Facebook, Section 230, and how we all might be affected

DigNap15

Fan
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
590
I can see that the Biden Adminsitration would have a great incentive to replace section 230.
Facebook already censor any anti left comments
Then as you say webhosts and Domain servers would come under pressure.
Most of us would have signed a very long user agreement which means we have to follow their terms and conditions and that includes content - their interpretation.

My forum is a general one that features a lot of policitical content - from both sides.
 

Pete

Flavours of Forums Forever
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
2,251
Please stop with the Facebook censoring anti left stuff, unless you can bring more than anecdotes to the party.
 

DigNap15

Fan
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
590
Please stop with the Facebook censoring anti left stuff, unless you can bring more than anecdotes to the party.
Are you a moderator?
Its a well known fact that Facebook and others censor much anti left stuff.
But I will try to add some links.
I am trying to keep this forum apolitical
 

Pete

Flavours of Forums Forever
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
2,251
Am I a moderator? No. I’m just someone who is fed up of repeated claims that only seem to exist in anecdotes but more importantly the fact that it conveniently ignores the issues and biases that come with it, like the entire other half of the spectrum.

if you’re going to talk about anti left censorship, we also need to talk about anti-right censorship, which is also a very large problem on Facebook.
 

DigNap15

Fan
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
590
Am I a moderator? No. I’m just someone who is fed up of repeated claims that only seem to exist in anecdotes but more importantly the fact that it conveniently ignores the issues and biases that come with it, like the entire other half of the spectrum.

if you’re going to talk about anti left censorship, we also need to talk about anti-right censorship, which is also a very large problem on Facebook.
We may be getting confused about anti left and anti right.
My point is that Social Media sites such as Youtube, Facebook and Twitter should not be chosing editorial sides on any issues. I think we all agree that they should not allow porn and incitement to violence etc.

(and I dont buy that old bla bla its their site they can ban what they want argument)
 

Oh!

Adherent
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
298
We may be getting confused about anti left and anti right.
My point is that Social Media sites such as Youtube, Facebook and Twitter should not be chosing editorial sides on any issues. I think we all agree that they should not allow porn and incitement to violence etc.

(and I dont buy that old bla bla its their site they can ban what they want argument)
Actually, many do not agree with those lines (but please note, I am not one of them). Twitter does not, for example. So, what you are suggesting is that Facebook should draw editorial lines along what you think is correct. So, here's my question to you:

Why should social media platforms conform to your particular set of editorial standards and not some other standard?

We all will have views on these matters, but what you are suggesting is contradictory. On the one hand, Facebook should not be allowed to determine what kind of (legal) content they will allow on their platform. But on the other, Facebook should disallow specific types of content you feel strongly should not be allowed (porn).

The only legitimate argument for Facebook to be forced into allowing all legal content is because they hold a (near) monopoly and certain aspects of the Internet (and that the Internet is an essential utility). I would have some sympathy with such an argument* - not that I would agree with it. But, alas, you did not make this argument, so it is moot.

* Facebook, clearly, is breach of US antitrust laws. So, I'd argue that those laws should be enforced and the vertical and horizontal integration Facebook holds and operates (almost exclusively) over large parts the Internet should be dismantled.
 

Pete

Flavours of Forums Forever
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
2,251
Here’s the other thing: what *is* incitement to violence? This is not consistent for people.
 

Oh!

Adherent
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
298
Here’s the other thing: what *is* incitement to violence? This is not consistent for people.
You are always going to have disagreements and arguments around this kind of thing - or any rules for that matter. But in my view, the threat (or incitement to violence) does not have to be so clear cut that the police intervene and a prosecution take place. If a reasonable person would find the 'threat' worrying or distressing, then I would count that as a credible threat and deserving of action from the platform. I think most members would find that reassuring. Engaging in activities at a social media website should not mean that you should just accept threats as part of the service. If the platform does not act, they are not acting in the best interests of the vast majority of their members.
 
Last edited:

Pete

Flavours of Forums Forever
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
2,251
And that’s my point.

Someone responsible for the platform, whether your own forum or Facebook, makes an editorial decision about the kinds of content permissible on the site and at what point that content crosses the line, which will usually be further from, not nearer to, the legality line.

