course you should lose your section 230 protections, and it won't matter. Why? Because section 230 removes liability for comments made on your site. That is all it does. Furthermore, your argument that platforms apply their rules equally is demonstrably false. Look at Reddit for example: how many rules has r/shitredditsays broken, yet they have never been banned. r/thedonald however, explicitly shamed and banned users for breaking the site rules, yet they were removed. Look at Twitter: banning people all over for expressing views on the right, while the most vile comments on the left are left untouched (e.g kill all white people). It's odd to see how leftists like yourself have changed over the years. 10 years ago, nobody would have expected you to carry water for big corporations, but welcome to 2020 I guess.
Well platforms should not censor. Let it be the shit posting like it was in the 90’s and 2000’s. The internet was already like this the difference we have billion users.
Section 230 SHOULDN’T be abolished or stricken! RATHER, it should be rewritten and/or modified, extensively if necessary, to reflect the reality and address BOTH the LEFT and the RIGHT’s concerns! Sensors should be ‘federally certified’ based on universal guidelines of EQUAL fairness and implementation, and ONLY hired from those ranks. Regular yearly audits would be performed to ensure that NO ONE strays too far off the path! The left, for example, historically has a real functional disability in that it cannot separate their personal, social will and political bias from a TRULY ‘inclusive’ protocol written into Section 230 that’d really help guide BOTH them AND conservatives be heard WITHOUT bias-based interference! Naturally this will be fought to the death by the left, but is necessary if the Internet is to become anything other than the technological oligarchy we experience on a minute by minute, day by day REALITY! The powers that be CAN and SHOULD do way better. To date, we’ve collectively given these platforms ‘ALL the ROPE they need to HANG themselves”, while we’ve sat back and watched how they behave! Naturally a kind of ‘internal’ mob rule runs rife in these platforms without any proper redress, if any. Hopefully this will stop and be dealt with in a way we, the public, will like and ultimately benefit from. This kind of NECESSARY change will ONLY happen by this president, so it’s now or never! The left never had the stomach for it, but now things are prime for a proper redress and long last. Will it be done? Hopefully, but don’t get your hopes up too high, at least until we see a draft of the legislation. Till then, I remain hopeful and optimistic . . . Imho . . .
Any amendment should require means of on-platform recourse for those who are censored, but do nothing illegal. Experts with credentials should also be able to speak on that-which they have credential/experience without censorship.
I understand not making content providers liable for the content others create. However, if the content provider is not liable for the content others create then they should not sensor. If the content creator is breaking a law then that's a different story but this exception hold outside the internet.
@rabidsquirrel73 They do apply their rules equally: If you violate rule X, you receive enforcement Y. If more conservatives are being affected by a platform’s rules, that just means they’re violating those rules more. One side will be moderated more than the other if one side is violating the rules more than the other. There’s no bias there.
@rabidsquirrel73 That’s an assertion - what’s your evidence of their being a bias? It cannot be anecdotes that conservatives are moderated more because that’s not proof of a bias, just proof that they’re moderated more. As I said, if one side violates the rules more, they’ll be moderated more.
@rabidsquirrel73 Because you’re the one making the claim. I’ve looked for evidence of a bias but can’t find any. I do find PLENTY of anecdotes but no actual evidence demonstrating a bias.
@Casey Loomis Why? Because an anything-goes environment isn’t healthy for civil society. Why have actual rules and laws in the real world? Because we all want to be part of a civil, healthy society and we understand that rules are required to make that happen. Also: abuse, harassment and hate can and do have serious real-world negative impacts, from mental health consequences to violence to actual death and suicide. And misinformation and disinformation can have a negative distorting affect of society.
RUclips and similar websites should let the user choose what level of censorship they want similar to google search, so they can legally see what they want, but not see what they dont want, without depriving others from legally seeing what they want.
