Submitted by rejs7 t3_11bm7gg in technology
theannotator t1_j9yox9x wrote
The current format with companies claiming 230 protections and then taking actions they shouldn’t get protected for can’t continue. Something needs to change but it’s probably not happening from the legislative branch at a federal level. The amount of things that got people throttled or banned but ended up being true in the past three years is unacceptable. You can disagree with an opinion but the platform shouldn’t be banning things that aren’t illegal and still get 230.
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja00u8x wrote
There is nothing wrong with banning people for saying things that are true. You can call me an asshole and I can ban you from my house party. Was it true? Yes--I'm an asshole. But it's also my house, so fuck off.
whatweshouldcallyou t1_ja2ul77 wrote
If a public company does not disclose that it operates with a substantial political bias, or that it coordinates with intelligence agencies to censor information, then it could be reasonably said that they are misleading investors about salient aspects of their operation.
theannotator t1_ja1oo6k wrote
Not if you claim to be a platform and not a publisher.
[deleted] t1_ja1q0cx wrote
[deleted]
theannotator t1_ja1skz9 wrote
Not when they claim they aren’t and are allowed to donate funds to political candidates. In an age where whatever google returns to your search on the first page is the truth it does matter if they filter topics, ideas, or statements that aren’t illegal and don’t indicate that it’s biased or an ad. It’s 15 years too late to compete with google as a search engine, 10 years to late for YouTube, and probably already too late for a small chrome competitor. gmail is the odd exception and you can replace it trivially. They are a monopoly just like bell and should be broken.
[deleted] t1_ja1tglg wrote
[deleted]
theannotator t1_ja1tun3 wrote
Fox shows don’t get section 230 protections. Your examples do.
[deleted] t1_ja1upmj wrote
[deleted]
theannotator t1_ja1uwml wrote
But you can’t really go somewhere else in most cases. It’s a monopoly. Kill 230 or carve out these monopolies and you get a more free market approach.
[deleted] t1_ja1ve0u wrote
[deleted]
theannotator t1_ja1wh0e wrote
Well me hearty, when 98% of the market defaults to you that’s a monopoly. Businesses and the government largely aren’t on the others. Government shouldn’t use a private monopoly of a platform (twitter and YouTube for comma and google for finding info)that isn’t neutral for official communication.
It’s obvious we won’t come to a consensus, but it’s been nice having a discussion that didn’t include ad hominem attacks or bring up certain mustachioed men.
Good day!
Valiantheart t1_ja36vj2 wrote
No they can't which is the entire point of this and the other internet related lawsuit at the SC. You are supposed to either be able to host all content and not be held responsible for the actions of its users or actively curate it and be responsible for its content. Not both simultaneously.
[deleted] t1_ja3i3u0 wrote
[deleted]
547610831 t1_j9ysj5h wrote
>The amount of things that got people throttled or banned but ended up being true in the past three years is unacceptable.
For instance I got banned from r/coronavirus for saying people should wear masks back when the government was saying they shouldn't. A few weeks later you'd get banned for saying they shouldn't wear masks because the government flipped positions. There were multiple rounds of mass banning in that sub for similar issues where the government or new cycle flip flopped.
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja00xxw wrote
Telling people to ignore government advice in the middle of a health crisis should get you banned. The fact that the advice changed is irrelevant.
547610831 t1_ja018oz wrote
I could not possibly disagree more. Mindless obedience to authority in the face of contradictory facts is a massive problem. The government wasn't just wrong; they knowingly lied.
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja01ur1 wrote
Yes they lied--to avoid worsening the public health crisis. From the POV of the welfare of the population, their lie was the right decision.
Telling the truth is not always the right thing to do. If telling the truth gets more people killed than lying, then you lie--lying is morally obligatory when it saves lives.
547610831 t1_ja02fr0 wrote
Sorry, but if your argument is that people who speak the truth the government doesn't want to you to hear should be silenced and government propaganda should be praised then we will never agree. Perhaps you would be more at home in Communist China? That sort of attitude is exactly WHY the Supreme Court needs to defend freedom of speech.
