[cmac2992]

Ahhhhhh this is not what section 230 says at all. Go read it. It's not long and not complicated.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

There is literally a section that talks about that a company can restrict basically a huge range of content.

[_yoqn]

First of all, here is a selection of the Findings section:

  "(3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity."
  ...
  "(5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services."

Obviously the intention of the law is to preserve diversity of political and cultural discourse. Not eliminate entire points of view which is the point in question here.

Next, here is the pertinent section of the law that I feel covers the

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

  (2)Civil liability
      No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
    (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
    (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

In (c)(1) above it's important to define "interactive computer service":

  > (2) Interactive computer service The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

While it's true that at their basic foundations one could call Facebook an “interactive computer service” it has become SO MUCH more than that. It controls massive quantities of communication and the dissemination of editorials and diverse opinion. They can't hide behind this one vague definition with a straight face.

Just as a news organization would be held in contempt of the public interest for selectively editing a recording of someone to make them appear to say things that they didn't say, it's equally unethical to call oneself a provider of an "interactive computer service" while selectively editing the flow of diverse viewpoints and opinion to essentially accomplish the same cultural effect of selectively editing a recording.

Now, in (c)(2)(A) the "interactive computer service" is allowed to take steps to filter at its discretion what it deems "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." The last bit otherwise objectionable is essentially a blank check and really should not have been in the law. The US flag may in some circles be considered "objectionable". Should this give Facebook the right to censor patriotism to the US flag as it may be "objectionable"?

The problem is that "objectionable" is based on opinion where the other criteria are more closely definable.

I am all for blocking some speech. I just believe that, for example, incitement of violence means that one tells another to hurt another explicitly. Not implicitly.

[natechols]

I cannot recall any misinformation campaign as spectacularly successful as the one that has convinced many Americans that the GP post's publisher/platform distinction is actually the law. And they don't seem to have had any special trick to it, they just repeat the lie enough times that people believe it.

[cmac2992]

It's impressive considering how readable the text is. I'm especially impressed with ted Cruz who is a lawyer and literally works in the same building as the guy who wrote it but still manages to spend his days misrepresenting it.

[krapp]

>And they don't seem to have had any special trick to it, they just repeat the lie enough times that people believe it.

That is the special trick. It's a technique often attributed to Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

You don't need to convince people to believe a lie, despite arguments about "truth being the best disinfectant" and "good speech being the solution to bad speech," because belief is not a process of logical deduction, rather it's an adaptation to stimulus. Surround a person in an environment of coherent lies long enough and their minds will simply adapt to it.

[lliamander]

Absolutely! Indeed, the protection was crafted specifically for platforms to engage in moderation without being held liable for the content they host. The whole point is to encourage moderation.

But section 230 is not a blanket immunity for anything a platform may wish to do with their content. If the actions of the social media platforms fall outside of section 230 protections (and I think such a thing could be argued) it is on the following grounds:

1. One of the stated purposes of this legislation was to maximize user control over what they view (230[b][3]). Social media censorship and algorithmic feeds take away that power.

2. Protection from civil liability extends only to those actions taken in "good faith" (230[c][2][A]). I'm not fully prepared to to outline what I think is meant by good faith here, but I think it is fair to say that not all moderation actions we have seen are "in good faith".

Outside of section 230, I also think that platforms which employ "fact-checkers" should be open to defamation suits if they make false statements of fact. Recently a court ruled that these fact-checks were "protected opinion", which is utterly stupid.