Could repealing 230 end 420?

[bluter]

section 230 is a clause in the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is called the 26 word phrase that created the internet. it limits legal liability for tech platforms hosting user-generated content, as in this place. it states a social media platform (or it's owners and employees) cannot be held legally responsible for any illegal content posted by its users.

what started this : mostly the dumpster fire at the crossroads of politics and twitter. section 230 has come under attack from both the right and the left. one side claims the law squashes their viewpoint, while the other complains it enables hate speech. both have partisan reasons for wanting to see it killed.

why this matters : a majority of the content here would be considered illegal in many jurisdictions, both inside and outside of the US. including federally. repealing section 230 could mean opening the board and owner up to legal jeopardy, leading to severe restrictions on posting here, or possibly even shutting down.


while the political fight is over partisan ideology, the fallout could easily be far more reaching, affecting everyone here.


sec 230 : "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."


edit : while it is an american law, it would be nice if we could all express a desire to see it upheld.

 

[Emilya Green]

The ham radio operators around the world started this mess. We were the first to start playing with computerized electronic transfer of message content. We were storing and forwarding messages on a world wide network, preparing the knowledge needed to eventually develop into the world wide web. We first encountered this problem when someone would place a message into the system that was not legal in the ham radio world. We have all sorts of regulations about profanity, pecuniary gain and common decency, and it was not long before complaints rose up from all over the place... just who was responsible when an offending message got relayed all over the world, both manually and automatically? Was every ham radio operator or automated station to touch that message responsible for its content? We caused quite a ruckus over this, and the FCC finally made a ruling covering the Amateur Radio Service much like the later 230 ruling for the broadcasters and internet providers, that only the originator of the message was legally responsible for its content.

230 came about to protect free speech. Without out it, electronic town halls, broadcasters or public electronic meeting places, could be sued for content originating and being disseminated from their platforms. If something illegal was transmitted, even unknowingly, by any member of the platform, the platform and its owner could be held liable for a whole range of tortuous claims. This forces electronic town halls to censor content in order to stay compliant, and if you censor, what you end up with is not a town hall... it becomes instead the owner of the platform's (or the government's) opinions and beliefs, only. Removal of 230 would eliminate social media as we know it today and would force us all to try to communicate in a government regulated and censored place. Twitter, Facebook and all the others would go away and we would end up with one official government feed, neatly censored and regulated for our protection.

230 was put into place to protect a true town hall from liability. The originator of false or harmful content is the only one able to be held responsible for that content, saving anyone or any device that relays that message from being liable. The question today is whether or not a social media platform is to be considered as a public town square. If they censor and restrict content, then they are no longer a town square, they are a publisher, and a publisher IS responsible for the content they publish. 420 Magazine does not censor our product and only "moderates" the content so as to maintain a civil discourse on our platform. Our subject matter is not universally illegal, for I am in a legal state and am free to talk about my operations here with impunity and actions can not be taken against the Magazine because of my content. If 230 went away and the US Gov. decided to censor all free speech, all we would need to do to protect ourselves is to make this a private platform, where we would be free to talk amongst each other without restrictions.

 

[bluter]

agree with all your thoughts.

you are 100% correct in the history as well.

If 230 went away and the US Gov. decided to censor all free speech, all we would need to do to protect ourselves is to make this a private platform, where we would be free to talk amongst each other without restrictions.

this is where the issue gets sticky. it was brought up - in a private platform on autos - that many of the popular modifications discussed are not technically legal in many places.


i was under the impression the auto forum was public, but apparently it is considered private, and is still subject to sec 230. the reason is that unregistered users can still view the majority of the content.

in order to comply, any unallowed content (or all) would have to be hidden from unregistered viewers, and all registered users would only be allowed to come from areas where the activity is legal, severely restricting who is allowed to participate.


edit : it should be noted 420mag began under the previous rules but has evolved under sec 230 to be what it is today.

more edit : legalizing at the federal level would erase any and all problems surrounding this.