I know this is a A LOT, but this is a complex subject/A LOT of people don't realize what the ACTUAL impact of removing section 230, would actually be. They will be surprised to find out, that by removing it, just causes MORE censorship. Part of section 230 protects these platforms from what their users say/do, IF they don't banned them/delete these accounts, the platform could get in trouble, because of their users, the only thing they can do, is delete/banned the accounts, this action would be forced on them, because section 230, no longer exists. ALSO A LOT of this is driven by ad revenue as well, meaning IF a certain company doesn't want certain info/posts affiliated with their ads, the company will remove it/work with their customers/demonetize the video/not promote it/become MORE like what their customers want. Were not the customer, were the product/our data, is the product. The customers are the ones paying for ads. Look at RUclips's Algorithm/how RUclips changed, because of the companies that were purchasing/buying ads. Another thing that would MOST LIKELY happen, would be social media posts, would take time, to be reviewed, before the post would become viewable, as well, meaning, EVERY POST, that goes on platforms, will have to be reviewed, BEFORE anyone can see them, because companies/platforms would be responsible, for what their users are posting. Either by a person or Algorithm/AI. Also like I've said before, company policy, may ALSO go into effect, meaning something like no shirt no shoes, no service, no mask you can't enter the building. So rules would NEED to be shown again, for the specific platform. Also user agreements MAY need revising, to cover the platforms/companies/company policy/you agree to these terms/conditions/rules/user agreement, which you agree to, before accessing a site/an app. I also don't want the US to turn into China/China needs a VPN, because they can't access certain sites, in their region, because their country/government has blocked certain sites, because China's government ONLY wants their news/info able to be seen/heard/their propaganda to be pushed. With a VPN YES it HELPS mask your identity/IP Address, BUT, it also allows you to access/connect to servers, in other countries/Regions, allowing you to view content, not available in your area. VPNs are used in this way, for other things as well, IF a certain shows not available on Netflix, in your region, you can connect to a server, in another region/country, to get access to that show, or in this case, be able to hear/see news on other platforms, other than the ones China is trying to push propaganda on. This isn't a HUGE issue, in the US, YET, BUT if section 230 was removed, this COULD POTENTIALLY happen here/we could be fed ONLY what certain parties/companies/people want you to hear/be even more censored, by company policy/companies/platforms, trying to protect them selfs/moderate/Algorithms/AI, meaning by removing section 230, we get the OPPOSITE effect, that we think we will, MORE CENSORSHIP will happen, its counter productive. Also section 230 goes A LOT further than people think it does/has A LOT more effects than people think it does. MEANING/an example our ISP/the company you use for internet, right now, isn't responsible for what you post on the Internet, because of section 230, but without section 230, your internet provider would need to censor you, to protect them selves. EVEN MORE than A LOT of these companies/platforms already need to/EVERYTHING on the internet would need to be moderated, so the companies/platforms wouldn't get in trouble, from what their users say or do, ALL while keeping their customers/companies/people paying for ads happy as well, AND thats where user agreements AND Company Policy, would have to come in, no shirt, no shoes, no service/if you don't wear a mask, you can't enter SOME companies, rules and regulations. Anyway like I said, Donald Trumps gonna get the OPPOSITE effect he wants, because he doesn't understand the problem ENOUGH, to handle it. Section 230,is a problem, BUT I think if a politician/Donald Trump changes/alters it, it will/would be a really bad thing. Trumps 230 conquest, is not going to help him spread propaganda, meaning, instead of twitter/all social media temporarily banning/letting people know, the infos not true, they will just ban/delete his entire account. The bad part, is, how its actually going to effect other people/how its going to stop protecting creators/comments MOST LIKELY, will have to be turned off, on RUclips, because creators will start being responsible, for what people comment, on your videos, ALSO it MIGHT take an hour/longer, for your tweet/Facebook post/youtube comment, to post, because it will have to be reviewed, by an employee/admin, before it becomes Visible, to the public/before its posted to your profile/under the video. Another example Marijuana, it may be legal in your state, to smoke marijuana, but if you work at a certain company, that company, MAY have a rule saying, you can't smoke marijuana/do drugs/you may be subject to a drug test. Its a pointless battle, for him and he's just hurting other people in the process. Also like I've said before, algorithms need to be changed as well, some of the algorithms, in the past, had baisicly just pushed what evers popular, not taking into account, that the info, is not true. Anyway this is a MUCH BIGGER problem than someone like Donald Trump can handle. ALSO I'm glad SOMEONE is stopping him from spreading propaganda. Also it will be interesting to see what they can ACTUALLY do, when it comes to Algorithms/AI. Also Algorithms aren't perfect, so SOME things would need appealing, just like copy right strikes on youtube,BUT This ALSO ALL comes