Section 230: The Law at the Center of the Big Tech Debate | WSJ
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 06. 2024
- Leaders in government and tech want to rewrite a law that governs the internet. WSJ explains Section 230, how it shaped the modern internet, and what lawmakers and tech executives want to change. Photo illustration: Carlos Waters/WSJ
More from the Wall Street Journal:
Visit WSJ.com: www.wsj.com
Visit the WSJ Video Center: wsj.com/video
On Facebook: / videos
On Twitter: / wsj
On Snapchat: on.wsj.com/2ratjSM
#WSJ #Section230 #BigTech - Věda a technologie
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King Jr.
“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”
― Plato
????? ! Laws are for bad people ! -Tommy 553013
That's basically the same argument against gun laws, "bad guys will have one if they really want one" which feels like a logical fallacy that ignores a lot of nuance
Show me the line betweeen good and bad!
@@samuraijack1371 Raúl: You know what is good ! All the contrary is bad. The line is your moment of decision.
@@samuraijack1371 Don´t you ? Rawl.
I like how Facebook puts ads from wargaming.net in my feed but won't let you use wargaming in your comments saying it's hate speech. Go figure.
Lol
Didn’t you just use it?
@@saberur66 Are we on facebook?
Mark Zuckerberg talks like a Speak and Spell.
Censor censorship .
That's like killing death
@@IamRanJos In this case, death is the thing that can't be named(due to reasons) and got the whole world in a panic for the past year. When Death starts mocking you to excess, it ain't too bad to fight back.
Social Credit | 1984=Today czcams.com/video/3dmuzoUm7n4/video.html
A private company can exercise their rights and they can censor over whoever they want. You have the option not to use it.
Seems like both parties want to change 230, but want the option that is considered a nuclear bomb to the other party.
You summed it up well.
Updated but when??.
Nice video.
What about the little guys? For example a Church with a forum on their website. If someone posts vial content and the Church deletes it, they will they be sued? Remember, a small organization or that gets sued looses even if the court finds in their favor because of the high cost of defending yourself.
@@jaketyler7088 "a church has no business of having a website forum". Really? Are you from Russia or China? Anybody and everybody, at least in the USA, has the right to free speech. You may have heard of it; the 1st amendment to our Constitution. I have set up many forums (Google Groups) for churches, non-profits and clubs. Have you heard of Discord.
There are thousands of small forums all over the free part of this planet and most of them are moderated by volunteers getting no pay.
The law now IS well written. If the government changes it to make it "better" you can bet it will be to placate one party or the other. And if they do that, like I suspect they will, THAT IS GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP!
The only censorship that is unconstitutional is GOVERNMENT censorship. Any non-governmental entity is and should be able to control the content that exist on the computers that they are paying for FULL STOP.
@@jaketyler7088 Sorry if I mistook your statement that churches have no place having a forum. I can't understand your objection to people gathering virtually to discuss subjects of interest to them.
Many of the forums I have set up and others I have joined have garnered many long conversations and have very helpful to me. How is that different from people gathering in a room together for the same reasons? (There are differences, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.)
I agree that the algorithms in FB can be a blessing and a curse. I also think that Mark Zuckerberg is not act in a moral way. But I think many politicians and people that run big corporations are the same. They only work for power and money. But FB has had a remarkable influence on people in a way that we have never seen before.
I think the answer is not changing section 230 but new regulations about transparency. Make FB algorithms open to study and impact reports issued to the public.
Twitter isn't is quite different. I don't use twitter. I have an account but I look at it once or twice a year at most. I don't see the attraction. I don't think they run algorithms, but I don't know, so I won't comment.
What FB and Twitter have been reaction to criticism by marking lies for what they are. I think that's just corporate free speech. But the lairs in the government are objecting to having their lies called out.
And I don't kid myself. Both parties lie and that's my fault ... and the people as well. If Politicians didn't lie they could not get elected in this country.
After these last four years of nonstop lying and bullying and ignoring the Constitution from POTUS and the Republicans giving him cover to replace so many key jobs in the government, I think every administration from now on will be free to do the same if they are that moral. I just hope it doesn't break down into civil unrest or outright civil war.
@@RobertShaverOfAustin very good example.. sad we are looking at losing our freedom of speech because Facebook & Twitter had to put safety messages on the "presidents" posts because he was spreading misleading info about a deadly virus and constantly bullying people... what a "great leader"
He can make insane claims and accusations and not held accountable just a silly warning but now he's wanting to destroy it for everyone :(
I know this is a A LOT, but this is a complex subject/A LOT of people don't realize what the ACTUAL impact of removing section 230, would actually be.
They will be surprised to find out, that by removing it, just causes MORE censorship.
Part of section 230 protects these platforms from what their users say/do, IF they don't banned them/delete these accounts, the platform could get in trouble, because of their users, the only thing they can do, is delete/banned the accounts, this action would be forced on them, because section 230, no longer exists.
ALSO A LOT of this is driven by ad revenue as well, meaning IF a certain company doesn't want certain info/posts affiliated with their ads, the company will remove it/work with their customers/demonetize the video/not promote it/become MORE like what their customers want.
Were not the customer, were the product/our data, is the product.
The customers are the ones paying for ads.
Look at CZcams's Algorithm/how CZcams changed, because of the companies that were purchasing/buying ads.
Another thing that would MOST LIKELY happen, would be social media posts, would take time, to be reviewed, before the post would become viewable, as well, meaning, EVERY POST, that goes on platforms, will have to be reviewed, BEFORE anyone can see them, because companies/platforms would be responsible, for what their users are posting.
Either by a person or Algorithm/AI.
Also like I've said before, company policy, may ALSO go into effect, meaning something like no shirt no shoes, no service, no mask you can't enter the building.
So rules would NEED to be shown again, for the specific platform.
Also user agreements MAY need revising, to cover the platforms/companies.
I also don't want the US to turn into China/China needs a VPN, because they can't access certain sites, in their region, because their country/government has blocked certain sites, because China's government ONLY wants their news/info able to be seen/heard/their propaganda to be pushed.
With a VPN YES it HELPS mask your identity/IP Address, BUT, it also allows you to access/connect to servers, in other countries/Regions, allowing you to view content, not available in your area.
VPNs are used in this way, for other things as well, IF a certain shows not available on Netflix, in your region, you can connect to a server, in another region/country, to get access to that show, or in this case, be able to hear/see news on other platforms, other than the ones China is trying to push propaganda on.
This isn't a HUGE issue, in the US, YET, BUT if section 230 was removed, this COULD POTENTIALLY happen here/we could be fed ONLY what certain parties/companies/people want you to hear/be even more censored, by company policy/companies/platforms, trying to protect them selfs/moderate/Algorithms/AI, meaning by removing section 230, we get the OPPOSITE effect, that we think we will, MORE CENSORSHIP will happen, its counter productive.
Also section 230 goes A LOT further than people think it does/has A LOT more effects than people think it does.
MEANING/an example our ISP/the company you use for internet, right now, isn't responsible for what you post on the Internet, because of section 230, but without section 230, your internet provider would need to censor you, to protect them selves.
EVEN MORE than A LOT of these companies/platforms already need to/EVERYTHING on the internet would need to be moderated, so the companies/platforms wouldn't get in trouble, from what their users say or do, ALL while keeping their customers/companies/people paying for ads happy as well, AND thats where user agreements AND Company Policy, would have to come in, no shirt, no shoes, no service/if you don't wear a mask, you can't enter SOME companies, rules and regulations.
