• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Regulation of Online Media

We're talking about "user generated content." That's what social media is. Newspapers are not platforms for user generated content. Section 230 protects the owners from liability from content they don't create.

If Section 230 is removed, social media companies will be forced to become even more selective over the content on their site, which means even more censorship, not less.
Exactly, except newspapers are platforms for at least some user generated content -- the comment sections beneath many news stories are content generated by users. If 230 were obliterated, comments would undoubtedly go away.

A newspaper cannot be sued over something they did not publish. That's what some of these bills are proposing, with respect to "banning censorship".

Newspapers do enjoy significant legal protections in libel and other suits. It is very difficult to win a libel suit against a newspaper, doubly so if the plaintiff is an elected official or other public servant.
True. But one lawsuit can cost enough to put a smaller website owner out of business. Not every website is a FB or Twitter. They don't all have the revenue or the ability to withstand the financial shock of a lawsuit -- even if they're in the right, it still can cost to defend yourself. Section 230 applies to nearly every forum or website out there -- not just FB, Twitter, etc.
 
Exactly, except newspapers are platforms for at least some user generated content -- the comment sections beneath many news stories are content generated by users. If 230 were obliterated, comments would undoubtedly go away.

The comments section is online content. No different from a message board. I was talking about actual newspapers.
 
Exactly, except newspapers are platforms for at least some user generated content -- the comment sections beneath many news stories are content generated by users. If 230 were obliterated, comments would undoubtedly go away.

Yahoo has already dumped comments.
 
I doubt that Section 230 will go away any time soon.
That would open many legal (and constitutional) issues that our elected officials REALLY don't want to deal with.
 
I doubt that Section 230 will go away any time soon.

I agree, certainly now that the only person pushing to get rid of it is gone.

While politicians on both sides want some kind of regulation, they each want it for their own agenda. That's not how legislation should be done. So it'll probably fall into the same black hole with other similar ideas because they can't get enough people to agree.
 
I agree, certainly now that the only person pushing to get rid of it is gone.
Did I miss something about President Biden going away? And also his secretary of commerce?

 
Did I miss something about President Biden going away? And also his secretary of commerce?

She says she wants to reform it. The previous president said he wanted to repeal it. Very different things.

Both parties are in favor of online regulation. Just for different reasons and agendas. Which is why nothing will happen.
 
Uh, no. Not different things at all.

According to both articles PTBoardOP94 posted, Biden clearly said he wants to repeal it:

From the NY Times article, where Biden was extensively interviewed:
"...Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one....."

"That’s right. Exactly right. And it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy. You guys still have editors. I’m sitting with them. Not a joke. There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It’s irresponsible. It’s totally irresponsible."

Doesn't sound much different from Trump's attitude towards big tech, actually. The main difference, of course, is Biden's in office, and in power, and Trump isn't, and even when Trump was in power, he didn't succeed in revoking Section 230.
 
The comments section is online content. No different from a message board. I was talking about actual newspapers.
Very true. Except that newspapers are increasingly turning into online websites. The only 'circulation' growth the NY Times, WA Post, LA Times has had, for example, is online subscriptions. They are slowly turning into internet operations.
 
So it would seem to one side that repealing 230 means an end to falsehoods and misinformation; to the other repealing 230 would mean I get to say anything I want and social media sites must spread it to all of my contacts.
 
One thing that frightens me is when politicians start trying to draft bills and govern social media and internet content, when they have little understanding of it themselves. When Mark Zuckerberg went before Congress to speak about social media and Facebook in particular, Democrats were unhappy about the amount of misinformation that was being freely and openly spread on Facebook without restriction, and Republicans were unhappy because they felt that every action Facebook took to curb misinformation, seemingly negatively impacted them.

Regardless, the one thing I remember was the obvious complete lack of understanding of how Facebook works and what social media is by more than a few of the people in Congress who were questioning Zuckerberg. Someone compiled a "best of" segment, featuring the audio of their sometimes heated questions, and Zuckerberg's replies where it was obviously he was somewhat dumbfounded by what they were asking, which showed they had no clue. He was trying to be as respectful as possible and give them answers without making them sound like idiots.

Those people should not be regulating or passing bills to control social media when they don't fundamentally understand how it works.
Completely agree. Watching those congressional hearings was cringe-worthy. These politicians don't know what any of this means. Their Aid's maintain whatever public facing social media pages or tweets coming out of their offices. They're so insulated from that world that it's laughable that together, they would be in any position to propose laws or policy related to something they have no clue about.
 
However this shakes out, I don't think that the Biden Administration will actually push for anything to be changed concerning Section 230 -- or any other section, for that matter. And in the remote event that any changes are made, it won't be anything that negatively affects Big Tech, because Biden's party used Big Tech to help him get elected (according to the Time Magazine article). Big Tech also contributes a lot of money to Biden's party.
 
Biden's party used Big Tech to help him get elected (according to the Time Magazine article). Big Tech also contributes a lot of money to Biden's party.

That means nothing. The left wing of the Democratic party wants to break up big tech because they believe it has too much power.


In addition, Biden today spoke in favor of unionization of Amazon.

 
Completely agree. Watching those congressional hearings was cringe-worthy. These politicians don't know what any of this means. Their Aid's maintain whatever public facing social media pages or tweets coming out of their offices. They're so insulated from that world that it's laughable that together, they would be in any position to propose laws or policy related to something they have no clue about.
Don't count Congress out as being all that stupid when it comes to tech.. I researched a lot of the debate that went on in Congress when they put together the digital media legislation in the late 80's / early 1990's (when DAT tapes and CDR technology came out) and they actually got educated rather quickly about the ins and outs of the technology and what impact it would have on commerce, intellectual property rights, and society in general. I was surprised at the level of discussion on digital tech I was reading.

There was a lot of thought put into the ramifications of the proposed laws, and an amazing understanding of the big picture concerning the technology involved.
 
I researched a lot of the debate that went on in Congress when they put together the digital media legislation in the late 80's / early 1990's (when DAT tapes and CDR technology came out) and they actually got educated rather quickly about the ins and outs of the technology and what impact it would have on commerce, intellectual property rights, and society in general.

That was a very different time with a very different kind of Congress. Back then the committees would bring in unbiased experts who'd help them craft legislation. These days, the focus seems to be more about agendas than getting educated. Both sides have their minds made up. Neither is right, in my opinion. They need to be careful, because this is the only area of major growth in this economy.
 


There have been hosts on Youtube that suggested that Social Media will lean towards venues that support Fediverse (a decentralized system of instances that make up a Social Media Venue) within this decade but that is a niche place for now. Note this is where the admins can control their specific venue within their instance according to the links. Im not so sure if congress have considered the fediverse venues when it comes to Section 230 in their debates. I know Big Tech has been getting the bulk of attention for now when it comes to online regulation.

Fediverse - Wikipedia

 

There's is another one that's being hyped up as an alternative of Blogspot and Wordpress called Neocities it's a Geocities, Tripod, Angelfire like place. Sure there is early 2000's looking sites out there but the intentions are to make this a Blogspot alternative.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom