Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies

[ThinkingSapien]

Could be a pretty slippery slope. Might affect CAF too.

It could affect lots of websites, even small ones. Can you imagine an entity having liability because some anonymous user made a comment?

That’s actually what lead to the protections. In the 1990s someone went on Prodigy’s chat rooms and said that Stratton Oakmont was committing Fraud and Stratton Oakmont took Prodigy to court over it. Prodigy initially lost the case.

I wonder if it is now acceptable to post news about home-made WMD’s with description on how to make them

May depend on to whom one is communicating. Sharing such information with entities outside the USA or posting it in a way that makes it available to those outside the USA may violate some export restrictions on weapons systems.

and use the best available AI (Watson) to fact check and mercilessly stamp them “LIES!”

As useful as AI entities are, I don’t think they are a reliable epistemological tool. As things stand now AI and other computational entities perform moderation and people complain when there are false positives. Some of the allegations that have been made on conservative bias are on actions taken by AIs.

Not many people mention Section 230 of the FCC code by which Big Tech sets its model of performing editorial functions while pretending not be editors via its exemption from Section 230 controls.

Section 230 gives protections to online entities in general, not only “Big tech.” Even CAF is given some protections from it. If you, as an individual, made a site and opened it up to comments you too would have such protections.

Facebook is a privately-owned company. So are Google, Twitter, Snapchat, and all the other social networks. Because they are privately owned, they have to right to control what content is allowed and not allowed on their service.

There was a case that was dismissed this week that further corroborated that. It seams that every year there are a number of cases brought up that make the exact same claim of violations of the 1st only to be dismissed because these entities are not government entities. PragerU tried to make the argument that Google is like a government. But the courts decision was that a metaphor for government is not government.

 

[PaulinVA]

This is why I suggested a return to the Fairness Doctrine might be better than fighting over Section 230 designations. The Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land from 1949 to 1987 with some provisions surviving until 2000. Private companies were not only subjected to it, it survived a Supreme Court challenge.

Wasn’t this upheld because it applied to broadcast outlets that were using the public airways? That’s not the case with internet-based platforms or even print media.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The social media tech companies get legal exemptions from being sued for libel, unlike news outlets.

Not quite. They are immune from liabilities for content generated by the user. But if a company plays a role in the authoring of the content then they also have liability. There have been online service providers that were successfully sued before because of having played a role by giving users direct advice on editing their content.

Also news outlets enjoy the same type of protection that other online service providers do. The content that is generated and edited by the entity that owns the site is their own liability. The content generated by users of the site is the liability of those users. Thus if a user goes to a news site and makes a comment it is that user that has the liability, not the news site. If a social media company decides to make a post themselves it is the social media company that has the liability. That the site primary host content that was authored internally or by users isn’t what determines liability. It is “Who are the authors of the item of content in question.”

However, if they censor content, which they are free to do, and it provides almost an in-kind contribution to a particular party or point-of-view, then they should be subject to the laws everybody else is subject to.

That’s how things were prior to 1996. When things were that way if an online provider moderated a single posts then they had liability for all post. They had no way to moderate without taking on full liability. The only way to protect themselves were to never moderate anything. This was the reason for the difference in outcomes of cases against Prodigy (Which tried to keep their site family friendly) and Compuserve (who moderated nothing in their news groups).

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Wasn’t this upheld because it applied to broadcast outlets that were using the public airways? That’s not the case with internet-based platforms or even print media.

The case could be made that the internet backbone is the modern day equivalent of the public airways.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Wasn’t this upheld because it applied to broadcast outlets that were using the public airways? That’s not the case with internet-based platforms or even print media.

Public airwaves were treated differently because there are limits on spectrum. To even use portions of the spectrum one has to apply for a license. It is not available to everyone for transmission.

By contrast the Internet is open to everyone and anyone can have a site with what ever content that they want (within the constraints of the law, of course) to broadcast their voice. Ex:If YouTube doesn’t want to host your video, you can host it through another company or host it yourself.

That said, I think that policy was eliminated some 30 years ago.

 

[KMC]

If these companies are performing editorial controls, what makes them different from the NY Times that aspect of their business? Shouldn’t they be subject to the same laws that the NY Times is?

Yes, they should be subject to the same laws. Absolutely.

 

[KMC]

I get your points.

I would say that their active censorship constitutes the creation of a point-of-view that is not neutral.
Their censorship also pushes a political agenda and should be subject to campaign finance laws.

To be clear: I’m only arguing that if you censor / push an agenda, you are free to do so, but you should be subject to the same laws everybody else is.