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja02oqn wrote
My argument is that people who do things that can get people killed or worsen a public health crisis should be silenced.
You're arguing for the principle of freedom of speech, but the moment any principle causes more harm than good, that principle should be immediately abandoned. I care about human lives--you seem to care more about blind ideology. That is, by definition, evil.
547610831 t1_ja039uu wrote
>You're arguing for the principle of freedom of speech, but the moment any principle causes more harm than good, that principle should be immediately abandoned.
If you abandon your principles as soon as its convenient then you don't actually have any principles. Besides, wearing a mask wasn't going to kill anyone to begin with so your hypothetical is kinda useless.
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja03ivh wrote
>If you abandon your principles as soon as its convenient then you don't actually have any principles.
And if your principles get people killed, then having principles is demonstrably not virtuous.
>Besides, wearing a mask wasn't going to kill anyone to begin with so your hypothetical is kinda useless.
It was going to deprive medical professionals of masks, which would lead to them getting sick and causing a shortage of healthcare professionals in the face of an unknown and deadly pandemic threat. Yes--it was going to. My hypothetical wasn't a hypothetical--it was an objective description of what was going to happen and what they avoided.
Prophayne_ t1_ja06teg wrote
I'm with group of assembled numbers. The good of everyone is a societal problem, what's good for myself is an individual one. If the government is telling me not to wear masks in a pandemic, they have failed their end of the bargain and have done society a disservice. It is now my problem. I'm gonna go buy some masks and flip the ole red white and blue the bird.
CrucioIsMade4Muggles t1_ja0flgs wrote
Congratulations. You just failed the tragedy of the commons. This is why individuals shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that impact entire societies.
theannotator t1_ja1nllt wrote
But in this specific case, if they knew masks would be in short supply they could have recommended cloth coverings as a placebo that wouldn’t actually be harmful. The government is demonstrably not infallible.
Prophayne_ t1_ja5zupg wrote
But me going out to buy masks is a me problem, not a societal one. Society lied and said "Don't wear masks, they are useless!" and I said "I don't believe you" and wore masks.
Some people followed societies ill informed guidance, some people mocked it, some people just shrugged and did what worked for them because you can't trust a politicized agenda to actually know what's best for anyone but themselves. I'm in group c. The government was wrong, and I as a nurse could see it laughably so, and chose to take care of myself. Funnily enough, it worked.
whatweshouldcallyou t1_ja2v20x wrote
Awesome, so since the government lied about masks at the outset of the pandemic, which could have and probably did get people killed, they should be silenced, right?
Moreover, both the state of NY and PA forced nursing homes to take back in COVID positive patients. It is proven that in NY this resulted in many more deaths. So again, they should be silenced, right?
theannotator t1_ja1n5h2 wrote
What is good for humanity as a whole isn’t the same as what is best for any individual. Why should the government get to tell me to expose myself to a virus with an initially reported mortality rate that would have resulted in death carts in the streets. If the government told you to take six six cylinder revolvers, load one round in one of the three pistols, and randomly select one to play Russian roulette with would you do it? The early reports of dying from covid were worse percentages than that.
whatweshouldcallyou t1_ja2uvkw wrote
How did lying to people about the efficacy of masks and convincing them to not wear masks when at that point masking was better help the welfare of the population? Unless getting more people infected and killed was helping the population???
theannotator t1_ja1mltm wrote
Please remind me why I should trust anything I’m told by a stranger without verification on my part. Especially when the statement is obviously wrong.
whatweshouldcallyou t1_ja2upx1 wrote
So it was wrong to advise people to wear masks when the government was intentionally misleading the public and telling them not to? Blind and unquestioning fealty to big brother matters more than honest health information?
Mental-Aioli3372 t1_j9zcjk0 wrote
>taking actions
do you think you could be a little more vague
>You can disagree with an opinion but the platform shouldn’t be banning things that aren’t illegal and still get 230.
Why not
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments