The junior senator from Missouri, Josh Hawley (R) has fashioned a bill that would force social media monsters from either justifying their rules for taking down users or lose their special protections from lawsuits. The legislation is simplicity itself, if tech companies with more than 30 million users want to keep their special carve out under section 230 under the Communications Decency Act ” they have to “provide evidence to the FTC proving that their algorithms and content-removal practices are neutral.” More
Critics have declared the measure unconstitutional and take issue with relying on the government (i.e. the FTC) to determine if the companies have acted appropriately.
Magazine publishers decide what and what not to print in their issues. If they print an author’s piece that is libelous, for example, or encourages violence, then they as the publishers share culpability for the violation.
Social media companies have for a long time decided what and what not to post on their platforms. That makes them publishers.
Somebody please explain to me just how FaceTwit’s situation is different from VanityAtlantic’s?
“and take issue with relying on the government (i.e. the FTC) to determine if the companies have acted appropriately.”
Exactly right, I don’t want the Federal government involved in anything except protecting our borders and crushing our enemies.
Although Hawley is a smart guy and a great asset to conservatism, this bill leaves it up to the government to interpret/enforce compliance. I got a better idea, remove their 230 protections altogether and treat them for what they are, publishers and not platforms. This way existing laws can punish them when they do what they say they don’t do, discriminate and libel.
Rich, perhaps you should take a look at this:
https://youtu.be/-bWfIikxqw0
And, if you are so inclined, give this a read:
http://theconservativekitchentable.blogspot.com/2019/05/control-of-marketplace.html
@RadioMattM
Both good reads or should I say a good watch and a good read. Whittle is “The Man” but I’m not ready to jump on the Breakum Up bandwagon just yet, and by your post, neither are you.
I don’t know if your “common carrier” argument will fly, not discounting it but not sure. ISP’s are definitely common carriers, they transport information, as opposed to people or goods, for a fee, textbook definition. But the Big 3 are different, they are free, nobody is obligated or even encouraged to use their services, and they are not the only entity that provides the service.
Everybody knows they skew left despite their protestations otherwise, but their biases is baked into the cake. Any thinking person knows that the internet or resulting searches on the internet has no monopoly on truth.
BTW, Hawley’s bill does not break them up, it just tries to regulate them using government entities.
I got on the ground floor of both Google and Facebook as investment opportunities, so even though I abhor their progressive biases I am happy with my returns.
And I’m still fuzzy on how breaking them up would benefit consumers. Breaking Google up into say 4 other separate companies (Android, search, the cloud, hardware), now you got 4 different companies that still dominate their business models, what have you achieved?
I think Whittle’s use of “Q-Tips,” “Kleenex,” and “Band-Aid” was a good example. When a company has such a presence that it’s name becomes synonymous with the product then such a company has certain responsibilities. Google pretty much wiped out Yahoo. I use DuckDuckGo, but that is barely a blip on Google’s radar. As Whittle has pointed out, as have others, those big tech companies are acting like publishers rather than providers. If a company acts like a publisher then it should be treated as a publisher.
People are tired of the double standard. Things such as Obamacare being allowed to originate in the Senate because it was “not a tax” but passing muster in the SCOTUS because it was a tax just should not fly.