down to ad revenue as well/SOME companies don't want their ads on videos talking about certain things, these websites/platforms NEED to make money, so your video gets demonetized AND your channel doesn't get pushed/promoted, because your video/videos aren't making money/approved by the companies PAYING for ads, baisicly its business. Also SOME of this is to prevent misinformation as well. I also realize SOME of the Algorithms are designed to push content, that has A LOT of views, no matter if the information is correct or not, meaning, IF it gets A LOT of views/interest, it gets pushed, is what the Algorithm does/did. Other Algorithms also screen explicit content/maybe a post that MIGHT offend someone/that may not be appropriate. Also primarily sites push information, they think you will like, YES popular content, BUT also things they think, you MAY like, based on your browsing history/the videos you've watched in the past/your shopping history/the places you've been, their primary goal, is to keep you engaged/on their site, as long as possible, the only thing that superseds this, is their customers/the companies/people that are paying for ads, because without them, they can't operate/make money, SO platforms/companies will modify their sites, to make their customers happy. They could also claim, they are not biased, this is just a reflection of their customers/our customers don't want certain content, where certain ads are/some of this content conflicts with our customers ads. OR they MAY do nothing, because their user agreement, that their users agree/agreed to, before using their apps/websites/servers/services, states that their users/no one can sue them/along with A LOT of other stuff as well. The people that are going to fix this, are programmers/developers/people that deal with data/Algorithms. Anyway the current system isn't perfect, BUT if president Trump wants to change it, its probably to push propaganda, so thats not good either, even though, he's going to end up doing the opposite, of what he wants, because, he doesn't understand, ENOUGH, to handle the situation.
If Over half of the UNHR articles applied to this CDA section 230, it may be upgraded with it or revise it to a more perfected form. Moderative malpractice is a breach of 230. Microsoft needs to come clean on all it's platforms or it may get more law suits than any company has in the last 5 years if they don't comply with the UN's section 230 CDA in their policies.
The law should STAY as IS, 100% and each and every site should have the right to decide for itself what its own standards (or lack thereof) are, within the bonds of the existing law. Case in point: Let' say I have my own website (a blog), I'm a private citizen who pays for a service provider to host it. We've not talking about a social media site; we're talking about an old school site I built and post by myself. Maybe you don't like something I said, maybe even think it's hateful and even disgusting. You try to sue me over it, but unless I said something knowingly untrue with the intention of trying to inflict harm on you (i.e. slander) or make profit from it? Then you legally don't have a leg to stand on, as it's my first amendment to say it. The web provider hosting my site needs the Safe Harbor protection for the same reason, so they can provide that service for those who want it, whatever their reasons are. If the hosting provider finds that my site is something they don't want to host, they have the right to discontinue providing me said service, but one else but that hosting provider should get to decide that, again within the limits of the law. There're currently discussions LIMITING those types of lawsuits in many states, as often enough people/corps file such a lawsuit to stop speech they simply don't agree with, or maybe them look bad, it's called known as SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation). Lawsuits are an expensive prospect, but that's whole different social issue we still need to tackle, the point is, it's just one tactic used by the wealthy and corps to stifle criticisms against them. Anyone remember what the intention and reason behind the first amendment was when those discussions come up? If you aren't sure, start researching it. Yes, it *is* that important. Whine, cry, complain and moan about all you like, because that's YOUR freedom of speech at work. Just because you disagree with something doesn't automatically make it wrong, that's WHY we have the freedoms we do have, so people (ideally) can't limit how you yourself speak and how you live your life just because they don't like it. And if the history our nation is any indication, we NEED freedom of speech more than ever, so we can talk openly about the repression and abuses of power of the past to keep such history from repeating itself. The Westboro Baptist Church might be one of the most widely hated groups within the U.S., but you have to admit their actions lead to quite a bit dialogue about the very nature and limits of free speech, and also brought more attention to the discussion around LGBTQ+ rights than most groups advocating for them ever did (wither your stance on that is). Anyone wanting to limit free speech is a radical who simply wants to carry their narrow agendas without being challenged, wither it's someone "on the left" calling for given types of speech to be outlawed so no one get offended, or those "on the right" labeling anything that doesn't agree with their stances as "fake news". I'll stand with anyone who isn't an asshole, and I will fight with me right to do so. Your freedom of speech ends my right to live as I choose starts, say what you like about it because I am going to keep on living, none the less.
