To: sense who wrote (12286 ) 12/5/2019 10:17:03 AM From: SI Dave 1 RecommendationRecommended By
Read Replies (3) | Respond to Seriously ? Are you pretending to be unaware of the issues we're here to talk about ? Know of no specific instance in which some giant corporate "interactive computer service" media company... is censoring users opinion... limiting users access to information... conspiring to steer content... and influence public opinion... by "not being a publisher" ? It doesn't matter under current, well settled law. All of those theories and more have been advanced in plaintiffs attempts to evade 230, and the courts have rejected them. All of them. These are all examples of exercising a publisher's editorial discretion, which is specifically immunized from liability and lawsuit by Section 230, by specific design and intent. It does not matter one iota that they are acting as a publisher or if they are defined as a publisher; 230 immunizes them from both traditional publisher and distributor liability if the underlying content originates from third parties. It is as simple as that, yet it's a concept that has proven difficult for many to grasp until a court sends them packing (and often tells them to pay the defendant's legal fees). It's a difficult concept for many to comprehend because it runs contrary to the norm, yet those twenty-six words left no room for wiggle.everyone a soapbox and megaphone, re-imaged the internet, and made it so the public no longer had to rely solely on the traditional big media organizations to spoon-feed us "news" and information with their brand of spin. If the new cast of platforms don't do a satisfactory job, then capitalism and free markets let people choose alternative venues, or create their own. The barrier for entry is quite low, as proven by the ever-changing landscape of social media venues. However, that innovation slowly being squeezed by new and often ill-advised or poorly crafted regulations that will become insurmountable burdens for small or new players. They raise the barriers and and give a de facto -opoly to the giants. It would be far better to incentivize small and new development (as 230 has done) so the marketplace can punish bad actors by taking their business elsewhere. The free market is much more efficient at doing that than politicians and legislators with poor understanding of the issues and/or ulterior motives.