Anyway like I said, Donald Trumps gonna get the OPPOSITE effect he wants, because he doesn't understand the problem ENOUGH, to handle it.
Section 230,is a problem, BUT I think if a politician/Donald Trump changes/alters it, it will/would be a really bad thing.
Trumps 230 conquest, is not going to help him spread propaganda, meaning, instead of twitter/all social media temporarily banning/letting people know, the infos not true, they will just ban/delete his entire account.
The bad part, is, how its actually going to effect other people/how its going to stop protecting creators/comments MOST LIKELY, will have to be turned off, on CZcams, because creators will start being responsible, for what people comment, on your videos, ALSO it MIGHT take an hour/longer, for your tweet/Facebook post/youtube comment, to post, because it will have to be reviewed, by an employee/admin, before it becomes Visible, to the public/before its posted to your profile/under the video.
Another example Marijuana, it may be legal in your state, to smoke marijuana, but if you work at a certain company, that company, MAY have a rule saying, you can't smoke marijuana/do drugs/you may be subject to a drug test.
Its a pointless battle, for him and he's just hurting other people in the process.
Also like I've said before, algorithms need to be changed as well, some of the algorithms, in the past, had baisicly just pushed what evers popular, not taking into account, that the info, is not true.
Anyway this is a MUCH BIGGER problem than someone like Donald Trump can handle.
ALSO I'm glad SOMEONE is stopping him from spreading propaganda.
Also it will be interesting to see what they can ACTUALLY do, when it comes to Algorithms/AI.
Also Algorithms aren't perfect, so SOME things would need appealing, just like copy right strikes on youtube,BUT This ALSO ALL comes down to ad revenue as well/SOME companies don't want their ads on videos talking about certain things, these websites/platforms NEED to make money, so your video gets demonetized AND your channel doesn't get pushed/promoted, because your video/videos aren't making money/approved by the companies PAYING for ads, baisicly its business.
Also SOME of this is to prevent misinformation as well.
I also realize SOME of the Algorithms are designed to push content, that has A LOT of views, no matter if the information is correct or not, meaning, IF it gets A LOT of views/interest, it gets pushed, is what the Algorithm does/did.
Other Algorithms also screen explicit content/maybe a post that MIGHT offend someone/that may not be appropriate.
Also primarily sites push information, they think you will like, YES popular content, BUT also things they think, you MAY like, based on your browsing history/the videos you've watched in the past/your shopping history/the places you've been, their primary goal, is to keep you engaged/on their site, as long as possible, the only thing that superseds this, is their customers/the companies/people that are paying for ads, because without them, they can't operate/make money, SO platforms/companies will modify their sites, to make their customers happy.
The people that are going to fix this, are programmers/developers/people that deal with data/Algorithms.
Anyway the current system isn't perfect, BUT if president Trump wants to change it, its probably to push propaganda, so thats not good either, even though, he's going to end up doing the opposite, of what he wants, because, he doesn't understand, ENOUGH, to handle the situation.
@@mattmatt2417 Wow. That's the longest comment on any comment I've ever made. I'm flattered that you found my comment so compelling that you write that much.
It is an important topic, thought, as we all SHOULD be thinking about what we want our country, our society to stand for. Is the American dream to accumulate wealth and power or are there better ideas and reasons to live?
If they moderate content then they should be liable for the content.
So if I post child pornagraphy on Facebook should Facebook be liable?
@@thomasbryant2486 Yes since they are a publisher not a platform.
@@hashiramasenju8785 They are a platform. Facebook has no control over what I post(under their current design). What they can do is decide what happens after I post it. If they remove the illegal content then no they should not be held accountable. If they learn of it and do nothing then they are liable.
@@thomasbryant2486 okay then they shouldn't police "fake news"
Social Credit | 1984=Today czcams.com/video/3dmuzoUm7n4/video.html
Yep! It could morph into intolerances of freedom of speech.
If Internet platforms remove selected comments, is it considered as censorship?
In Asia,. The staffs who manages these issues (block or promote) are favouring for personal profit.. or acting according to agenda of a regime or religious group..
Nice
Its time to get rid of the section 230 !
Big Tech no longer needs help to get started. They are Huge and have Billions of Dollars.
Now it's time to change 230 !
“Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught.”
― Honore de Balzac
Why was Z U C C talking like a robot? 🤣
I felt like I was hypnotized after listening to Mark Zuckerberg’s comment there at the beginning...
platforms want protection under Section 230 but don't want to protect the public's free speech, protected under the constitution. Stop giving special rights to platform businesses. make them pick a side, publisher with editorial rights OR a platform with no liablity.
You might want to read the constitution. It protects your speech from the government, not from private entities. Private entities have no obligation to protect your free speech. 230 applies to all websites and entities on the internet. Not just "platforms". Platforms and publisher distiction doesn't exist in law. If it did, no online company is going to go the no liability route and risk losing their advertisers due to being overrun by porn and bots. They will just cesnsor even more and beat you in court.
Everyone should be held accountable for lies. Big tech companies need to be transparent too.
Transparent to who? You don't pay to use them.
Need to break them up.
Gonna get repealed, lawl
I think it needs altering
Free speech. Period. Stop ALL censorship/ restriction.
I would agree with this if it wasn't nigh on impossible to live in the 1st world and remove yourself entirely from the internet.
This will only get harder in the future.
After re-reading your comment, that would be a mess! I can think of some pictures I wouldn't want to have on the billboard overlooking my house.
I look forward to putting my bumper stickers on your car or bike or front door and if yu oppose that, then "stop All censorship/ restriction."
@@jeromemccollom936
Again, criminal damage Jerome.
Keep it simple: you are liable for what you write/post, not for what others do. But you have to be allowed to kick out those you disagree with to avoid your life/property being used by others for objectionable needs. The law as is seems pretty good.
Nope. Post it on your own domain. Social media is a dumpster fire and was always a disaster idea made possible only by this wicked law. It is not your profile on Facebook, it is Facebook's profile on you. You do not own Facebook's website. Get your own domain where you will have both your own freedom and responsibility.
Why doesn’t congress fix the causes of high student loan debt. Attacking FREE platforms is a waste of time. SMH 🤦♂️
Now that Trump's gone, media and the Democratic controlled house refocus on changing law to favoring their candidate, Biden.
Unfortunately it's cause and effect. Because conservatives are allowed to spread mis information on these sites they get more people to turn out to vote in primary elections for their republican candidate that will then be sent to congress and the senate to block all progressive bills that would fix many of the issues we face today because they believe in tax cuts for the rich ,and cutting funds to programs they deem useless or unnecessary. So yes this problem probably has a direct correlation to the issue of student debt.
@@LTEAndroid 🤦
@@evacody1249 🤡
My opinion..if that section is ammended, facebook and twitter will become more powerful. How? they have the resources to employ and scan the entire content on their platform which smaller competitors cannot do..
Subjective sensitivities need be in context regarded contextual of reasonable care, reasonable person and truth..however not popular. Unspoken express outwardly subjects itself to scrutiny by responsibility of author's liberty. Accountability is necessary, inclusive of myself. 'Story' 'Narrative' 'backstory' and policies COST. They cost exponentially in the long run. These I propose, are basis of our present wrangles. Evasions have been in increments, one thought at a time. I'm being literal at this. Michael A Thais
What is a wrong with 230 is that there is truly no reason for anyone to comment on anything whatsoever. Things said in public in all other media has rules and for good reason.
And media rules that have been abandoned have been a disaster.
Like not allowing opinion in news unless the opposing point of view was presented.
