[elicash]

What's funny about this comment is you can read it as claiming either side doesn't value free speech.

One side says the right wants to use force of government threaten breaking up companies whose speech policies they disagree with. The other side arguing that left-wing social media companies have so much power they can essentially censor opposing views.

Edit: clarity

[MereInterest]

One side is actively telling people to "rise up" [0] in a state that recently had a terrorist plot to kidnap the governor [1]. And that had an armed occupation of the house of government [2]. And who were recently told by the President to "stand by" [3].

The other side is saying not to actively invite violence. I'm pretty sure those are not equivalent positions.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/11/trump-advisor-te...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_pl...

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52496514

[3] https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-race-and-...

[elicash]

I wasn't saying that the left and right hold equivalent positions. My point was that the comment I was responding to was vague and could be read in a variety of ways.

[MereInterest]

Ah, that would make sense. I've been getting frustrated at the "both sides" talking point, as it frequently comes up when discussing superficial similarities, and misinterpreted your comment.

[crusso]

If you watch the hearings, you'd know that both of your contentions are strawmen of what each side claims to want.

[elicash]

I just edited for clarity, so maybe that helps?

My entire point is that you were using such a vague straw man that it's impossible to know which direction you meant it. That's why I intentionally showed how it can be a straw man in either direction.

Also, I've been watching the hearing. So you're correct, I suppose -- that's how I was able to accurately summarize. I'm assuming from comment history that you have a libertarian bent, so I'd imagine you're on this side of government staying the hell out of regulating social media companies? But who knows? That's my point.

[crusso]

The Republicans are pretty clearly wanting to remove legal protections of section 230 of the CDA for social media companies that are acting as quasi-publishers by suppressing the speech of users on their platforms.

The Democrats want more effort made by social media companies to fight what they perceive as online misinformation... and are asking for more suppression of speech on social media platforms.

Nobody is hiding the ball here. These are direct statements made in the opening remarks by the leadership of both parties.

No, my statement was not ambiguous - unless you haven't listened to what is being said by the mainstream representatives of both parties.

[elicash]

I disagree, and am glad you clarified your position.

My view is that these companies are privately run and online communities should be free to run them as they wish. If, say, Christian Mingle wants to ban atheists from using the platform to spread their message, they should be allowed to do that without suddenly taking on liability for things like copyright infringement. If a woodworking community wants to ban discussion of politics, they should be allowed to do that without retribution. If a dating website wants to ban people who say gross things in a first message, there's nothing wrong with allowing them to exist and compete in the marketplace.

If I, as a user of social media, want to belong to a community that removes misinformation around the election, government shouldn't ban such a platform from allowing to exist (since without 230, that'd essentially be impossible). Companies should compete on an equal footing and shouldn't be penalized due to whatever speech policies they favor. It's not government's job to enforce neutral speech codes.

That said, I know some folks disagree and favor government taking a more active role in speech regulations in order to make sure nobody is banned from social media. While both Democrats and Republicans are pushing for changes, mostly only one side favors using the threat of law to enforce their will. It's not that you're genuinely concerned about things like copyright infringement -- you're clearly in favor of laws that would force social media companies to choose between removing the ability of its users to post without a legal review, or using the speech policy you favor, knowing they'll choose the latter. (Since, with so many posts, they couldn't exist with the former.)

[crusso]

If I, as a user of social media, want to belong to a community that removes misinformation around the election, government shouldn't ban such a platform from allowing to exist (since without 230,

You continue to indicate that you haven't actually listened to the arguments made.

The Republican argument is not about whether or not a company can censor information on their platform. In no way is it about the government's "banning" the existence of such a platform.

It's about whether or not the government should blanket protect companies from normal legal liability when they make publishing/editorial decisions over their users' content. That's what Section 230 does.

If Section 230 is removed or amended to the liking of Republicans, it won't be the government that punishes Twitter for their editorial/censoring decisions - it will be everyday people who can make a libel case based upon harm that Twitter caused them. Why should everyday people not be allowed their day in court if they can make a legitimate case of harm as a result of Twitter or Facebook policies?

[elicash]

If your concerns were truly about "everyday people" having a day in court, then it wouldn't be conditional upon these platforms not adopting your preferred speech policies.

Please explain why my woodworking community should be responsible for a user libeling another user about, say, their professional woodwork just because the forum has a "no politics" rule, for example. Or even a "politics sure but no Nazis" rule. What sense does this make? Let private companies compete in the marketplace. If folks don't like policies, they can switch services. No need to rewrite 230 to punish or reward companies based on their speech policies.