That's exactly what the government did in the case of the Fairness Doctrine. Under it, broadcasters were obliged not only to report on policy issues and controversies of public interest, but report on them impartially as well as represent all positions charitably. The entire reason it was crafted, was to ensure private parties broadcasting on public airwaves would not abuse editorial prerogative to broadcast only on issues and positions relevant and beneficial to those parties' interest. Broadcast media managed just fine for thirty-eight years before the Reagan FCC repealed it -- under the auspices of protecting broadcasters' First Amendment rights.This is the basic concept behind why we don't let the government regulate the press: eventually, someone in government starts telling the press what it can and cannot say.
The problem is the intent and plain language of the relevant clause in Section 230 is that internet platforms are immunized from civil liability in cases of harmful or objectionable speech. This is content discrimination; viewpoint discrimination is entirely different form of discrimination, and CDA S.230's language leaves the issue of viewpoint discrimination entirely unanswered.This is a good video that summarizes Section 230 and why its actually super important.
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue, but you might want to read this.The problem is the intent and plain language of the relevant clause in Section 230 is that internet platforms are immunized from civil liability in cases of harmful or objectionable speech. This is content discrimination; viewpoint discrimination is entirely different form of discrimination, and CDA S.230's language leaves the issue of viewpoint discrimination entirely unanswered.
And that's the issue. What French and Cato especially are dancing around in their labyrinthine, red herring-laden, "let me explain this to you (but am really editorializing, not explaining or even substantially engaging with counter-argumentation)" links you've shared, is that there are two distinct and wholly different forms of discrimination of speech that have been identified by the courts: content and viewpoint.I'm not sure what you are trying to argue...
It really sounds like you are just trying to muddy the waters with nitpicking at this point.And that's the issue. What French and Cato especially are dancing around in their labyrinthine, red herring-laden, "let me explain this to you (but am really editorializing, not explaining or even substantially engaging with counter-argumentation)" links you've shared, is that there are two distinct and wholly different forms of discrimination of speech that have been identified by the courts: content and viewpoint.
Content-based discrimination is discrimination on speech based upon its form or means of expression, regardless of the speech's substance. Restrictions such as time, place, and manner are permissible when content-neutral; in other words, how the speaker expresses themselves, not what the speaker expresses. Viewpoint-based discrimination is discrimination on speech based upon the speaker's expressed opinions, or even in some cases the speaker's identity or past/concurrent associations.
The argument is the plain text and legislative intent of Section 230(c)(2) is to provide immunity for content-based restriction of speech, and that content hosts and search engines have exceeded that authority and are engaging in viewpoint-based restriction.
What stops them is Trump bringing lots of traffic to the site.So is Trump convinced the President, and he himself as a citizen, is entitled to a Twitter account? Like he has some legal backing here? What's to stop Twitter from just unverifying him, or just deleting the President's twitter account? You can't sue to have a social media account...
You do understand we're talking about legal language, legal questions, legal principles, and jurisprudence, right? This is nothing if not nitpicking, root to stem. That's the nature of the beast, when you're talking about questions of such nuance that using a comma instead of a semicolon might completely reverse the interpretation of a text.It really sounds like you are just trying to muddy the waters with nitpicking at this point.
Ask a non-leading question. You're intentionally conflating advocacy of a crime, leaping directly to a particularly heinous crime and a straw man representation of conservatives' arguments, to in-fact commission of what would be considered for the purposes of your argument a tort (although torts aren't clear-cut and depend heavily upon the platform and status of the speaker and target). Compare like and like.Assuming you are acting in good faith, then lets say someone is advocating the "killing of immigrants to keep their country pure" vs someone making up lies about what other people said and both users were banned, would these be content or viewpoint based discrimination?
Because you are taking something that has been around over 20 years and is pretty well understood and trying to say that its vague and difficult to define. If this was a new bill or something then you might have a point, but this is pretty much the legal foundation of how the internet works in the US. So to me it sounds like you are just trying to muddle well established waters.You do understand we're talking about legal language, legal questions, legal principles, and jurisprudence, right? This is nothing if not nitpicking, root to stem. That's the nature of the beast, when you're talking about questions of such nuance that using a comma instead of a semicolon might completely reverse the interpretation of a text.
Oh its a very leading question, but its also the most likely reason that conservatives get banned. I sincerely doubt anyone is banning them for just being conservative, they are probably being banned for harassment or advocating some pretty shit positions. And is it really a strawman if they are doing it? I mean lauren southern's actoins probably resulted in the deaths of at least a few immigrants, she was one of those assholes who was going around on ships and trying to intercept refugees ships and force them back, if I remember right they even harassed a refugee ship that was sinking. Alex jones wasn't banned for being conservative, he was banned from deliberately spreading misinformation and targeted harassment campaigns. The daily stormer wasn't removed from its hosting services for just being conservative, they were removed for celebrating Heyer's death after the unite the right rally and being generally shit.Ask a non-leading question. You're intentionally conflating advocacy of a crime, leaping directly to a particularly heinous crime and a straw man representation of conservatives' arguments, to in-fact commission of what would be considered for the purposes of your argument a tort (although torts aren't clear-cut and depend heavily upon the platform and status of the speaker and target). Compare like and like.
