• Buttons@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    A problem is that social media websites are simultaneously open platforms with Section 230 protections, and also publishers who have free speech rights. Those are contradictory, so which is it?

    Perhaps @rottingleaf was speaking morally rather than legally. For example, I might say “I believe everyone in America should have access to healthcare”; if you respond “no, there is no right to healthcare” you would be right, but you missed my point. I was expressing an moral aspiration.

    I think shadowbans are a bad mix of censorship and hard to detect. Morally, I believe they should be illegal. If a company wants to ban someone, they can be up front about it with a regular ban; make it clear what they are doing. To implement this legally, we could alter Section 230 protections so that they don’t apply to companies performing shadowbans.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      They are in no way publishers…ugh you people who don’t know shit about the law are insufferable.

      • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Feel free to educate us instead of just saying the equivalent of “you’re wrong and I hate reading comments like yours”.

        But I think, in general, the alteration to Section 230 that they are proposing makes sense as a way to keep these companies in check for practices like shadowbanning especially if those tools are abused for political purposes.