However, there is nothing in yours that addresses that issue... those issues... I'm requiring be addressed ?
The arguments re private property are rendered nonsensical without acknowledgement of the commons... converting "the right to be left alone" into a "right to do unto others"...
The phony boundary issues... "we're not a utility" so the intent in regulation doesn't matter to us... while pretending business operates outside the law, and above it, rather than only within the structure of it regulating their access to the commons ?
The argument in aggregate of those errors... that business is above the law and above limits on government excess... left free to enable excess as a private right while infringing on others rights... is ridiculous.
The not great difficulty in the 230 argument, then, is that BOTH can be true... that section 230 is a debacle in the perversion of its interpretation... which is the source of the problems... at the same time that its original purpose is fully valid, while the political intent behind that original Congressional intent is fully intact... and enjoys broad political support. It is only the corruption and perversion that is at issue.
No one I know is arguing that 230 needs to be eviscerated... because they want those protections of free speech eliminated, rather than restored... or want (truly neutral) platforms to be exposed to MORE risks... What they're saying is that the misinterpretation needs to be eviscerated... because of the obvious corruption of the original intent... and the clear fact of the damage done and danger enabled in the error.
Liability... should not be eliminated... but should be made to adhere to the party who should own it... which is the authors and creators, those with editorial control at the source... and not the neutral and disinterested platforms by which transmission of the conversation through the commons is enabled. But, neutrality being paired with liability relief... does require "disinterest"... and not bias... in the FACT. In the degree the corruption is sustained... to created in section 230 a protection for editorial bias without liability... it is become the EXACT opposite of the intent... and then, yes, that must be killed. That problem wrongly enables liability protection for some authors, creators, and publishers... but not others... when there is no intent to insulate ANY authors, creators and publishers from liability.
Where there is bias... there should not be liability relief. That will pose no issue still, in an un-insurable business risk, where the liability is being avoided by the bias that is imposed rather than created by it. AWS, by its own choices... is a publisher that should have no limits on its liability... only because of the nature of the medium it employs in exercising its bias... That it has erred in understanding amplifies its risks now...
I would go in the opposite direction, in fact... to ensure we do remove liability from truly neutral platforms that do transmit offensive material... including the worst of it, without any obligation... as that "exception" has been the camel's nose under the tent in subverting the intent of 230 in original purpose. That's not me supporting the publishing of child porn... or Backpage operating a human trafficking portal under the protection of "free speech"... or me requiring either that Backpage should be shutdown if they don't violate other laws... or that others choices should override SI's interest in branding of a community on a virtual private property... with SI not being allowed to exclude content they prefer to avoid, or forcing them to enable that or similar content. Include, still, that not all speech is protected speech... but that some speech, such as expression of personal political opinions... are and should be more equally protected than other forms of speech... including commercial speech. (Another area in which the big companies have unrealized risks... as they suppress individual speech in business interest... ) That required lack of bias poses no barrier to eliminating political content from a site while maintaining neutrality... as long as all politics is left at the door... like the family may insist at Thanksgiving dinner ? Nor does it prevent political bias on a properly labelled site doing one brand of politics and not another ? That's not a problem in bias... rather than a problem in fraud... when neutrality is offered for sale... and something else is provided. Rather, whatever choices are made, I'm claiming that publication is the responsibility of the publishers, not ever the neutral platforms, and that must be made true to have it matter. In the degree that requires "neutral" platforms to act... at all... the imposition of a requirement to act as censors is the problem. It requires businesses to "become law enforcement"... do the government's job for them... and in the process assume the powers of government... which is the origin of the excess enabling the corruption we see. That is not made less of a problem, rather than more, if the required bias being imposed... is not imposed by government ?
That 230, as written, or interpreted, creates that problem... needs to be addressed. "Neutral" platforms need to be utility like in their bias free transmission... and utility like in transmission without liability for the content. The issues in conflict only become relevant when choices are made... as at AWS... that impose a bias... making them publishers.
There is a lack of clarity in boundaries that needs to be clarified... between what "a neutral platform" is... and what a private property is... while correcting the errors made in failing to recognize the commons, and the reality that business is enabled within the commons only under the limits that apply to government, and not above them...
The logic of the rest is a set of variations on the "don't shoot the messenger" problem. Originators on one end, transmitters in the middle... receivers on the other end... but, messengers modifying messages... or receivers reactions to address messengers... or to respond to messages by taking actions to limit messengers or modify and limit the messages... alters their roles along with the dynamics of "open communication". The postman who opens your mail... then decides if you should get it... while taking notes and using the content for his own ends... has no more right in the virtual world than in the physical world.
Expand it into the problems resultant from fictional persons being treated as real persons ? Should corporations be allowed to have and express an opinion... as anything they do say is commercial speech ?
The argument that we need 230 to protect us... but we're changing the focus to protect our ability to act as opinionated intermediaries imposing a systemic bias... by whatever acts we choose in self interest... as an expression of our right to free speech... only now incorporating an unearned, unwarranted and unintended exemption from liability... is the definition of the failure of section 230... and the death of free speech.
There is no battle over that fundamental purpose in enabling free speech... including in the protection of platforms only as an element in fostering that greater good... except in the effort made in the negation of that original intent by corrupting it in practice... The opposite is true, save in the negation by misinterpretation... while the tactical exploitation of that purpose in the conflict we have... is not postured in a direct assault, but in a perversion... it being that by which free speech is put at risk... by the perversion enabled by misinterpretation... which postures to protect free speech... while working on eliminating it in the name of preserving it... That is a cancer that will kill the patient... while the patient argues about the need to avoid treatment that removes the tumor.
The 230 problem is a tail risk... in the corruption of the intent, which intent has broad social backing... to narrowly carve out misinterpretations that foster partisan benefits... enabling suppressing the free speech of some... while pretending that's a social benefit... "free speech for everyone I agree with"... being not free speech.
And, not shockingly, the partisans refuse to acknowledge there is a problem... the proofs of which are obvious. |