Let's say someone advocated killing immigrants, and another person advocated killing the rich. Both are banned; is that content or viewpoint based discrimination? If one is banned but the other not, is that content or viewpoint based discrimination?
Let's say someone selectively edited another's commentary to falsely paint them as a neo-Nazi, another selectively edited another's commentary to falsely paint them as a violent anarchist. Both are banned; is that content or viewpoint based discrimination? If one is banned but the other not, is that content or viewpoint based discrimination?
You do realize that you're contradicting yourself? Those positions you consider "pretty shit" are conservative positions, and being banned for them is banning those people for a conservative viewpoint.I sincerely doubt anyone is banning them for just being conservative, they are probably being banned for... advocating some pretty shit positions.
Yes: although it's not just traffic who want to look at Trump's posts, it's the trust that Trump supporters have in Twitter. Trump thus poses Twitter a huge headache.What stops them is Trump bringing lots of traffic to the site.
If you believe pedigree actually matters when interpreting legal documents and court reasoning, especially in the face of grammar and punctuation, you might read Scalia's opinion in Heller. Remember as you do, Scalia was and still is the foremost positivist jurist in the US.Because you are taking something that has been around over 20 years and is pretty well understood and trying to say that its vague and difficult to define. If this was a new bill or something then you might have a point, but this is pretty much the legal foundation of how the internet works in the US. So to me it sounds like you are just trying to muddle well established waters.
Allegations are not merely limited to bans, suspensions, and content removal, and are not limited to those advocating for criminal action nor celebrating it, nor defamatory statements. Even in such cases where moderation on those topics can be demonstrated to be partisan in nature. They extend to search and recommendation algorithm manipulation, as well as demonetization and content obfuscation; not only along partisan lines, but on the basis of the speaker's identity and corporate affiliation, and the slipshod and oft-reckless ways in which these methods are employed by content hosts.Oh its a very leading question, but its also the most likely reason that conservatives get banned.
Exactly, it's the Twitch, YouTube, and Instagram problem: the rules don't apply to the content host's big money-makers.This is the irony about claims that Twitter is censoring Trump: actually the opposite is true, that Twitter is extending Trump special privileges that the rest of the user base don't get, because he should long since have been shut down.
Second amendment stuff is complicated enough that I'm not going to it since its already vague and lousy with interpretations.If you believe pedigree actually matters when interpreting legal documents and court reasoning, especially in the face of grammar and punctuation, you might read Scalia's opinion in Heller. Remember as you do, Scalia was and still is the foremost positivist jurist in the US.
Then you need to actually show instances of that happening rather than just people complaining and making accusations. But, its moot anyway, section 230 saysAllegations are not merely limited to bans, suspensions, and content removal, and are not limited to those advocating for criminal action nor celebrating it, nor defamatory statements. Even in such cases where moderation on those topics can be demonstrated to be partisan in nature. They extend to search and recommendation algorithm manipulation, as well as demonetization and content obfuscation; not only along partisan lines, but on the basis of the speaker's identity and corporate affiliation, and the slipshod and oft-reckless ways in which these methods are employed by content hosts.
Probably smaller lgbtq and sex education channels for both of those since conservative commentators have pretty powerful defenses outside of their most heinous positions. I remember hearing some where, although I tried looking this up before and couldn't find it so it might or might not be true, about some site, I think either twitter or facebook that was trying to use an algorithm to automatically block al-qaeda or some terrorist groups content posts, but it kept flagging republican/conservative content so they ended up just scrapping it.Who was harmed most by the 2017 "YouTube adpocalypse": conservative commentators, large corporate-owned channels, or smaller content creators (most notably LGBTQ and sex education channels)? Who was harmed most by the 2019 "Vox adpocalypse": conservative commentators, large corporate-owned channels, or documentary and educational channels?
So you well understand, regardless what positivists might say on the matter, pedigree has zero substantive meaning in interpretation of law. Why bring it up, then?Second amendment stuff is complicated enough that I'm not going to it since its already vague and lousy with interpretations.
You mean other than several Alphabet, Facebook, and Twitter employees (and former employees) going on-record this is exactly the behavior these companies engage in? You mean other than the leaked Google groups and chat transcripts that surfaced during the Damore controversy? Other than Sergey Brin's leaked all-hands video?Then you need to actually show instances of that happening rather than just people complaining and making accusations.
...absolutely nothing about viewpoint-based discrimination as you just demonstrated yourself. Because the plain text of the statute immunizes content hosts from civil liability for content-based moderation. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.But, its moot anyway, section 230 says...
But Twitter is mostly bots. They can just buy more.What stops them is Trump bringing lots of traffic to the site.
Well, it's not the World's fault that conservatives decided to take shitty positions in the first place.You do realize that you're contradicting yourself? Those positions you consider "pretty shit" are conservative positions, and being banned for them is banning those people for a conservative viewpoint.
You still have to make a compelling argument.You do understand we're talking about legal language, legal questions, legal principles, and jurisprudence, right? This is nothing if not nitpicking, root to stem. That's the nature of the beast, when you're talking about questions of such nuance that using a comma instead of a semicolon might completely reverse the interpretation of a text.