If they can take down content that they deem harmful, does that not imply that they should take down content that IS harmful (beyond reasonable doubt). Does it not imply that they should prevent the diffusion of obviously harmful content ?
If this was in the EU, they would've found a way to regulate it a lot more, and throw in a 5 billion dollar fine on top of it.
Let's..let's not open that particular can of worms yet yeah? 😅🤣
Which would never be paid gagagag true
Censoring all of the misinformation and lies from social media is an impossible task it can't be done. we have to become social media literate as a society
agreed
And you know perfectly well that’s unfortunately never going to happen
Freedom of speech should base on respect each other and truth.
The level health of freedom of expression is directly proportional to the level of offence taken at the speech and inversely proportional to the level of violence in society. Don't believe it look up what has happened in the last 4 decades that SCOTUS has defended the 1st Amendment several times. .
@@cbody70 Agreed but not only that. Truth is also subjective. Each individual person's point of view is different resulting similar number of truths. It is just as impossible to find a level ground for EVERYONE on the planet.
@@paladugusampath2063 the truth is not subjective and it's not based on what you think or not
@@memesfamilyguyandtvshows Come on man. It's not subjective? How can it not be? Example: "Today's trail involves a Murderer, who is although someone who took a human life but, is also someone well respected in the community" versus "A home owner, who is well respected in his community, had defended his family from a home invader threatening murder. Unfortunately, the invader had been declared deceased on scene due to severe blood loss."
The ONLY constant/non-subjective truth in this is that one person died, while another is generally well respected. To the uninformed passerby on the street, it's a case of murder. To the parties involved and informed, it is a case of self defense on first view. We don't have the Jury system here in India. But in the US, isn't this minor difference in information provided, a critical factor for the home owner who, for all intents and purposes, was just defending his family?
@@paladugusampath2063 in your scenario is the passer by saying the truth??
yes if thy do not like the news it is banned ? "YES" ! and thy say thy can do what ever thy want .
Just remove section "a" thats all you have to do
The First Amendment gives these private sector entities to ban anyone the way, doodoohead.
Where does section 230 say one cannot sue for being banned or censored unreasonably?
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)." - www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230. So you could sue if you felt that they banned you in bad faith. But just because you think it was unreasonable doesn't necessarily mean it was in bad faith.
Adding to that. Even if you could sue you wouldn't win because every user agrees to their ToS which states they have the right to remove any content or ban you at their discretion. Which is a legally binding contract when you hit "I accept".
Third party company should be 'publishers' or 'Editors' or whatever.
You should answer to a committee. Or the Law.
Checks and balances.
President can't make a law or change a law without third parties.
So why should a social media platforms, have more responsibility than the US president.
But revoking this wouldn’t force compagnies to censor their users all the time? What about free speech? Or maybe I’m understanding it wrong..
Yes. This isn't a free speech issue. First amendment doesn't apply here so free speech is irrelevant. It would indeed force them to heavily censor everything because they would be liable for what their users post.
Censoring real facts doesn't help
revoke it an let the tech companys be sued if they want to censor the platform or treat it like they are publishers then treat them like publishers.
I Putu Aris Artha Wiguna hardships live with humiliation that it is easy to be himself for 18 years to make him equal by entitled to get a barrier to be himself in any world.
Sweet so let’s sue the tech companies along with the government for all that untrue Rona shenanigans…
Enforcing policy higher than law is still breaking the law.
The policy isn't higher than any law.
@@Cheeso888 The policy exceeds law.
No regulation should be admitted. Let people speak and the platforms should not moderate in any case.
why shouldn't they moderate though it's their site they are the ones paying for all it...also if they lose advertisers because advertisers don't like their products associated with things like a huge facebook group sharing photos of like Cuties like stuff why should a site lose their ability to make money from that advertiser and just get rid of the cuties group?
What's the law mean????
You can post material that WILL get you into a legal battle of some sort with the host (be it the paper or a social network platform) NOT being implicated in the issue. It also gives the host the right to CENSOR and/or REMOVE material that you may post/publish without consulting you if it FEELS that your material might fall under that category.
In other words, if you make a ruckus in your classroom your teacher is NOT responsible for your noise/ruckus and has the right to discipline you up-to a certain extent without your parent's or the school's prior permission.
Edit:spellings
Yes it should be moderated. So many misinformed people trying to fight the truth. They are victims really. You cant expect people to figure out if what they read is true or not on their own. Not everyone is that smart and common sense aint so common online.
To say it with 1984 style: “who censors the censorers”? Who decides what principles are good and what are not? Totallarian regimes always had their playbook for public speak. However, they failed because of inefficient discussion culture. Will the same happen to western social networks and push users to things like Russian Telegram?
@@Feynman981 This extremist mindset needs to stop. Removing incorrect information to prevent people from being mislead will not lead to a totalitarian regime. Same reason that being asked to wear a mask does not lead to the annihilation of your freedom. What's stopping a presidential candidate or any politician from advertising the wrong election date to black communities so their votes don't get counted on time? We want to prevent bad actors from taking advantage.
@@michaelf6128 but who should do that? Also they can be biased towards one party or one politician ideology.
@@michaelf6128 then Facebook, Twitter, CZcams, etc should not have section 230 protection because they are now publishers and can be sued.
If they are not publishers then they can bann people for posting a false story.
Changing the law is a good idea, provided it is done properly. Censorship and Hosting rights (of information and/or a statement) must be clearly defined. Censoring or taking down a post or article can be done by the company if the content is actually considered offensive by general law. As an example, as a US citizen a person has the right to ask what the head of state and the government at large is doing in regards to a particular topic. And long as the person in question isn't cussing out or bad-mouthing the heads of the state, he/she is perfectly within their right to question these people and/or organizations as these all exist as the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE. You post something controversial like questioning a person about a certain event on the internet and it goes viral before being taken down by the hosting site stating it to be OFFENSIVE OR MISLEADING MATERIAL is something that HAS to stop.
Heck, I could report a comment on CZcams to be offensive from a couple different accounts and it would be taken down without questions asked.
This change IF and when it comes must be the correct one for it to be worthwhile for all of us to even debate on. However, such unbiased and iron-clad rules would be detrimental to the powers themselves that have to pass these resolutions. So hoping for such an outcome is no different than hoping for a miracle.
Peace out.
Al-Mutanabbi (c. 915 - 23 Sept. 965 CE)
« Whenever you honor the honorable, you possess them. Whenever you honor the ignoble, they rebel. »
As would the honorable if repressed.
Can someone explain this video in simpler word?
People saying a law that protects the Websites and organizations (FB, Twittwr, Newspapers) from being responsible for the stuff people say in their websites and papers and grants them the power to add, modify or delete said stuff needs to be UPDATED. Debateable point being no one saying whether the law should be made stronger or weaker. Any other questions?
@@paladugusampath2063 Thanks mate that explains everything. Seems this law is giving these organisations a sort of umbrella to cover themselves in trouble waters, which they are taking advantage in a bad way.
@@Beingjaahil YW. And yes, that IS part of the issue. Although we can't always blame the corporations as well. These guys may be big fish but the true big fishes lay low in the dark depths. So this law,sometimes, MIGHT allow the true big fish to make these fishes do their dirty work without being able to reject them. So some of these voices calling out for reform in the law are actually asking for it to be made more ironclad. The rest just want more freedom to do as they please.
@@Beingjaahil I'm an Indian and i know next to nothing about the American laws except from what i see in the movies and the shows. And just that little bit is enough to say that presence of laws like The Patriot Act and the liberties they provides under certain circumstances might be enough to perform media manipulation legally. So just the same as our country, there are a lot of things that need to be updated and/or upgraded.