The amount of content moderation a platform should be able to do while still maintaining their protections needs to be limited. Removal of illegal content, such as threats of violence and child porn should be the only moderation allowed, while still maintaining protection.
Platforms like that already exist. Ever heard of 4chan? But there is a LOT of content that is grossly offensive, hate speech, adult porn, blatantly off-topic or trolling, etc. which is perfectly legal under the First Amendment, but I and most other people really don't want to see on the social media platforms where we are active participants. Parents of children or teens especially do NOT want them to encounter this when they are watching RUclips or participating in a discussion board with others of their age.
If it became illegal for platforms to moderate legal content under the First Amendment like racism, hate speech (without threats of violence) and adult porn, then (a) it would fracture the global Internet as other countries begin blocking access to American websites hosting this stuff, and (b) it would lead to calls to repeal or change the First Amendment to make porn, racism and hate speech illegal. And that would open up an even bigger can of worms. So despite the imperfections in the current system, I actually consider it a reasonable compromise that has worked well over the more than 20 years it has existed. Any changes should be made with the gravest caution regarding the possible repercussions and unintended consequences.
@@photios4779 There are already calls to change the First Amendment. The fact of the matter is that platforms can censor your speech and shut you down simply because they disagree, and then face no repercussions. Also, it wouldn't be illegal to moderate that sort of thing. The platform would just become a publisher, and lose their protection. So what if the internet fractures? That's destined to happen at some stage anyway.
@Malcolm in the Middle
So you’re advocating the choice between an anything-goes cesspit of hate, racism and abuse (the result of zero moderation) vs. an overzealously moderated platform (the consequence of liability).
What happens if you have a discussion site about cooking and someone joins and starts posting all about politics, a topic not relevant to your site. Would they be forced to keep that content up to retain their immunity, or would removal of off-topic content makes them liable for the on-topic content?
As for the claims that tech companies have an anti-conservative bias, that is utter nonsense.
Tech companies don’t remove content because they disagree with your political stance. The suggestion itself is farcical when you see just how popular conservative content is on places like Facebook - conservative content usually occupies most of the top ten shared posts.
The platforms apply their rules equally: If you violate rule X, you receive enforcement Y.
If more conservatives are being affected by a platform’s rules, that just means they’re violating those rules more.
One side will be moderated more than the other if one side is violating the rules more than the other. There’s no bias there.
@@Thomas15 If you have a board about cooking, and you remove all posts or comments not about cooking, then of course you should lose your section 230 protections, and it won't matter. Why? Because section 230 removes liability for comments made on your site. That is all it does.
Furthermore, your argument that platforms apply their rules equally is demonstrably false. Look at Reddit for example: how many rules has r/shitredditsays broken, yet they have never been banned. r/thedonald however, explicitly shamed and banned users for breaking the site rules, yet they were removed. Look at Twitter: banning people all over for expressing views on the right, while the most vile comments on the left are left untouched (e.g kill all white people).
It's odd to see how leftists like yourself have changed over the years. 10 years ago, nobody would have expected you to carry water for big corporations, but welcome to 2020 I guess.
Well platforms should not censor. Let it be the shit posting like it was in the 90’s and 2000’s.
The internet was already like this the difference we have billion users.
Section 230 SHOULDN’T be abolished or stricken! RATHER, it should be rewritten and/or modified, extensively if necessary, to reflect the reality and address BOTH the LEFT and the RIGHT’s concerns!
Sensors should be ‘federally certified’ based on universal guidelines of EQUAL fairness and implementation, and ONLY hired from those ranks. Regular yearly audits would be performed to ensure that NO ONE strays too far off the path!
