Difference between revisions of "Sec. 230"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Internet services are treated as service providers of electronic communications, like a phone company, and not as publishers of content, such as newspapers or radio and TV broadcasters which are subject to stringent fact-checking before publishing or airing content. | Internet services are treated as service providers of electronic communications, like a phone company, and not as publishers of content, such as newspapers or radio and TV broadcasters which are subject to stringent fact-checking before publishing or airing content. | ||
| − | Section 230 is intended to only apply to content that users post on social media platforms. It is not intended to provide protection from liability for [[Big Tech]]'s own speech. When Big Tech allegedly “fact checks” user postings, they are acting as a publisher and Section 230 immunity is no intended to apply. As such, Big Tech social media can and should be held accountable for that speech. Section 230 is not intended to apply to Big Tech’s editorializing. | + | Section 230 is intended to only apply to content that users post on [[social media]] platforms. It is not intended to provide protection from liability for [[Big Tech]]'s own speech. When Big Tech allegedly “fact checks” user postings, they are acting as a publisher and Section 230 immunity is no intended to apply. As such, Big Tech social media can and should be held accountable for that speech. Section 230 is not intended to apply to Big Tech’s editorializing. |
==Abuse and election interference by Big Tech social media platforms== | ==Abuse and election interference by Big Tech social media platforms== | ||
| − | For first time in [[American history]] | + | For first time in [[American history]] social media companies took [[direct action]] against a major U.S. publisher,<ref>https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-and-facebooks-assault-on-freedom-of-the-press_3540670.html</ref> ''[[The New York Post]]'' when it published a story on [[Biden-Burisma]] scandal.<ref>*https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/<br>*https://youtu.be/r4Kcc7a114I<br>*https://youtu.be/89ByR-vrnc4</ref> ''The Post'' is among the top five newspapers by circulation in the United States. These actions raised serious questions about many social media platforms future Section 230 immunity status. |
Big Tech giants [[Facebook]] and [[Twitter]] interfered in the [[2020 presidential election]] by blocking links to the article.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/14/election-interference-facebook-suppressing-new-york-post-bombshell-story-of-damaging-hunter-biden-emails/</ref> Facebook and Twitter have many foreign stockholders.<ref>"Finalized January of 2011, the transaction included a $450 million investment from Goldman Sachs, $50 million from DST, and $1 billion from unnamed foreign investors." http://whoownsfacebook.com/#Goldman<br>*https://qz.com/519388/this-saudi-prince-now-owns-more-of-twitter-than-jack-dorsey-does/</ref> | Big Tech giants [[Facebook]] and [[Twitter]] interfered in the [[2020 presidential election]] by blocking links to the article.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/14/election-interference-facebook-suppressing-new-york-post-bombshell-story-of-damaging-hunter-biden-emails/</ref> Facebook and Twitter have many foreign stockholders.<ref>"Finalized January of 2011, the transaction included a $450 million investment from Goldman Sachs, $50 million from DST, and $1 billion from unnamed foreign investors." http://whoownsfacebook.com/#Goldman<br>*https://qz.com/519388/this-saudi-prince-now-owns-more-of-twitter-than-jack-dorsey-does/</ref> | ||
Revision as of 18:58, October 17, 2020
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides immunity from lawsuits for libel to internet hosting facilities. Sec. 230 reads:
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Internet services are treated as service providers of electronic communications, like a phone company, and not as publishers of content, such as newspapers or radio and TV broadcasters which are subject to stringent fact-checking before publishing or airing content.
Section 230 is intended to only apply to content that users post on social media platforms. It is not intended to provide protection from liability for Big Tech's own speech. When Big Tech allegedly “fact checks” user postings, they are acting as a publisher and Section 230 immunity is no intended to apply. As such, Big Tech social media can and should be held accountable for that speech. Section 230 is not intended to apply to Big Tech’s editorializing.
Abuse and election interference by Big Tech social media platforms
For first time in American history social media companies took direct action against a major U.S. publisher,[1] The New York Post when it published a story on Biden-Burisma scandal.[2] The Post is among the top five newspapers by circulation in the United States. These actions raised serious questions about many social media platforms future Section 230 immunity status.
Big Tech giants Facebook and Twitter interfered in the 2020 presidential election by blocking links to the article.[3] Facebook and Twitter have many foreign stockholders.[4]
Twitter banned people who posted the story,[5] including White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany for sharing the article,[6] locked the Trump Campaign account less than 3 weeks before the 2020 Presidential election.[7] Rep. Jim Jordan posted the Biden-Burisma story on a federal government website after Twitter censored the House Judiciary GOP, at which point the link was promptly censored by Twitter.[8] Wikipedia editors censored the Hunter Biden bombshell, and called the New York Post an ‘unreliable’ source.[9] Google also was reported to be meddling in U.S. Senate elections.[10] The Senate Judiciary Committee announced that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey would be subpoena to explain the meddling.[11] Former James Comey general counsel James A. Baker (DOJ), who was complicit in the Obamagate and FISA abuse scandals, is Twitter's lead counsel.[12]
See also
References
- ↑ https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-and-facebooks-assault-on-freedom-of-the-press_3540670.html
- ↑ *https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/
*https://youtu.be/r4Kcc7a114I
*https://youtu.be/89ByR-vrnc4 - ↑ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/14/election-interference-facebook-suppressing-new-york-post-bombshell-story-of-damaging-hunter-biden-emails/
- ↑ "Finalized January of 2011, the transaction included a $450 million investment from Goldman Sachs, $50 million from DST, and $1 billion from unnamed foreign investors." http://whoownsfacebook.com/#Goldman
*https://qz.com/519388/this-saudi-prince-now-owns-more-of-twitter-than-jack-dorsey-does/ - ↑ https://www.wnd.com/2020/10/twitter-now-banning-users-posting-ny-post-story-hunter-biden/
- ↑ https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/twitter-bans-white-house-press-secretary-for-sharing-hunter-and-joe-biden-corruption-article/
- ↑ https://creativedestructionmedia.com/news/politics/2020/10/15/twitter-locks-trump-campaign-account-less-than-3-weeks-before-presidential-election/
- ↑ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/15/jim-jordan-posts-hunter-biden-burisma-story-twitter-censors-house-judiciary-gop/
- ↑ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/15/wikipedia-editors-censor-hunter-biden-bombshell-call-new-york-post-unreliable-source/
- ↑ https://patriotdailypress.org/2020/10/13/google-researcher-warns-google-may-be-shifting-power-to-flip-senate/
- ↑ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/15/senate-judiciary-committee-will-subpoena-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-over-ny-post-censorship/
- ↑ https://nypost.com/2020/06/16/twitter-hires-former-fbi-chief-counsel-as-deputy-lawyer/
.