I know this is a A LOT, but this is a complex subject/A LOT of people don't realize what the ACTUAL impact of removing section 230, would actually be.
They will be surprised to find out, that by removing it, just causes MORE censorship.
Part of section 230 protects these platforms from what their users say/do, IF they don't banned them/delete these accounts, the platform could get in trouble, because of their users, the only thing they can do, is delete/banned the accounts, this action would be forced on them, because section 230, no longer exists.
ALSO A LOT of this is driven by ad revenue as well, meaning IF a certain company doesn't want certain info/posts affiliated with their ads, the company will remove it/work with their customers/demonetize the video/not promote it/become MORE like what their customers want.
Were not the customer, were the product/our data, is the product.
The customers are the ones paying for ads.
Look at CZcams's Algorithm/how CZcams changed, because of the companies that were purchasing/buying ads.
Another thing that would MOST LIKELY happen, would be social media posts, would take time, to be reviewed, before the post would become viewable, as well, meaning, EVERY POST, that goes on platforms, will have to be reviewed, BEFORE anyone can see them, because companies/platforms would be responsible, for what their users are posting.
Either by a person or Algorithm/AI.
Also like I've said before, company policy, may ALSO go into effect, meaning something like no shirt no shoes, no service, no mask you can't enter the building.
So rules would NEED to be shown again, for the specific platform.
Also user agreements MAY need revising, to cover the platforms/companies.
I also don't want the US to turn into China/China needs a VPN, because they can't access certain sites, in their region, because their country/government has blocked certain sites, because China's government ONLY wants their news/info able to be seen/heard/their propaganda to be pushed.
With a VPN YES it HELPS mask your identity/IP Address, BUT, it also allows you to access/connect to servers, in other countries/Regions, allowing you to view content, not available in your area.
VPNs are used in this way, for other things as well, IF a certain shows not available on Netflix, in your region, you can connect to a server, in another region/country, to get access to that show, or in this case, be able to hear/see news on other platforms, other than the ones China is trying to push propaganda on.
This isn't a HUGE issue, in the US, YET, BUT if section 230 was removed, this COULD POTENTIALLY happen here/we could be fed ONLY what certain parties/companies/people want you to hear/be even more censored, by company policy/companies/platforms, trying to protect them selfs/moderate/Algorithms/AI, meaning by removing section 230, we get the OPPOSITE effect, that we think we will, MORE CENSORSHIP will happen, its counter productive.
Also section 230 goes A LOT further than people think it does/has A LOT more effects than people think it does.
MEANING/an example our ISP/the company you use for internet, right now, isn't responsible for what you post on the Internet, because of section 230, but without section 230, your internet provider would need to censor you, to protect them selves.
EVEN MORE than A LOT of these companies/platforms already need to/EVERYTHING on the internet would need to be moderated, so the companies/platforms wouldn't get in trouble, from what their users say or do, ALL while keeping their customers/companies/people paying for ads happy as well, AND thats where user agreements AND Company Policy, would have to come in, no shirt, no shoes, no service/if you don't wear a mask, you can't enter SOME companies, rules and regulations.
Anyway like I said, Donald Trumps gonna get the OPPOSITE effect he wants, because he doesn't understand the problem ENOUGH, to handle it.
Section 230,is a problem, BUT I think if a politician/Donald Trump changes/alters it, it will/would be a really bad thing.
Trumps 230 conquest, is not going to help him spread propaganda, meaning, instead of twitter/all social media temporarily banning/letting people know, the infos not true, they will just ban/delete his entire account.
The bad part, is, how its actually going to effect other people/how its going to stop protecting creators/comments MOST LIKELY, will have to be turned off, on CZcams, because creators will start being responsible, for what people comment, on your videos, ALSO it MIGHT take an hour/longer, for your tweet/Facebook post/youtube comment, to post, because it will have to be reviewed, by an employee/admin, before it becomes Visible, to the public/before its posted to your profile/under the video.
Another example Marijuana, it may be legal in your state, to smoke marijuana, but if you work at a certain company, that company, MAY have a rule saying, you can't smoke marijuana/do drugs/you may be subject to a drug test.
Its a pointless battle, for him and he's just hurting other people in the process.
Also like I've said before, algorithms need to be changed as well, some of the algorithms, in the past, had baisicly just pushed what evers popular, not taking into account, that the info, is not true.
Anyway this is a MUCH BIGGER problem than someone like Donald Trump can handle.
ALSO I'm glad SOMEONE is stopping him from spreading propaganda.
Also it will be interesting to see what they can ACTUALLY do, when it comes to Algorithms/AI.
Also Algorithms aren't perfect, so SOME things would need appealing, just like copy right strikes on youtube,BUT This ALSO ALL comes down to ad revenue as well/SOME companies don't want their ads on videos talking about certain things, these websites/platforms NEED to make money, so your video gets demonetized AND your channel doesn't get pushed/promoted, because your video/videos aren't making money/approved by the companies PAYING for ads, baisicly its business.
Also SOME of this is to prevent misinformation as well.
I also realize SOME of the Algorithms are designed to push content, that has A LOT of views, no matter if the information is correct or not, meaning, IF it gets A LOT of views/interest, it gets pushed, is what the Algorithm does/did.
Other Algorithms also screen explicit content/maybe a post that MIGHT offend someone/that may not be appropriate.
Also primarily sites push information, they think you will like, YES popular content, BUT also things they think, you MAY like, based on your browsing history/the videos you've watched in the past/your shopping history/the places you've been, their primary goal, is to keep you engaged/on their site, as long as possible, the only thing that superseds this, is their customers/the companies/people that are paying for ads, because without them, they can't operate/make money, SO platforms/companies will modify their sites, to make their customers happy.
The people that are going to fix this, are programmers/developers/people that deal with data/Algorithms.
Anyway the current system isn't perfect, BUT if president Trump wants to change it, its probably to push propaganda, so thats not good either, even though, he's going to end up doing the opposite, of what he wants, because, he doesn't understand, ENOUGH, to handle the situation.
Censorship by these corporations should go no further than what is illegal in that country. If it isn't illegal, a warning will suffice.
They especially should not be allowed to moderate political views on their platforms.
I look forward to you letting me post yardsigns on your lawn or signs on your front door along as they are not illegal
@@jeromemccollom936
I look forward to you putting signs up on private property, without getting arrested for trespass or criminal damage.
Telling private companies to host speech they don't agree with or don't want to host would equate to compelled speech, which is a violation of the first amendment. So yeah, not going to happen.
@@Gn3rd
But that's the issue, these corporations now control a monopoly of public discourse on-line. Their moderation of this is one of the greatest threats to free speech we see today.
@@gww5385 How is it a threat to free speech when they can only control your speech on their platforms and nowhere else?
They are banning people permanently.that is elimination ,not censorship
LOL Are they killing people? Why are you overly dramatic?
This is a shortened/the shortest version I could put together about section 230/companies first amendment rights/company policy/user agreements/TOS, it doesn't have A LOT of info behind these thoughts, BUT IF you understand ENOUGH, you can understand MOST, IF NOT ALL, of this.