The left, for example, historically has a real functional disability in that it cannot separate their personal, social will and political bias from a TRULY ‘inclusive’ protocol written into Section 230 that’d really help guide BOTH them AND conservatives be heard WITHOUT bias-based interference! Naturally this will be fought to the death by the left, but is necessary if the Internet is to become anything other than the technological oligarchy we experience on a minute by minute, day by day REALITY! The powers that be CAN and SHOULD do way better.
To date, we’ve collectively given these platforms ‘ALL the ROPE they need to HANG themselves”, while we’ve sat back and watched how they behave! Naturally a kind of ‘internal’ mob rule runs rife in these platforms without any proper redress, if any. Hopefully this will stop and be dealt with in a way we, the public, will like and ultimately benefit from.
This kind of NECESSARY change will ONLY happen by this president, so it’s now or never! The left never had the stomach for it, but now things are prime for a proper redress and long last.
Will it be done? Hopefully, but don’t get your hopes up too high, at least until we see a draft of the legislation. Till then, I remain hopeful and optimistic . . .
Imho . . .
Any amendment should require means of on-platform recourse for those who are censored, but do nothing illegal. Experts with credentials should also be able to speak on that-which they have credential/experience without censorship.
I understand not making content providers liable for the content others create. However, if the content provider is not liable for the content others create then they should not sensor. If the content creator is breaking a law then that's a different story but this exception hold outside the internet.
@rabidsquirrel73
They do apply their rules equally: If you violate rule X, you receive enforcement Y.
If more conservatives are being affected by a platform’s rules, that just means they’re violating those rules more.
One side will be moderated more than the other if one side is violating the rules more than the other. There’s no bias there.
@rabidsquirrel73
That’s an assertion - what’s your evidence of their being a bias? It cannot be anecdotes that conservatives are moderated more because that’s not proof of a bias, just proof that they’re moderated more. As I said, if one side violates the rules more, they’ll be moderated more.
@@Thomas15 If you're not held liable for the activities of others why have arbitrary "rules" at all? At that point you're just gate-keeping.
@rabidsquirrel73
Because you’re the one making the claim. I’ve looked for evidence of a bias but can’t find any. I do find PLENTY of anecdotes but no actual evidence demonstrating a bias.
@Casey Loomis
Why? Because an anything-goes environment isn’t healthy for civil society. Why have actual rules and laws in the real world? Because we all want to be part of a civil, healthy society and we understand that rules are required to make that happen.
Also: abuse, harassment and hate can and do have serious real-world negative impacts, from mental health consequences to violence to actual death and suicide. And misinformation and disinformation can have a negative distorting affect of society.
RUclips and similar websites should let the user choose what level of censorship they want similar to google search, so they can legally see what they want, but not see what they dont want, without depriving others from legally seeing what they want.
Its way past time to right the wrongs these platforms do to the public
I know this is a A LOT, but this is a complex subject/A LOT of people don't realize what the ACTUAL impact of removing section 230, would actually be.
They will be surprised to find out, that by removing it, just causes MORE censorship.
Part of section 230 protects these platforms from what their users say/do, IF they don't banned them/delete these accounts, the platform could get in trouble, because of their users, the only thing they can do, is delete/banned the accounts, this action would be forced on them, because section 230, no longer exists.
ALSO A LOT of this is driven by ad revenue as well, meaning IF a certain company doesn't want certain info/posts affiliated with their ads, the company will remove it/work with their customers/demonetize the video/not promote it/become MORE like what their customers want.
Were not the customer, were the product/our data, is the product.
The customers are the ones paying for ads.
Look at RUclips's Algorithm/how RUclips changed, because of the companies that were purchasing/buying ads.
Another thing that would MOST LIKELY happen, would be social media posts, would take time, to be reviewed, before the post would become viewable, as well, meaning, EVERY POST, that goes on platforms, will have to be reviewed, BEFORE anyone can see them, because companies/platforms would be responsible, for what their users are posting.
Either by a person or Algorithm/AI.
Also like I've said before, company policy, may ALSO go into effect, meaning something like no shirt no shoes, no service, no mask you can't enter the building.
