[minusf]

Made possible in turn by giving safe haven for user content on the big social networks. Turned out to be a double edged sword.

When Rupert tried to lie about voting machines, he was fined couple of hundred mils. All the social networks mouthpiece accounts spouting nonsense suffer no repercussions whatsoever.

[midhhhthrow]

Will you also blame the telephone companies and mailman too?

[mejutoco]

This is the old dichotomy: either you dont censor and are just a medium (like electricity) or you do censor some things and then you are responsible of what is published. Social media seems to want to censor while not being responsible.

[wan23]

Section 230 of the communications decency act explicitly gave these companies this power, on purpose. Unmoderated online spaces are mostly useful to scammers and spammers.

[mejutoco]

And thus now they are responsible for all content published there.

[freejazz]

If somebody kept using the same phone line to trigger bombs, do you think that the phone company doesn't have an obligation to shut that line down? Let's say the police came to the phone company and said "we know that if you shut this phone line down, so and so wont be able to trigger the bomb they have planted in XYZ space." Do you think the phone company should do nothing?

What about a courier that knows it is delivering bombs? We should look past that too?

Which principles are you invoking exactly?

[shadowgovt]

Traditional telephone is currently at risk of being so full of scams that it isn't sensible to keep a number.

[abirch]

I think that when GP stated "All the social networks mouthpiece accounts spouting nonsense suffer no repercussions whatsoever." they were referring to the people lying and not the social networks them themselves.