Read on Twitter
230: A law that says companies are not liable for what users post to it ONLY if you moderate it. That means sites that rely on USER GENERATED CONTENT can no long use TOS to deny free speech. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760
In short: It's either all okay or none of it is.
This is what the internet needs. Creators like @Leafy and @SimianJimmy wouldn't be wrongfully kicked off if this was in place.
REMOVE SECTION 230!!!
RT please. All commentators need to know about this
This is what the internet needs. Creators like @Leafy and @SimianJimmy wouldn't be wrongfully kicked off if this was in place.
REMOVE SECTION 230!!!
RT please. All commentators need to know about this
The 230 QnA:
"Companies are private, so they don't need to follow free speech."
Yes. Under 230 companies are not held liable for user created content on their site. On top of that they choose to add things like a TOS, to enforce their rules. 1/2
"Companies are private, so they don't need to follow free speech."
Yes. Under 230 companies are not held liable for user created content on their site. On top of that they choose to add things like a TOS, to enforce their rules. 1/2
However removing 230 would mean that companies are only held liable for content on their site ONLY if they choose to moderate it. Meaning that having a TOS would make them liable
Moderating it becomes a financial risk. So companies will choose to follow free speech laws instead
Moderating it becomes a financial risk. So companies will choose to follow free speech laws instead
QnA part 2:
“Willy, then getting rid of 230 will mean MORE restrictions for users on the sites.”
No it won’t. Only if sites like Facebook and YouTube choose to no longer accept user generated content. There’s too much money in this. That’s nonsense.
1/2
“Willy, then getting rid of 230 will mean MORE restrictions for users on the sites.”
No it won’t. Only if sites like Facebook and YouTube choose to no longer accept user generated content. There’s too much money in this. That’s nonsense.
1/2
It does mean that sites like Facebook and YouTube have less control over their own website. Some say that breaks the first amendment.
I’d argue that when you run a monopoly like social media sites, that the freedom of the people should be catered too more than the company.
2/2
I’d argue that when you run a monopoly like social media sites, that the freedom of the people should be catered too more than the company.
2/2
QnA part 3:
“But it could lead to an adpocolypes and creators will make less money!”
Lol thats already happened. Creators make most of their money off of sponsorships and merch since ads are already unreliable.
I’d rather have creative freedom than a couple extra pennies.
“But it could lead to an adpocolypes and creators will make less money!”
Lol thats already happened. Creators make most of their money off of sponsorships and merch since ads are already unreliable.
I’d rather have creative freedom than a couple extra pennies.
Most of the advertisers that are here, will still be here. Again billions of users on this sites, means billions of dollars for them.