I think the even crazier thing is/funny/ironic thing is/ A LOT of people seem to want to punish these companies/honestly at this point, there is no logic, behind what people are TRYING to do, IF you remove section 230, you will force companies to moderate EVERYTHING vs just what they are moderating now/IF you violate a companies 1st amendment right, to run thier OWN business, how they want, your not solving anything, IF you try to use the Monopoly card, that doesn't make sense either, because to much business/opportunity is in the market, for EVERYONE, for that to make sense/Apps/Websites/Servers/online shopping/messaging/sending pictures/videos,buying things online, online stores/browsers/ads, are available from thousands, if not more companies/big tech doesn't have ANYTHING, another company doesn't already have/their not doing ANYTHING, other companies aren't ALREADY doing.
What are you fighting for?
Freedom of speech doesn't apply in private business/on private property/IF you go in Walmart yelling and screaming, you will be escorted out/kicked out/MAYBE banned from the store.
If these companies are considered editors/publishers, then you will be censored EVEN MORE.
Then even after section 230 gets removed, these companies have TOS/User Agreements/Company Policy/Contracts and so on, to fall back on.
These companies can ALSO claim that the censorship, is a direct reflection, of their customers/the companies/people paying for ADs, don't want certain content, around their ADs.
ALSO I think a company has a right to disassociate its self with certain things/certain companies, MAY not want to be affiliated with certain things.
Meaning SOMEONE could post something crazy like, mouth wash will cure the pandemic, as a company/business, you might not want to be affiliated with that/you MAY not want your customers to think of you, when this is talked about/you may ALSO feel morally responsible, IF thats on your website/server, ALSO these companies/Employees/CEOs, aren't doctors, so they don't want certain drug information about curing something, on their website/it MAY be a political free website/it may be certain hateful attitudes, they MAY not want to be affiliated with, point being is, a company should be able to form, what ever community they want, good or bad/thats the vision the creators, of the website, had/have, IF someone wants to create something else, they can do that and they can make it, whatever they want it to be, as well.
What's the point/what's the end game?
The ONLY other thing I see here is, its a game/a charade/a show/political/talk/ basically its congress/the government/other political people just talking, to make it sound like their doing something, even though they don't understand what their trying to achieve/do, other than make their voters, THINK they care/for them to TRY and get re-elected, I mean beyond this, I can't see a purpose, for ANY of this.
ALSO honestly I don't think the government NEEDS OR SHOULD be involved in any of this/I think the market will figure its self out/IF someone doesn't like a certain business,because they were censored/because they don't like a business's business practice, then, people/consumers/users have the option to not use that service/not use that business AND IF ENOUGH people feel this way, then the business will adapt/change OR no longer exist, in this BIG market/the internet, people have a LOT of options, so basically, let the customers/users/economy/market sort it out.
We ALREADY have government regulated constitutional laws/the FTC/FCC/DOJ and other regulatory organizations, handle the things that need to be handled, EVERYTHING, is ALREADY in place, the way it NEEDS to be.
We don't want to get to a point where the government ONLY allows us, to see certain things/the government doesn't need to control these things/we don't need to turn into china/have to have a VPN, to get news/information.
These two companies MAY be REAL monopolies TSMC and ASML, Samsung MAY be combating this SOON/Samsung is opening/building a chip manufacturing facility, in the US, other REAL monopolies, utility companies, water,electric,gas,internet,trash companies, SOME areas MAY only have one option, for these services, that is what a TRUE monopoly is,being big, alone, doesn't make you a monopoly.
When it comes to whistle blowers, Honestly none of this matters, UNLESS the company is breaking the law/allowing things that are illegal, on their site, that falls on them and isn't protected under, user agreements/TOS/Company Policy/Contracts/the first amendment OR section 230.
The definition of hate speech/things that need to be censored, is up to/defined by the individual company/property owner.
The main thing is, the first amendment protects companies AND individuals, from the government, meaning the government can't regulate speech, to an extent, BUT theres a thing called, disturbing the peace, BUT companies can/home owners can/speech can be regulated on/over private property, that could be a house/property/ Walmart/item,that could be a privately owned server,website or APP, ALSO each business/property owner has the right to make their own rules on their own property OR over their own property.
Its not Jack Dorsey/Bill Gates/Ben Silbermann/Bernard Bergemar/Craig Newmark/Zhang Yiming/Sundat Pichai/Tim Cook/Mark Zuckerberg, responsibility to monitor your kids internet usage, thats the PARENTS responsibility/job,ALSO a website/company has a right to have what ever algorithms, community guidelines/user agreements/company policies, that they want, on their own site/property.
We ALREADY have ratings on content/age restrictions/regulations/the FTC/FCC/DOJ/other regulatory organizations and laws are ALREADY in place.
Another reason this doesn't matter, is, think about this, if Facebook was to TRY and stop, certain age/kids, from accessing FB, what's stopping your kids from looking at other content on the internet,such as pornography/communicating with child molesters/other people/content, parents should be monitoring/have other systems/router security, in place, to prevent, certain devices/users, from going to certain sites/searching certain words/phrases/be a PARENT/take responsibility of your children.
Examples of why section 230's principles work, and why EVERYONE should be responsible, for their OWN ACTIONS/WORDS,MAYBE the ONLY EXCEPTION to that, is IF the person CAN PROVE, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT, that they were COERCED,a few examples of why section 230's principles work:
Its a tool,IF you miss use the tool, thats not the manufacturers fault/IF you use the tool to murder someone, thats not the manufacturers fault.
A car company could sell a car, to someone and that person could use that car for sex trafficking, thats not what the car company built/manufactured/sold the car for/thats not what facebook/thats not why other websites/companies were made, BUT thats what it was used for.
This should DEFINITELY fall on the sex traffickers, NOT a platform/car manufacturer.
The car company AND the platform/website profited, from this, with car sales and the platform, through ad revenue,BUT thats not what the car/platform/website was built for.
This responsibility either falls on the parents or the adult/of age person, to prevent things like this from happening, and OBVIOUSLY, the crime falls on the sex traffickers and DEFINITELY NOT THE PLATFORM, LOL, can you imagine car companies having to take responsibility for drug dealers, delivering drugs or car companies having to take responsibility for reckless drivers, that would be crazy.
The ONLY exception in/to this, is if a law is in place, ALREADY/by/through the FTC/FCC/DOJ or other regulatory organizations and these laws NEED to continue to not violate anyone's constitutional rights/they can't violate companies 1st amendment rights OR certain laws shouldn't ONLY apply to a handful of companies, because someone doesn't like a certain company,we ALREADY have Monopoly laws and company policy, is something every company in the US can implement,legally.
These companies can also do what ever research they want on their business/websites/servers/its not against the law to do SEO work/ look at data/algorithms/analytics, to determine what the best courses of action are/is, to make your/their business/businesses thrive and become/continue to be/remain successful.
ALSO these company's, research/algorithms/data research, CAN come back with MULTIPLE DIFFERENT outcomes/answers, depending on the algorithm/data its fed/if one things left out, of the equation, the answer/outcome CAN/COULD be wrong/totally different, ALSO, because analyst know this, MULTIPLE studies are made/a LOT of data is examined, with varying answers/outcomes,so one study alone can't always give you the right answer/one study alone doesn't mean much.
Whistleblowers arent completely protected;
Whistleblowers are required to present information and other documents that can back up their claims when filing a dispute. If it is found that they are lying, they may be subjected to criminal charges. ... Whistleblower Protection does not always protect federal workers.
A whistleblower does not have unfettered permission to take documents. “Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to prevent any law enforcement authority from bringing a civil or criminal action against any person for violating any provision of law.
Going public, isn't always the best option either:
Whistleblowing legislation is designed to protect people who blow the whistle in the right way, and for the right reasons. If you reveal your concerns via social media or by going to the press, you may not be entitled to receive the legal protection you'll need.
