i agree in a general sense that they've moved. but if they were against 1980s legislation and also dont want Twitter to be fact checking there is still some internal consistency. twitter doing nothing is neutral, twitter fact checking with their bias isn't. im sure 90% of those same conservatives would choose twitter to not fact check at all if that was an option. these are the types of situations we get when we mix constitutional protections. the rights of a publisher, compounded by the rights of free speech of users, compounded by the rights of business, again compounded by technology moving faster than legislation can handle. this isnt a straight shot of bourbon, its a mixer with so many ingredients u cant really get a good handle on them.

An individual private site censoring content is within their realm of rights. An institution, entity, or government censoring content on the internet (network) is a bigger deal. Things like blocking, throttling, re-routing, swapping traffic flows. Like the FCC blocking frequency bands for certain content types.

It specifically does not impair the ability of the federal government to enforce criminal law, nor does it restrict the application of any federal criminal statute, or any state statue or state law for that matter. So I'm not sure what you mean by "remove government from being able to get involved". The government "gets involved" whenever a law is broken. The protection against civil liability is so that the service providers can censor obscene (in this case, pornographic) material.

See bold.

(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—
(1)to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2)to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5)to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

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

The courts are also a branch of government bro.

It removes liability for things they host but didn't write.

It really depends on what form the correction takes. Eliminating section 230 in its entirety is an extreme step that is being advocated as a last resort. The administration, for instance, is not currently advocating that.

I would recommend two changes. First, the protection being conferred is too broad. The Civil Liability clause should be tailored to provide protection from obscene (in this case pornographic) material and individual personal harassment. Second, it should clearly outline under what circumstances a "publisher" becomes a publisher. In the text of the law, the assumption is that the service provider is not a publisher, and is only making a good faith effort to restrict access to pornographic and "obscene" material. But what about cases where the provider is also a publisher, and routinely edits content? There's ambiguity as to whether or not the protection extends to them, hence why the administration has asked for clarity on what exactly is covered.

By restricting the scope of the legislation, we can protect service providers from unnecessary liability while effectively tying that protection to their function as neutral service providers and not active participants in policy debates. That is the end goal, which serves to protect and expand speech on websites while maintaining clearly defined exemptions for pornographic material and personal harassment.

courts are a part of the govt, but they're not generally what people refer to in the context of censorship. censorship comes from legislation, not litigation.

don't give the lefties any ideas

I encourage you to look into censorship via the courts. It is definitely a method of censorship that is commonly used.

Slapp suits bro

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 17 2020 09:11am

sure, and maybe 1% of people get herpes from a toilet seat. that doesnt mean herpes isnt an STI. censorship in a modern sense comes from legislation, maybe spraying public toilet seats with lysol before you sit down is a good idea, but....

The individual private sites we're talking about have become as goom puts it the public square of today's world. You have 3-4 companies which basically own the platforms where the vast majority of speech happens.

These companies either need to relinquish these monopolies on the public square or make sure that all voices are given a chance to speak.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jun 17 2020 09:48am