Facebook seems to want to do enough to keep S230, stay legal but have as little oversight as possible (= less moderator salaries, more possible ad revenue)

The problem stems from when a reasonable person will have different answers to what is appropriate beyond the bounds of the law, e.g. is anti-vaccine propaganda, that is legal, inappropriate?
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
7,852
The problem stems from when a reasonable person will have different answers to what is appropriate beyond the bounds of the law, e.g. is anti-vaccine propaganda, that is legal, inappropriate?
I think putting forward an anti-vaccine opinion is acceptable providing it's not accompanied by mistruths. The problems occur when someone tries to pass off the electronic circuitry of a Boss Metal Zone guitar pedal as a 'Covid-19 5G chip' (true story). That I'd say is inappropriate.
 

DigNap15

Fan
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
590
I think you are all missing the major point.
Facebook would like to see section 230 removed.
So Facebook would ban that poster or risk being sued.
Webhosts would then also be worried about being sued, so they could close down many forums, that may have allowed some or a lot of members to post comments on controversial subjects.
Look what happened to Parler - bang
Look what happened to Trump on Twitter - bang
And look at how many conservate channels Youtube has closed
Its all one way, and Facebook would gleefully accept any new law that allows them to do the same!
 

snerd

Aspirant
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
20
I think you are all missing the major point.
Facebook would like to see section 230 removed.
So Facebook would ban that poster or risk being sued.
Webhosts would then also be worried about being sued, so they could close down many forums, that may have allowed some or a lot of members to post comments on controversial subjects.
Look what happened to Parler - bang
Look what happened to Trump on Twitter - bang
And look at how many conservate channels Youtube has closed
Its all one way, and Facebook would gleefully accept any new law that allows them to do the same!
You are absolutely correct. All of BigTech censors conservative views and posters. Anyone who denies it, is either uninformed, or is quite happy with the way BigTech controls the National discussion. Also the current administration here in America happily works with them to feed the narrative.

Plus, there is just no way to even discuss it! Everyone yells POLITICS!!! and then the discussion is squashed.
 

Pete

Flavours of Forums Forever
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
2,251
Anyone who denies it, is either uninformed, or is quite happy with the way BigTech controls the National discussion. Also the current administration here in America happily works with them to feed the narrative.

You say this like liberal views are not also censored, and that you sound like your own rights are being infringed upon, have you personally been censored?
 

Oh!

Adherent
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
298
I think you are all missing the major point.
Facebook would like to see section 230 removed.
So Facebook would ban that poster or risk being sued.
Webhosts would then also be worried about being sued, so they could close down many forums, that may have allowed some or a lot of members to post comments on controversial subjects.
Look what happened to Parler - bang
Look what happened to Trump on Twitter - bang
And look at how many conservate channels Youtube has closed
Its all one way, and Facebook would gleefully accept any new law that allows them to do the same!
It is certain that Facebook does not wish to see Section 230 simply repealed, as this would hurt them as much as anyone else. 230 allows Facebook (and all platforms, hosts, etc.) to provide opportunities for the public to share their views without fear of legal jeopardy. Before 230, case law had developed to the point where if a platform/forum operated any censorship of any content whatsoever, they would become potentially liable for all content posted by all their members. So, the option would be to either censor any form of criticism, critique, ridicule etc., for fear of being sued as a co-defendant; or, take absolutely no moderation action against any materials posted by members, no matter how objectionable. Of course, the only sensible option in this situation would be for platform/forums to perform zero moderation of content so as to avoid potential liability for all content. If you think Twitter is bad now, can you even begin to imagine what the Internet would be like where there was no content moderation at all?

Facebook would like to see 230 reformed in such a way that it makes it impossible for another platform to develop and usurp their dominance of social media. They wish to further cement their monopoly position. The problem is primarily one of lack of competition. This can be best resolved through enforcement of existing antitrust laws. People stick with Facebook because there is no direct alternative; so there is no incentive for Facebook to improve their services for users.

 
Last edited:

snerd

Aspirant
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
20
You say this like liberal views are not also censored, and that you sound like your own rights are being infringed upon, have you personally been censored?
Yes I have. But to discuss it would involve politics, and that's taboo around here. Politics is what runs the world, but people detest politics and do not want to even hear about it. One small sample for you.............. all of BigTech, Google, Facebook and Twitter, deleted "anything" posted about the Washington Examiner story on Hunter Biden's laptop. They completely shielded Biden from ANY negative coverage for 3 months leading up to the election. There have been countless stories of all the woke censors at all of them, scanning for any views they don't agree with, then deleting them and banning the member. I find it hard to believe that anyone doesn't already know all of this!
 

