6.8 SPC Forums banner
21 - 22 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
My reason for wanting to ban politics from social media is that to me "we tried" the limited to no government regulation approach and all that happened is conservatives got booted off social media. Individuals who also have different opinions that don't align with either party also got the boot from social media. What recourse is there? Because of this absolutely bad rule that considers social media as bulletin board type organizations, they are very much immune from lawsuits because they claim they don't have control over the content.
That's the thing; the social media giants, are protected under the first amendments free speech/freedom of the press clause. However unlike traditional press, i.e. newspapers, TV, radio.... Section 230 of title 47 of the Communications Decency Act. makes them protected from lawsuits, because they are not "editors, content monitors", they allegedly don't control content. Usually if a newspaper publishes as false, defamatory story/statement, they can, and should be, sued for libel; while the social media companies cannot be, due to the fact they don't edit content. However as soon as they started "fact checking" or banning people for false information, Section 230 SHOULD have been out the window; and they should have been sued for libel. In my opinion it should have been, and should be right now, on a case by case basis. If Twitter violates Section 230, they should face lawsuits, Facebook same thing, other companies that didn't participate in the "disinformation" campaign, should still be protected under Section 230. However as we all know the well known social media giants were in cahoots, so they should all face libel charges. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but, I do know that giving more power to government; federal or state isn't the answer.

Who is going to determine what is political? Politicians? Is talking/posting about firearms, or the second amendment political? How about religion? Separation of church and state right; that's clearly political. Where, when, who, draws the line? I don't trust bureaucrats past the end of my nose, so I don't believe that's the answer.

Section 230 should be amended to make it more transparent, clear, that when it's violated there can and will be legal action taken against the offenders. And our libel laws also need to be looked at, because right now winning a libel suit is very challenging from what I understand. The laws we already have; don't work as they should. So making more is the answer? It's like gun control, the politicians make more laws every year particularly in democratic run states; the result less crime? No, if anything, it gets worse. The same logic should be applied here.

"The greater the power, the greater the abuse." ~Edmond Burke

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." ~John Edward Acton
 
21 - 22 of 22 Posts
Top