Contrary to the pathological liar's "50/50" false narrative (At least they haven't gone into the explicitly racist "whatabout black people" extremist talking point yet), here's a PBS/NPR poll that it's 41% right 4% left (21% "independent.")
Several commenters, including AT&T, assert that Section 230 was conceived as a way to protect an infant industry, and that it was written with the antiquated internet of the 1990s in mind – not the robust, ubiquitous internet we know today. *IAs authors of the statute, we particularly wish to put this urban legend to rest.**
Section 230, originally named the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, H.R. 1978, was designed to address the obviously growing problem of individual web portals being overwhelmed with user-created content. This is not a problem the internet will ever grow out of; as internet usage and content creation continue to grow, the problem grows ever bigger. **Far from wishing to offer protection to an infant industry, our legislative aim was to recognize the sheer implausibility of requiring each website to monitor all of the user-created content that crossed its portal each day.**
Critics of Section 230 point out the significant differences between the internet of 1996 and today. **Those differences, however, are not unanticipated.** When we wrote the law, we believed the internet of the future was going to be a very vibrant and extraordinary opportunity for people to become educated about innumerable subjects, from health care to technological innovation to their own fields of employment. So we began with these two propositions: let’s make sure that every internet user has the opportunity to exercise their First Amendment rights; and let’s deal with the slime and horrible material on the internet by giving both websites and their users the tools and the legal protection necessary to take it down.
**The march of technology and the profusion of e-commerce business models over the last two decades represent precisely the kind of progress that Congress in 1996 hoped would follow from Section 230’s protections for speech on the internet and for the websites that host it. The increase in user-created content in the years since then is both a desired result of the certainty the law provides, and further reason that the law is needed more than ever in today’s environment.**
On the post: Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate
Re:
Contrary to the pathological liar's "50/50" false narrative (At least they haven't gone into the explicitly racist "whatabout black people" extremist talking point yet), here's a PBS/NPR poll that it's 41% right 4% left (21% "independent.")
On the post: Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate
Re: Re: No... Please... Come back...
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Re: Re: I wonder
Typical, lying that free speech you don't like is "censorship."
(along with hallucinatory conspiracies)
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Re: Re: Re: 'Sure you have that right, but can you afford to use
What the hell, formatting?
On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
Re: Re: 'Sure you have that right, but can you afford to use it?
Authors Of CDA 230 Do Some Serious 230 Mythbusting In Response To Comments Submitted To The FCC
Several commenters, including AT&T, assert that Section 230 was conceived as a way to protect an infant industry, and that it was written with the antiquated internet of the 1990s in mind – not the robust, ubiquitous internet we know today. *IAs authors of the statute, we particularly wish to put this urban legend to rest.** Section 230, originally named the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, H.R. 1978, was designed to address the obviously growing problem of individual web portals being overwhelmed with user-created content. This is not a problem the internet will ever grow out of; as internet usage and content creation continue to grow, the problem grows ever bigger. **Far from wishing to offer protection to an infant industry, our legislative aim was to recognize the sheer implausibility of requiring each website to monitor all of the user-created content that crossed its portal each day.** Critics of Section 230 point out the significant differences between the internet of 1996 and today. **Those differences, however, are not unanticipated.** When we wrote the law, we believed the internet of the future was going to be a very vibrant and extraordinary opportunity for people to become educated about innumerable subjects, from health care to technological innovation to their own fields of employment. So we began with these two propositions: let’s make sure that every internet user has the opportunity to exercise their First Amendment rights; and let’s deal with the slime and horrible material on the internet by giving both websites and their users the tools and the legal protection necessary to take it down. **The march of technology and the profusion of e-commerce business models over the last two decades represent precisely the kind of progress that Congress in 1996 hoped would follow from Section 230’s protections for speech on the internet and for the websites that host it. The increase in user-created content in the years since then is both a desired result of the certainty the law provides, and further reason that the law is needed more than ever in today’s environment.**On the post: Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?)
I think you're missing one:
G.) §230 is responsible for social media algorithms that promote hate and disinformation. As argued around the Facebook Whistleblower hearings.
On the post: Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech
Re:
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
On the post: Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech
Re:
Why do you hate free speech so much that you lie about it like that?
On the post: Court: Congressional Reps Making Noise About Social Media Moderation Doesn't Make Platforms Extensions Of The Government
Re:
Tech oligarchs: OK! No problem!
[Hallucinates events not in reality]
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood by trolls on in
If you're looking for facts and law, you'll never find them in one of tp's posts.
On the post: Donald Trump Asserts Fair Use, 'Absolute Immunity' In Lame Attempt To Evade Copyright Suit By Eddy Grant
Re: Re: A. Stephen Stone furry / pro-wrestling fan snipes at Tr
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate
Re:
Republicans' anti-"fraud" measures are a Final Solution in search of a problem.
On the post: Trump's Broken Social Media Venture Is Valued At Billions Of Dollars And Its Breaking Experts' Brains
Re:
Just another data point that right-whingers can't comprehend sarcasm.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except it's a lie to assert that more than one side is doing that.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
[Asserts insight not in evidence]
On the post: Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is)
Re:
I'd expect the data theft to be baked in like it was with Parler.
On the post: Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, there certainly has been a lot of "reeeee"-ing from little Bart.
On the post: Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate
Re: History says otherwise
Lostinlodos: "I'm totally a centrist with facts"
Also Lostinlodos: That pile of hallucinogen-induced partisan extremist bullshit above
On the post: Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Charting the overlap between those who say the vaccine is bad and those with capacity for rational thought requires an Euler diagram.
On the post: Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate
Re: Re: Re:
We can already see you lack reading comprehension, you don't need to keep proving it.
Next >>