Over to you, Congress

Topic

New Reply

LEGAL BRIEF By Max Stul Oppenheimer, Esq. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was a calculated political decision on the part of Con
[See the full post at: Over to you, Congress]

8 users thanked author for this post.

ibe98765, lmacri, fisher75, SueW, Casey S, DLivesInTexas, Sky, oldfry

Reply | Quote

Replies

See these posts right here? Well, you won’t be able to make them in a timely manner anymore. Every post would need to be reviewed and moderated before appearing – which could take days or weeks. This would affect all online user comments, social media and forum posts. Do you understand what that means?

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

ibe98765

Reply | Quote

I would think that AI could be programmed to do that in at least minutes, if not seconds.  My biggest gripe is false identities, which I think should be illegal. Anyone who posts anything on the internet should have a verifiable and accurate identity, at least known and verified to the owner/operator of the website to which it is posted, or their post should be disallowed. I use my real and active email address and first name on this site.

 

Reply | Quote

I agree an overhaul is overdue.  A prime example is John Stossel’s lawsuit against Facebook for defamation.  Stossel posted videos regarding climate change that were flagged by Facebook, via a third-party activist group, as false or misleading.

Facebook claims their simply a carrier, and exempt.  However, I believe they were anything but.  When Facebook added the ability to modify or brand content created by others with their own “subjective” labels, they became a publisher.

In putting lipstick on a pig, “…DeMarchi concluded that fact-checking is a subjective undertaking. Neither Facebook nor its third-party reviewers can be liable for defamation because they’re not making statements of objective fact, she found.”  So facts aren’t facts, their subjective opinion, so says the court.

In Stossel’s case, I believe had they threaded the needle correctly to have it first determined Facebook was a “publisher”, the outcome would have been different.  Instead, they went for the classical “libel/defamation” argument.

I would hope a common sense approach would be found to prevent the need for moderation of all content, as Intrepid has expressed.

Reply | Quote