So rules would NEED to be shown again, for the specific platform.
Also user agreements MAY need revising, to cover the platforms/companies/company policy/you agree to these terms/conditions/rules/user agreement, which you agree to, before accessing a site/an app.
I also don't want the US to turn into China/China needs a VPN, because they can't access certain sites, in their region, because their country/government has blocked certain sites, because China's government ONLY wants their news/info able to be seen/heard/their propaganda to be pushed.
With a VPN YES it HELPS mask your identity/IP Address, BUT, it also allows you to access/connect to servers, in other countries/Regions, allowing you to view content, not available in your area.
VPNs are used in this way, for other things as well, IF a certain shows not available on Netflix, in your region, you can connect to a server, in another region/country, to get access to that show, or in this case, be able to hear/see news on other platforms, other than the ones China is trying to push propaganda on.
This isn't a HUGE issue, in the US, YET, BUT if section 230 was removed, this COULD POTENTIALLY happen here/we could be fed ONLY what certain parties/companies/people want you to hear/be even more censored, by company policy/companies/platforms, trying to protect them selfs/moderate/Algorithms/AI, meaning by removing section 230, we get the OPPOSITE effect, that we think we will, MORE CENSORSHIP will happen, its counter productive.
Also section 230 goes A LOT further than people think it does/has A LOT more effects than people think it does.
MEANING/an example our ISP/the company you use for internet, right now, isn't responsible for what you post on the Internet, because of section 230, but without section 230, your internet provider would need to censor you, to protect them selves.
EVEN MORE than A LOT of these companies/platforms already need to/EVERYTHING on the internet would need to be moderated, so the companies/platforms wouldn't get in trouble, from what their users say or do, ALL while keeping their customers/companies/people paying for ads happy as well, AND thats where user agreements AND Company Policy, would have to come in, no shirt, no shoes, no service/if you don't wear a mask, you can't enter SOME companies, rules and regulations.
Anyway like I said, Donald Trumps gonna get the OPPOSITE effect he wants, because he doesn't understand the problem ENOUGH, to handle it.
Section 230,is a problem, BUT I think if a politician/Donald Trump changes/alters it, it will/would be a really bad thing.
Trumps 230 conquest, is not going to help him spread propaganda, meaning, instead of twitter/all social media temporarily banning/letting people know, the infos not true, they will just ban/delete his entire account.
The bad part, is, how its actually going to effect other people/how its going to stop protecting creators/comments MOST LIKELY, will have to be turned off, on RUclips, because creators will start being responsible, for what people comment, on your videos, ALSO it MIGHT take an hour/longer, for your tweet/Facebook post/youtube comment, to post, because it will have to be reviewed, by an employee/admin, before it becomes Visible, to the public/before its posted to your profile/under the video.
Another example Marijuana, it may be legal in your state, to smoke marijuana, but if you work at a certain company, that company, MAY have a rule saying, you can't smoke marijuana/do drugs/you may be subject to a drug test.
Its a pointless battle, for him and he's just hurting other people in the process.
Also like I've said before, algorithms need to be changed as well, some of the algorithms, in the past, had baisicly just pushed what evers popular, not taking into account, that the info, is not true.
Anyway this is a MUCH BIGGER problem than someone like Donald Trump can handle.
ALSO I'm glad SOMEONE is stopping him from spreading propaganda.
Also it will be interesting to see what they can ACTUALLY do, when it comes to Algorithms/AI.
Also Algorithms aren't perfect, so SOME things would need appealing, just like copy right strikes on youtube,BUT This ALSO ALL comes down to ad revenue as well/SOME companies don't want their ads on videos talking about certain things, these websites/platforms NEED to make money, so your video gets demonetized AND your channel doesn't get pushed/promoted, because your video/videos aren't making money/approved by the companies PAYING for ads, baisicly its business.
Also SOME of this is to prevent misinformation as well.
I also realize SOME of the Algorithms are designed to push content, that has A LOT of views, no matter if the information is correct or not, meaning, IF it gets A LOT of views/interest, it gets pushed, is what the Algorithm does/did.
