US Supreme Court takes on the Internet

Topic

New Reply

https://www.ft.com/content/131c1c6f-7adc-4217-b251-6e7e18570581

Legal cases could end immunity of groups such as Google and Twitter for content posted on their sites

When the US Supreme Court considers on Friday whether to take up two cases of central importance to the social media world, it will cement its new role as a key arbiter over the future of online communications.

The cases concern controversial 2021 laws in Florida and Texas that were designed to limit internet companies’ ability to block content or users on their networks — something the states claim would prevent them “censoring” conservatives…

The first will come in late February with oral arguments in two cases that touch on a legal provision widely considered central to the development of the internet. Those cases mark the first time the justices have delved into section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996. The provision gives internet services immunity for content others post on their sites, while also giving them wide latitude to remove content they consider offensive.
..

Meta, Twitter, Microsoft and others urge Supreme Court not to allow lawsuits against tech algorithms

Tech experts ask Supreme Court to rule that Section 230 protections apply to algorithmic recommendations

Reply | Quote

Replies

No to censorship!  Small publishers need a chance against big tech.

Reply | Quote

Section 230 was intended to encourage free speech online. Sites which allowed free posting without controlling the content as to viewpoint would get protection against lawsuits for what is posted on their site. On the other hand, if they wanted to control the content as to viewpoint, then they were legally responsible for whatever was posted on their site and could be sued for the content.

I think that is a great thing. However, that is not what is happening today. There is a huge amount of controlling of content because of the viewpoint expressed by the poster, yet all the big social media sites are still claiming protection from lawsuits because of section 230.

They can’t have it both ways. They are either a publisher or a platform; they either control content as to viewpoint, or they don’t.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM

Reply | Quote

MrJimPhelps wrote:

They can’t have it both ways. They are either a publisher or a platform; they either control content as to viewpoint, or they don’t.

Internet sites don’t control content as to viewpoint but to rules that are part of posting on sites (just like EULA in software, or Askwoody.com..).
You can’t let drugs, guns..sellers, children trafficking, Nazis, pedophiles…a president that still claim election was stolen… posting without censorship.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Sky

Reply | Quote

Exactly this.

People and companies are allowed to set rules for what goes on in spaces that they own in real life, so why should the same not apply to internet spaces owned by people and companies? It’s not censorship if you ask someone to leave your house because they are abusing other guests, for example, because that’s a violation of socially agreed-upon rules.

As for viewpoints, not every form of speech is a viewpoint. Hate speech, for example, is not a viewpoint. Inciting an insurrection, the reason Trump was banned from Twitter, is not a viewpoint. These are violations of rules that users agreed to when they signed up for the site in question.

1 user thanked author for this post.

wavy

Reply | Quote