This may also mark you as a risk/problematic employee/prevent you from getting another job in the future.
NDAs forfeit whistleblowing eligibility and this is DEFINITELY something you need for certain things, for proprietary things, like inventions/recipes/algorithms/projects/hardware and so on.
So whistleblowers do have their limitations and as you can see, they can also be limited/stopped all together, SOMETIMES, whistleblowers are good, but in this case its just a publicity stunt.
This is how these companies protect their selfs, in the future, without section 230 AND this is how these companies do what they do now, with your data/you give them permission to/you agree to it.
These companies have to moderate, because these companies NEED to make money/be SOMEWHAT family friendly, for their customers/companies/people paying for ads.
So their ONLY choice, in general, BUT DEFINITELY without section 230, is to moderate EVERYTHING, well everything that violates Terms Of Services/User Agreements/Company Policy.
Also The User Agreement,TOS and Company policy was created to protect that specific company/that individual company, meaning that company can make what ever decisions they want, about their own company/private property/servers.
Another example, if I have guest over at my house and I set rules for them, they have to follow those rules, but I don't, I could also choose to enforce those rules, how ever I want to, meaning, if I have a close friend, I can tell them, they don't have to worrie about that, or I can say, if you pay this much, those rules don't apply to you, or I could have a separate contract with an individual company, where they get another version of TOS.
Heres some more examples of how section 230 doesn't matter as much, as people think it does, well it does, if you don't want to be censored, but if censor ship doesn't bother you, repealing section 230, won't effect you.
If section 230 is removed, user Agreements/Terms Of Service and company policy will protect these companies, the ones, we ALL agree to, when we access/use these companies websites/apps.
Also these companies can claim they are not biased, the censorship is a direct reflection of their customers/the people buying ads, don't want certain content around their ads.
Also EVERYTHING will be moderated/censored, EVEN MORE, IF section 230 gets removed.
You can't go to Walmart yelling and screaming profanity, without getting thrown out and MAYBE even banned from the store, because of company policy, no shirt no shoes, no service; no mask, you can't enter the building.
Also as another example have you ever read what you sign when you go to the Dentist?
Some of what that says, basically says, if we break your jaw/deform you, we are not responsible and you can't sue the company or employee.
Also to go a little further with that, Amazon, to protect them selfs, from law suits/reviews on their websites that are bad, companies would have to have an agreement, with these companies, meaning, if you want your product at Walmart/Amazon, you will need to agree to this, then that product would be approved, meaning that company can no longer sue Amazon/Walmart, for a bad review, a buyer/user leaves.
This would protect the company from what the user says and does AND this would protect the companies selling other companies products as well.
This could also go further, with website agreements too, meaning your ISP/Internet Service Provider, would ALSO be responsible for what you say and do, on the internet, so, certain sites would be on an approved list, based on their user agreements/you would have access to some websites, that are approved and some websites, you can't access.
So MORE censorship.
This was originally written, to show companies, that work with other companies, why they can't violate contracts/TOS/Terms Of Service, when using other companies services,this also shows how companies can still accomplish what they want and need to, they just have to use their own servers/websites/browsers/stores and so on,so their not bound by contracts and TOS,but this also shows where this is going,IF things become unconstitutional,when it comes to the government, were not here YET, at least with the unconstitutional issues, YET,but this is the final steps, IF THEY NEED TO BE TAKEN:
This is MAINLY about Parler,BUT parts of this, COULD ALSO apply to other companies,IF the government violates companies 1st amendment rights/if regulation starts becoming unconstitutional,other companies MAY have to ALSO use these tactics, BUT Parler still have/has plenty of options, a long with A LOT of other companies, BUT companies that are doing business, with these companies, ALSO have to follow these companies TOS/Terms Of Service,User Agreements,Company Policies and contracts.
Meaning, IF you have controversial ideas, MAYBE, you should have your OWN servers/not pay another company for cloud servers, binding you to ANOTHER agreement/TOS/Contract, if you want something like this, you need your OWN, physical servers/Website, APP and browser, IF Duck duck go/Opera, doesn't work for you. Also either a store or just allow your APK, to be downloaded, from your website.
ALSO, IF you have an idea/platform/APP, that has no censorship/moderation/that violates A LOT of companies TOS/Terms Of Service/User Agreements/Company Policy and so on, MAYBE OPEN SOURCE/FREE SOFTWARE/ALSO Linux/different distros, WOULD be a good option, IF thats where your business NEEDS to be, BECAUSE, it violates MOST companies, Terms Of Service/Company Policy/User Agreements and so on.
Richard Stallman liked/likes free software, free as in, you are allowed to modify the code, not free as in price, that MAY be something you MIGHT want to look into as well,I'm not saying I'm COMPLETELY on board with him as a person,BUT it is an option.
Also Parler CAN still have their APP, on the Play Store/Apple Store and their servers, BUT they need to moderate better/change WHAT EVER, it is thats violating TOS/ Terms Of Service.
Another example, when SOME CZcams channels don't fit/conform to CZcams properly, A LOT of creators turn to patreon and MAYBE sponsors.
Anyway OTHER OPTIONS are out there.
You can't violate these companies TOS/Terms Of Service,User Agreement or company policies.
You can do what ever you want on your own website/servers, BUT I suggest, the company should ALSO be careful with that too, also your APP can TECHNICALLY be side loaded, to devices, IF Android/Google or Apple doesn't notice, because its their OS/Operating System, BUT technically you should be good, just have instructions on your site, how to become a developer/tap build number 7 times and enable your device to side load the APP or allow the APK to be downloaded/installed, from your website.
If Parlers not figuring out simple things, like TOS/they didn't realize this, they DEFINITELY don't realize whats going to happen NEXT.
They will NEED to keep their servers out of the US/ at the least VPNs/re-routing traffic, will help, for their CURRENT problems OR have your OWN servers, in the right area.
Meaning Parler has to also follow laws, so the government doesn't shut them down, or at the least keep their servers out of the US/register their business somewhere else.
ALSO doing things this controversial, I would DEFINITELY code in a language that can EASILY be scaled/moved/MAYBE Java/Python, along with the NORMAL stuff, HTML,CSS,PHP,Java Script, MAYBE also C, IF needed AND so on, anyway it needs to be a company/code that can really adapt, to any situation, QUICKLY.
Also Parler needs a serious look at security as well, their platform is TERRIBLE, when it comes to security.
Anyone debating about using Parler, I would advise them not to, because of their security issues.
Hopefully this helps them/points out OTHER problems though, meaning, once they get their own servers, IF their in the wrong areas/IF their not using VPNs and so on, they will STILL be having issues/the government could shut them down, IF they don't think first,ALSO, IF the government continues this/some things from the government, is normal,BUT these un justify able targeted attacks, against big tech, NEED to stop OR other companies MAY NEED to do these things as well/get out of the US,including Google, the government aren't supposed to do things like this/what's been going on recently/I have a feeling, its going to turn into something thats COMPLETELY unconstitutional.
A lot of people seem to think these companies are monopolies, I'm not seeing it.
To start with, we CAN'T bail companies out that don't understand the market/that aren't understanding the times/moving with the times/adapting/making good business decisions, companies like Sears,Kmart,ToysRUs,Blockbusters and so on, companies that are already dead/that are going to inevitably die anyway.
The Last Blockbuster, MAY become a museum and survive/have an admission fee, BUT traditional brick and mortar won't survive.
Companies that think brick and mortar is forever/newspapers that still use actual paper, just to give a few examples, IF a company is obsolete, we can't punish the companies that actually understand the market/the main things are, low price, convenience and remember we live in a digital world.