DigNap15

Fan
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
590
Youtube removes up to 10 million videos every quarter


Many are for misinformation - who decides what is mis information
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
7,852
Many are for misinformation - who decides what is mis information
A bot. My understanding is since Covid took hold of the world, YouTube has relied more on technology and less on human intervention when it comes to identifying violations of their terms and conditions. They have acknowledged it's resulted in many more videos being removed even though the content was not in breach of their policy but in my experience that's not necessarily the end of the line.

As a huge YouTube user I rarely find much to complain about. As a conduit/provider for YouTube content creators I have witnessed first hand a few issues, including the unwarranted removal of an artist's own copyright content and the subsequent loss of remuneration that goes with it. We learnt how to deal with it, moved on and everything turned out fine.

As to politics on YouTube or any other form of social media for that matter I don't give a flying fig. If I want politics I'll take a stroll though every flavor of online press until I can find some consensus, mock the stupidity of it all and probably spend the next hour searching YouTube for new music.

I'm sure this is going to come off as sounding a little rude but if social media is your go to for politics then you really need to take a step away and try and find more accredited outlets.
 

Pete

Flavours of Forums Forever
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
2,251
Yes I have. But to discuss it would involve politics, and that's taboo around here. Politics is what runs the world, but people detest politics and do not want to even hear about it. One small sample for you.............. all of BigTech, Google, Facebook and Twitter, deleted "anything" posted about the Washington Examiner story on Hunter Biden's laptop. They completely shielded Biden from ANY negative coverage for 3 months leading up to the election. There have been countless stories of all the woke censors at all of them, scanning for any views they don't agree with, then deleting them and banning the member. I find it hard to believe that anyone doesn't already know all of this!

I mean, it’s kind of funny that you assume I care to follow your country’s news to the point I’d even know what you were talking about (I’m not American), but I have the same drama over here. The same news story gets reported differently between the more liberal leaning and more conservative leaning outlets. But I read both just so that I get a slightly more balanced reporting - and I find that both sides shout about being censored, but it’s very easy to ignore the side who happens to not align with your point of view. Here’s the scary part: Maybe you think they deserve it for being wrong, maybe you think that views that don’t align with yours deserve to be censored. Maybe you even think that people who disagree with your viewpoint should be shipped off somewhere else. Europe has a name for people like these.

Ive heard all of the above from both sides. Though I hear it especially more from the right than I ever do from the left so you’ll excuse me for not taking anyone right leaning at face value. (I don’t take left leaning people at face value either, but I find it somewhat easeir to stomach people who don’t feel the need to assert their rights over mine in the name of ”freedom”.)

Big Tech though, that’s a different beast. I do not consider Big Tech left *or* right. I consider Big Tech a law unto itself in what we were warned about 30-40 years ago in the rise of the corporatocracy. We have companies with more money than some countries, and no one wants to really hold them to account.

Had it occurred to you that these Big Tech groups act as they do, to keep you thinking about the government? If you’re too busy shouting about the blue vs red, you’re not thinking about the real enemy here: the unelected, barely governed companies who only answer to whoever has the most money.

There is the real problem: the last year has taught us an awful lot about how capitalism breeds an awful set of behaviours, namely that people are being treated as little better than slaves so that the 0.00001% can indulge. Bezos going into space wasn’t a triumph, it’s an embarrassment. But remember that he owns a newspaper, the Washington Post.

Those who control the narrative, control the population. Consider why they might want the population split in two for a moment. A population divided is a population easier to control. Have a little empathy and you realise everyone is really in the same boat here, regardless of which side they sit on.
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,292
It's not a popular view, but I have a lot of sympathy for the big tech companies. All of them started out as small companies or individuals with an idea to build something. And they did it, through a lot of work, and pumping millions and billions of hard earned money back into their companies to make them what they are today. They are the epitome of the "American Dream."

It is perhaps something uniquely American that once a company finally reaches the top, they suddenly become the villain for wanting to stay there.
 
Top