Trump's Potential Revocation of Section 230 Could Be Very Bad for Us.

[cevmarauder]

Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, Trump revoking section 230 of the Communications Decency Act could be very, very bad for us amateur pyros. It is essentially what absolves webmasters of liability for what is posted in their forums.

That means the CPSC could (and would) take this as a golden opportunity to prosecute pyrotechnics forums out of existence. And also firearm forums, 3D printing forums, forums where people discuss how to jailbreak their devices--hell, most hobbyist forums would then be liable if some dumbass posts bad advice and someone else gets hurt following it.

It would leave webmasters wide open to civil suits for everything from copyright infringement to libel.

It would be a major step toward locking down the internet. Pretty much the end of the web as an information sharing service out of the hands of the powers that be. Everything would have to move to the darkweb. Which isn't hard to use, but it's extremely difficult to search, and lots of people have no clue how to even access it.

[dlking59]

IMO I believe Trump is targeting big corporations like twitter that are censoring certain tweets by certain person/s. IIRC it has to do with your 1st constitutional right, "freedom of speech". Just my $.02.

[cevmarauder]

IMO I believe Trump is targeting big corporations like twitter that are censoring certain tweets by certain person/s. IIRC it has to do with your 1st constitutional right, "freedom of speech". Just my $.02.

Doesn't matter, though. Revoking section 230 will affect all websites, not just the targets of his ire. The law of unintended consequences will absolutely come into play.

 

Also--and a lot of people don't realize this--the 1st Amendment applies to government infringement on speech. Private corporations are as free to censor speech as they want--that goes back to the whole laissez faire ideal of "people vote with their wallet"--i.e., if Facebook was to, say, actually squelch all right-wing, or left-wing, speech on their site, ideally they would lose a large number of users until they either rescinded the policy, went out of business, or became a hopeless echo chamber.

 

I honestly don't see a problem with fact checking on social media. I see so many people posting/reposting/sharing ridiculous stuff and others just blindly nodding and believing it; it's honestly dumbing down the masses. Like that ridiculous "this is the size of a bullet hole of an AR-15" meme.

[Arthur]

Well, the way I interpret what I've heard is that freedom of speech continues and the author's post (wherever) stands, and the author is responsible for it wherever it is. BUT IF the post (wherever) is edited by the web entity then that web entity accepts responsibility and liability for the post.

 

The concept of "Fact Checking" isn't reliable unless the reference source is 100% accurate and unbiased. Fact checking a medical doctor's post against CNN or any other news service with NO medical staff brings the whole WWW into disrepute.

[cevmarauder]

Well, the way I interpret what I've heard is that freedom of speech continues and the author's post (wherever) stands, and the author is responsible for it wherever it is. BUT IF the post (wherever) is edited by the web entity then that web entity accepts responsibility and liability for the post.

 

The concept of "Fact Checking" isn't reliable unless the reference source is 100% accurate and unbiased. Fact checking a medical doctor's post against CNN or any other news service with NO medical staff brings the whole WWW into disrepute.

Fact checking is pretty simple; all Twitter did is was simply add a postscript to the post stating that "This may no be entirely true. Click here <links to additional sources about the subject matter>" I can't see any reasonable objection to that, unless someone is purposely aiming to spread outright misinformation.

 

In reality, the fact checking done so far has generally been the exact opposite of your example: the "fact check" proffered is generally a link to an authoritative source, not a news source.

 

Also, be aware that the gravitas some people present isn't always warranted. Someone may have a Ph.D or an MD, but that doesn't make them an expert in everything--hell, it doesn't even make them an expert necessarily within their field. Someone can be a top-notch Ophthalmologist but not know jack shit beyond the very basics about vaccinations, viruses, or cardiac issues. Take myself for an example--I hold a degree in Computer Science, studied across all the disciplines when I was in school, but my professional career has been primarily networking and firewalls, with a fair bit of cyber security. If you see me pontificating about a database, or Ruby on Rails, know that I'm probably full of shit and you might want to seek a second opinion. If I'm telling you your firewall policy is crap and you might want to split rules out, put the more commonly used rules near the top of policy (so it doesn't have to go down through a bunch of rules to hit the relevant one), and always check for rule shadowing, then you can take that to the bank.

 

With any assertion of fact, always remember what they taught you in high school: go as close to the source as you can. Peer-reviewed studies, not just one guy with a Ph.D and a tinfoil hat's opinion. Look at the legal documents, the laws themselves, not some bobblehead's slanted commentary about them. A great example of bobblehead commentary was all the furor over the sunset of the AWB; certain demagogues on the Left made it sound like the AWB was the only thing keeping machine guns out of preschools. But anyone who read the AWB knew good and well that it was nothing more than feel-good law that basically just restricted semiautos to having the core features--detachable mags and pistol grips--while banning the tacticlol accessories like bayonet lugs, telescoping stocks, and grenade launchers (I must say, there were zero drive-by bayonettings while the AWB was in place, the law definitely worked to save lives!)

 

Assuming the the fact checking these social media sites implement continue to go to primary sources like that, I really don't see a downside to them. Again, unless your goal is to intentionally spread misinformation, having a system where viewers can be linked to additional information--vetted sources, not "some jackass on the internet"--can only be a good thing.

 

Of course, all the fact checking in the world won't change the fact that some people are only going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of all evidence presented to the contrary.

Edited June 2, 2020 by cevmarauder

[Bourbon]

Even if it's only against big Corporations right at this moment. Once the Government grants themselves the power to do anything, they will with no doubt abuse it. Not a question, of if. It's when.

[SeaMonkey]

Cevmarauder,

 

You said:

 

Private corporations are as free to censor speech as they want-

 

 

That is so very true! Corporations are a "jurisdiction" unto themselves which

is extra-Constitutional if they desire. They're about as close to a "country"

within a Country as can be.

 

Which, no doubt, is why governments in America today since re-organization

back in the '70s are themselves Corporations.