Other Algorithms also screen explicit content/maybe a post that MIGHT offend someone/that may not be appropriate.
Also primarily sites push information, they think you will like, YES popular content, BUT also things they think, you MAY like, based on your browsing history/the videos you've watched in the past/your shopping history/the places you've been, their primary goal, is to keep you engaged/on their site, as long as possible, the only thing that superseds this, is their customers/the companies/people that are paying for ads, because without them, they can't operate/make money, SO platforms/companies will modify their sites, to make their customers happy.
They could also claim, they are not biased, this is just a reflection of their customers/our customers don't want certain content, where certain ads are/some of this content conflicts with our customers ads.
OR they MAY do nothing, because their user agreement, that their users agree/agreed to, before using their apps/websites/servers/services, states that their users/no one can sue them/along with A LOT of other stuff as well.
The people that are going to fix this, are programmers/developers/people that deal with data/Algorithms.
Anyway the current system isn't perfect, BUT if president Trump wants to change it, its probably to push propaganda, so thats not good either, even though, he's going to end up doing the opposite, of what he wants, because, he doesn't understand, ENOUGH, to handle the situation.
If Over half of the UNHR articles applied to this CDA section 230, it may be upgraded with it or revise it to a more perfected form. Moderative malpractice is a breach of 230. Microsoft needs to come clean on all it's platforms or it may get more law suits than any company has in the last 5 years if they don't comply with the UN's section 230 CDA in their policies.
The law should STAY as IS, 100% and each and every site should have the right to decide for itself what its own standards (or lack thereof) are, within the bonds of the existing law.
Case in point:
Let' say I have my own website (a blog), I'm a private citizen who pays for a service provider to host it. We've not talking about a social media site; we're talking about an old school site I built and post by myself. Maybe you don't like something I said, maybe even think it's hateful and even disgusting. You try to sue me over it, but unless I said something knowingly untrue with the intention of trying to inflict harm on you (i.e. slander) or make profit from it? Then you legally don't have a leg to stand on, as it's my first amendment to say it. The web provider hosting my site needs the Safe Harbor protection for the same reason, so they can provide that service for those who want it, whatever their reasons are. If the hosting provider finds that my site is something they don't want to host, they have the right to discontinue providing me said service, but one else but that hosting provider should get to decide that, again within the limits of the law. There're currently discussions LIMITING those types of lawsuits in many states, as often enough people/corps file such a lawsuit to stop speech they simply don't agree with, or maybe them look bad, it's called known as SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation). Lawsuits are an expensive prospect, but that's whole different social issue we still need to tackle, the point is, it's just one tactic used by the wealthy and corps to stifle criticisms against them.
Anyone remember what the intention and reason behind the first amendment was when those discussions come up? If you aren't sure, start researching it. Yes, it *is* that important.
Whine, cry, complain and moan about all you like, because that's YOUR freedom of speech at work. Just because you disagree with something doesn't automatically make it wrong, that's WHY we have the freedoms we do have, so people (ideally) can't limit how you yourself speak and how you live your life just because they don't like it. And if the history our nation is any indication, we NEED freedom of speech more than ever, so we can talk openly about the repression and abuses of power of the past to keep such history from repeating itself.
The Westboro Baptist Church might be one of the most widely hated groups within the U.S., but you have to admit their actions lead to quite a bit dialogue about the very nature and limits of free speech, and also brought more attention to the discussion around LGBTQ+ rights than most groups advocating for them ever did (wither your stance on that is).
Anyone wanting to limit free speech is a radical who simply wants to carry their narrow agendas without being challenged, wither it's someone "on the left" calling for given types of speech to be outlawed so no one get offended, or those "on the right" labeling anything that doesn't agree with their stances as "fake news".
I'll stand with anyone who isn't an asshole, and I will fight with me right to do so. Your freedom of speech ends my right to live as I choose starts, say what you like about it because I am going to keep on living, none the less.
Leave section 230 alone.
The internet should be like it is in real life, if it hurts your feelings grow the hell up. Facts and opinions don't care about your feelings.
Reform Section 230, deleting my comments isn't free speech.
Fuck up the internet and the people will create a new internet without your fascist controls.