 

[PaulinVA]

The case could be made that the internet backbone is the modern day equivalent of the public airways.

This is not true, because bandwidth is not finite, or a public resource. If you have the capital, you, too, can lay fiber in your city and be an ISP.

One reason that there is no longer a Fairness Doctrine is that the FCC couldn’t apply it to CNN, or any cable outlet for that matter.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

A couple of points:
What makes the NY Times, et al, different from Facebook and Twitter? They’re both platforms for descriptions and expressions of current events, after all. What makes NY Times subject to Section 230, but Twitter not subject to that?

What is the difference between CAF and NY Times?

Answer that and you will have your own answer.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

I would say that their active censorship constitutes the creation of a point-of-view that is not neutral.
Their censorship also pushes a political agenda and should be subject to campaign finance laws.

To be clear: I’m only arguing that if you censor / push an agenda, you are free to do so, but you should be subject to the same laws everybody else is.

And that is what CAF does here. There are way too many rules here. Censorship is more extreme. And if you collude with others, you can get a post deleted, just on the principle that you don’t like it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I would say that their active censorship constitutes the creation of a point-of-view that is not neutral.

Okay, but insofar as the law goes, that isn’t itself a problem. Sites exists to promote certain values, stances, and positions. Ex: If I went to a forum for people that grow cows for beef I wouldn’t expect them to necessarily allow advertisments or posts against the consumption of meat.

if you censor / push an agenda, you are free to do so, but you should be subject to the same laws everybody else is.

As things stand now the same laws would be applicable irrespective of if an online service wishes to allow or disallow certain types of content or posts. Taking away the decision on whether or not such is allowed may violate the First Amendment. Just as you can decide whether or not you would allow signs for only certain types of candidates on your private property you can decide if you will only allow certain types of messages to be posted by users on your private domain/site.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

I would say that their active censorship constitutes the creation of a point-of-view that is not neutral.

Okay, but insofar as the law goes, that isn’t itself a problem. Sites exists to promote certain values, stances, and positions. Ex: If I went to a forum for people that grow cows for beef I wouldn’t expect them to necessarily allow advertisments or posts against the consumption of meat.

Interesting comment. You seem to be tacitly agreeing that those social media sites are pushing a particular political perspective. Don’t they deny they are doing that?

I would expect a site that promotes specific values to limit to those valued, but last time I checked, if Catholic Answers put forth a “vote for Trump” agenda, they would lose their non-profit status. They actually do allow differing perspectives from people of all religious and non-religious backgrounds. They do censor for rude / uncharitable comments, but not for opposing view points.

 

[KMC]

Hmmm…a very Catholic website allows people to argue against Church teaching. I see Dem views and Rep views…liberal and conservative.

To my knowledge, and I could be wrong, the only way to get a comment censored is to be rude or unkind. Is your experience different?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You seem to be tacitly agreeing that those social media sites are pushing a particular political perspective

I’m speaking generally about sites that have a section for user generated content. It could be a social media site, but is not limited to them since the law that offers protections isn’t limited to social media sites. Whether or not they promote a certain perspective isn’t a factor in the application of the law. Enforcing restrictions on their ability to promote a perspective would violate the First Amendment, as private corporations do have First Amendment rights.

 

[niceatheist]

Honestly I’m not too worried about it. The way these platforms are developing is tending towards greater “censorship” of what users can post and restrictions on how they engage with the platform anyway. All these companies care about is making their platforms marketable, and squeezing more ad revenue out of them. There were leaked plans from Twitter a while back which suggested they wanted to allow people to change the settings on their tweets to stop the public from interacting with them. Basically the tweet would just appear as an announcement, which others cannot respond to or ‘like’. This would clearly just be a measure to appease brands and celebrities, who can advertise without being subject to ridicule from the wider community, while making the experience less interactive for average users.

So you’re saying these companies don’t have property rights?

 

[Nepperhan]

This is just Trump bluster. Cooler heads will prevail and prevent him from taking official action against a critic.

The Constitution would not allow him to be so foolish.

 

[pnewton]

This is the way history shows us that nationalism respond to an open media. Facts are banned as opposed to the state, meaning the party in power. Hopefully the courts will intervene, and the executive branch won’t ignore them or silence them. I hope federal marshals keep their powder dry.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

For those needing information on 230. look here: Section 230 - Wikipedia

 

[RidgeSprinter]

yes and so have others. I chat with others here outside of this forum.

 

[Maximus1]

They should suspend him if he does