A LOT of people claim these companies are monopolies.
How do you think they are Monopolies?
What makes them monopolies?
Infact I would argue A LOT of them rely on each other, to be as successful, as they are and they are competing with one another too and they have other competition too.
Meaning Google/Apple/Amazon/Microsoft, supply the store, for download/to get the APP, but also other stores exist, such as F-droid,Opera store,Linux stores, such as the Ubuntu Software store, the Snap store,FlatPak,repositories, also playstation and many others, that I'm sure I'm failing to mention.
Also Amazon have removed googles apps, from their store/devices before, apps such as CZcams/the google play store, to get them on those devices, they have to be side loaded/the APK has to be downloaded.
they also ALL have browsers/ multiple browsers exist, Chrome,Safari,Amazons browser/silk browser,Microsoft/Edge, also other browsers exist FireFox, Duck Duck Go, Opera,brave,tor and many more, I am failing to mention too, im sure.
Also A LOT of them have different types of media/video platforms, CZcams,DailyMotion,Amazon Prime,Apples streaming service, also MANY other companies are in the market, Netflix,Hulu,HBO MAX,Disney+,Starz, direct tv, sling tv,playstation tv and so on.
Also they ALL have streaming devices, but so does, Roku,Nvidia Shield TV and so on, also home devices, Google has them, Apple and Amazon.
Also they work with A LOT of companies, so smart devices, such as lights,doorbells,security cameras, apps and so on, can be compatible with their smart devices, through voice and in general.
Also ALL kinds of apps are on these stores, not just Amazon's,Apple's,Microsoft's and Google's.
Also like I said, these companies compete with each other and other companies, on a day to day basis, for our time/to go to Facebook,CZcams,Twitter,Pinterest,Reddit and so on.
Bitcoin exists
Twitter also has square, their payment system.
Facebook has Libra.
Apple has Apple Pay.
I'm sure Google will have their own as well.
A long with Amazon.
Walmart has talked about creating their own currency as well.
I'm sure Disney and A LOT of other companies will ALSO do the same as well.
Also Microsoft has Cortana,Amazon has Alexa,Apple has siri.
Also Microsoft,Amazon and Google have cloud servers as well/you can rent/lease these servers and use them, they do have TOS/Contracts/rules though, just like EVERY other thing we rent, rented vehicles have contracts/rules as well.
Also ALL of these companies are competing for our time as well and business.
Google sells ads/products, such as chrome cast,Google home devices,Pixel phones,Amazon sells products/ads, they ALL rent server space, also linux have servers too though/Red Hat/other distros support servers.
Also Walmart, Amazon,Wish, Alibaba and Home Depot exist, along with A LOT of other companies,they ALL deliver too, with Doordash,UPS,USPS, FedEx and Amazon.
Microsoft has social platforms/also owns GitHub, along with,Yammer,Teams,Skype,Linkedin
Facebook owns: Oculus VR, Instagram,Whats app.
Google:CZcams.
Just to name some other social platforms:
Voat,Quora,4chan,We Chat,Tumblr,snapchat,TikTok,Weibo,Wechat/weixin,QQ,Viber,Telegram,Medium,Clubhouse,Rumble,MeWe,Gab,Triller,WT Social,Valence,Flip,Popbase,Elpha,Yubo,Peanut,HouseParty,Caffeine,Steemit,GoodReads,CaringBridge,WattPad,Crunchyroll,italki,Ello,Vimeo,Giphy,Tribe,Kuaishou,lmgur,influenster,FilmAffinity,Open Diary,Bubbly,Soundcloud,Mocospace,CouchSurfing,just to name a few.
Also if you wanted, you could run linux/Ubuntu Touch/SailFish OS/Plasma Mobile, and also use F-droid and use Opera, anyway alternatives are out there.
Also if you have an Apple device, I would think you would want that closed environment/ecosystem.
Also if we opened up these stores to EVERYONE/didn't have any security/vetting process, I don't think that would be good.
I guess you could ALREADY argue that these stores, ALREADY have malware/adware on them/they track,spy and so on, BUT I still think a vetting process should be in place.
My main point is, NONE of these companies have something another one doesn't, meaning another form of the exact same thing, ALREADY exists out there/people have other options/they are not forced into using a certain company.
I don't see a monopoly here, infact I see ALL of these companies, fighting for our time and business.
Real Monopolies/POTENTIAL monopolies are internet companies,electric companies,water companies,Gas companies and garbage companies, SOME locations don't have other options, in that area, but one company, so they could charge what ever they want and treat their customers, how ever they want, with no consequences.
TSMC and ASML MAY ALSO be TRUE Monopolies, MAINLY, because they don't have MUCH or ANY REAL competition and TONS of companies rely on them,Samsung MAY be changing this,SOMEWHAT SOON, they plan to open a chip manufacturing company, in Texas.
This is ANOTHER thing thats been brought up lately, that EVERYONE is doing, NOT just Facebook/Amazon, ANYONE running a website/selling ANYTHING on the internet, IF their not, then they don't understand the market/don't understand business/SEO;
Internet Privacy is a whole other issue/problem. Its one thats really hard to get around/baisicly impossible, unless your willing to sacrifice A LOT.
Its a little late to do much now, they ALREADY have the info, MAYBE if we started this 20years ago.
To completely eliminate this, you would need to buy an old vehicle/one with out a computer in it.
Also tires are an issue,car computers,phones,tablets and computers are an issue/a vulnerability.
A VPN, and encryption/encrypting your files/firewalls/blocking trackers/https helps, to an extent.
For SOME things, You would also need to worrie about browser Finger printing, this BAISICLY, in a short description.
Browser fingerprinting logs your devices hardware/software/determines its you, by knowing, what CPU is in your device, how much RAM you have/by knowing which applications you have installed.
It BASICALLY identifies you, by knowing what your system is, and how its setup.
Thats a real brief description, if you or someone else, wants to know more, they can look it up.
Also to add to that, just a little bit.
Each browser has a browser fingerprint ID, thats linked to you/your device, for every browser you use/every browser has a different browser fingerprint ID, thats linked to you.
SO A LOT of people separate their browsing, by using different browsers, for different things, so some data would be in/linked to one browser/browser fingerprint ID and some to others.
This helps SOME, but I'm sure all of this info can be linked back togeather, SOME HOW, MAINLY, because all of these browsers are sharing this info/data, so if all of this data is shared, and they've already ID'ed/identified your system/you, they MOST LIKELY, can tie ALL of this back, to you/your device, once they put the data back togeather/use other browser finger printing ID, data /info/once its fed back into the algorithm.
To disable everything/what you can disable, would become annoying/you MAY get banned from certain servers/sites,sites MAY not load properly, you may have to prove your not a robot, A LOT, by selecting all the pics of bicycles,cross walks, traffic lights and so on.
I don't care about cookies, the browser add on, MAY help with this, but it MAY just create ANOTHER vulnerability/you would have to trust the creator.
Anyway, a lot of sites won't load properly, without SOME cookies/Java Script and so on. Plus you have to worrie about browser finger printing, trackers, also bluetooth,wifi/EVEN covid contact tracing/tracking, is a vulnerability.
Also as SOON as you install FB, nothing else matters, well A LOT doesn't matter, after that.
Also Microsoft and Apple's OSs/Operating Systems are a huge issue/you have to rip a lot out of Windows 10/it has a built in keylogger, ad software/an AD ID, thats linked to you and your machine.
