- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 364
I just read a short article from the BBC website. It interviews Sarah Miller from Biden's transition team. So, no doubt, she is speaking for Biden.
It is noteworthy because is mentions, specifically 230, and it goes over comments from Biden about his attitude towards Facebook. We should also keep in mind the opposition to FB from many Republicans too (but for other reasons). The combined will ton exact revenge upon FB (and Twitter), albeit for differeing reasons, is an unfortunately coincidence. Many from both sides would like to Section 230 to go (I'd suggest, in particular, Section 230(c)(1) for the Democrats, and Section 230(c)(2) for the Republicans).
Wikipedia:
The BBC article also mentions antitrust problems with Facebook and other large Tech companies - another thing I've railed against here at TAZ. I am in favor of this.
I am concerned that Zuckerberg will cause problems for the whole platform/forum/blog ecosystem. I have no problem with FB paying a price for its general irresponsibility, but I hope it is not exacted upon the rest of us too.

Zuckerberg's Biden problem
President Biden's open dislike of Facebook could spell problems for the social network.
www.bbc.com
It is noteworthy because is mentions, specifically 230, and it goes over comments from Biden about his attitude towards Facebook. We should also keep in mind the opposition to FB from many Republicans too (but for other reasons). The combined will ton exact revenge upon FB (and Twitter), albeit for differeing reasons, is an unfortunately coincidence. Many from both sides would like to Section 230 to go (I'd suggest, in particular, Section 230(c)(1) for the Democrats, and Section 230(c)(2) for the Republicans).
Wikipedia:
Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section 230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. 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 BBC article also mentions antitrust problems with Facebook and other large Tech companies - another thing I've railed against here at TAZ. I am in favor of this.
I am concerned that Zuckerberg will cause problems for the whole platform/forum/blog ecosystem. I have no problem with FB paying a price for its general irresponsibility, but I hope it is not exacted upon the rest of us too.