For Google/Android, A LOT of people, will rip out all of google's services and install thier apps from F-droid vs the play store.
This COULD and most likely will cause problems.
Also allot of people use a VPN as well.
Also people use other tactics like disinformation, meaning they create lots of profiles/personas/muddy the water/make the info/data, not make sense.
Firewalls/blocking certain servers, is a good tactic, IF it doesn't break something/lock you out.
Anyway to be completely incognito, is really really hard, to do properly AND A LOT of compromises have to be made/you may not even be able to go to certain websites/servers/load them and its time consuming, clicking all of the pictures of a certain thing, and diagnosing problems/trying to figure out, why certain elements are broken/won't load/Google, FB, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon, REALLY don't like it when you, stop them, from spying on you.
Also if your hiding/trying to stay hidden from the FBI/government, it gets even harder, because they MAY not be able to see you, but they can use deductive reasoning/get a warrant, to check towers/internet/IP/server paths/your VPN provider/ISP/the company you pay for internet/Internet Service Provider, to baisicly start putting the puzzle togeather/check certain things, at specific times, anyway, the government has the ability, to look where others can't.
So yeah, things get really complicated, when we bring privacy into the equation/conversation.
I know thats a lot, but privacy, is definitely a huge subject and I just highlighted a few things/just scratched the surface, when it comes to privacy.
Section 230 is the first amendment of the internet. Every conservative and libertarian should be getting BEHIND section 230, not against it. Politicians want to END it for their own agendas. Don't fall for the establishment.
Nope, it gives them editoral powers and legal status of platform.
@@rajashashankgutta4334 Nowhere on that law is "plantform" even mentioned. All that law is doing is allowing private broadcasting media companies to do whatever they want on their platform without having to worry about lawsuits of libel. It's basically giving freedom of speech to the private sector. That's the first amendment. It's actually *better* than the first amendment because libel is illegal.
I thought law enforcement was the responsibility of law enforcement??
Keep 230;
Just boycott big tech.
Said the dope on big tech.
everything was fine , until politician started saying that fake posting was the reason they lost,, ,, now we need a ministry an offices regulation of the TRUE or SPEECH NO SO FREE ,,, no body has the true !!!!! hahahahahaha
One word needs to be changed at minimum...
"Otherwise objectionable"
Into
"Otherside unlawful"
What is moral isn't always lawful and what is lawful isn't always moral. It is the same is true for what is considered objectionable. The phrasing should just be left out.
@@sasshole8121
What Moral is based in belief... which covered under freedom of religion, even the religious.
Only Marxists wants statutes against morals (aka athiest) as Marxist always move the moral goal post with double speak opinion.
@@PlanetLuthian Are you saying what is lawful is always moral?
@@sasshole8121
No...
It's more fair. Morality is is never a law or edict. It's a gift a person gives to themselves.
@@PlanetLuthian Laws are built off of morals. When enough people have that same morals, the morals become codified into a laws which are enforced. This does not mean that what is lawful is always moral. It just means that at some point enough people had the same morals to be motivated to put it into law. However, especially in non-democratic states, the laws are built off the morals of the few, or laws or the laws become out-dated. Saying "unlawful" speech will be prohibited is dangerous as it will allow lawmakers to decide what speech will be prohibited.
Section 230 must be repealed....
they have to specifically redefine the two service providers to make it easier for the idiots to understand and use them as pronouns for them respectively. This way it'll be easier for the lazy brains to understand. The term "Interactive computer service provider" is too ambiguous.
What also need to be done is to write in law that Service Providers like Twitter and Facebook should only be described as public squares and should host everything. The people who post them should be held liable for the content they post.
Agreed. In London and some other UK cities, there is Speakers Corner where you can say pretty much anything unless it's illegal.
Facebook is neither public nor a square. Facebook is very much private, you ask for their services and they provide them to you on their whim, that's how it works.
People who make this "public square" argument are just computer illiterate, THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS!
They are NOT a public square, not matter how you define them.
You have to knock on facebooks door to interact with them, and they can very much refuse to open said door, that is their right, and they don't need a reason for it either.
But it gets worse then that, because you NEVER actually enter facebook's property, not once. When you "go" to facebook, you never actually "go" to facebook, all that happens is that you (your computer) shout "Hey facebook whats up?" and facebook responds to you by sending a html file to your browser which then renders said file.
What you are effectively saying is that facebook should be forced to send you that file and respond to you whether they like it or not. That is forced speech. You are forcing a relationship that facebook may not want.
@@emperorpicard6474
The people who make the 'Public Square' argument are trying to solve a growing problem with corporations shaping public discourse.
FB is obviously not a Public Square, but the analogy stands when looking for a way to fairly moderate free speech on a platform so ingrained in our lives.
@@gww5385 "fairly moderate free speech" lol, don't you see the contradiction here?
Yes there is a problem, but a problem does not give you the right to violate other peoples rights.
Particularly when your "solution" would create bigger long term problems and is based on a lie of pretending their are a "public square".
Do it the proper way and come up with a better alternative.
@@emperorpicard6474
Yep, bad choice of words. By 'fairly moderate' i meant in the legal sense. If it's illegal, prosecute the poster, if not, well... feelings right?
FB is not that far removed from the Public Square, in that it is getting more unavoidable to interact with in the modern world.
The caveat that needs to be added to this law is that while theses companies are privately owned and free to elevate a particular political view or another; elevate a particular religious view or another another via legal methods that give extra exposure to post they prefer(a form of preaching in effect); what they can not do is purposely, intentionally suppress differing political opinions, spiritual opinions or any form of reasonable discourse that they disagree with. No ghosting accounts, no suspending accounts, no eliminating a creators account on the basis of political and ideological disagreement.
Reasonable adults and humans can agree about removing promotion of violence, death, death threats, overt and gross sexual content, ect. ect. But silencing, banning or restricting a current, former or potential U.S office holder because they don't represent the political beliefs of the platforms owner(s) is not reasonable nor should be tolerated. Platforms that ban, restrict, de-platform any such candidates, office holders, media outlets and other content creators; these platforms should absolutely be subject to and face legal consequences for trying to muzzle political &/or religious decent.
Again, if on their websites and pages they give prominent placement promotion or some additional boost on top of the normal operation of the platform that's ok. But doing the opposite and suppressing and silencing the opposing thought via uncalled for bans, restriction and thus forth is not ok.
If you can find a Lebron 2019-20 Optic Fast Break Red in a high grade score it!!!! These cards are going to the moon and way past it. Lebron doesn't even have to do anything else, he could retire today and it wouldn't matter. These cards will be worth $25k inside 2 years.
That’s the advantage of the US,everything was debated and can be reviewed,corrected,I really admire
So the end of social media then
Your rights are protected until you yell fire in the movie theater. Section 230 is important but nonetheless conservative voices should not be silenced.
Get rid of setion 230 !
This is why I deleted Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Big Tech doesn't want to fix it, Goodbye!
Exactly how it should be. Trying to infringe of these companies right to moderate their own property to stupid. Don't like how how they do it? Then don't use it.
@@dn215 F- the company!
And you’re on CZcams now? 😂😂😂
The Republicans are correct in their concerns.
Ya. Trump should be allowed to keep lying.
REVOKE SECTION 230, enough with the censorship and political bias, I want to see what the people I follow TYPE.
you can...in alternative sites.
@@lordfarquaad6237 well if Facebook, Twitter, CZcams, etc want to be publishers then they should not have the protection of 230.
People are going to prison because of section 230. It doesn't protect kids or people online. They censor people's opinions but not Kiddie p. I'd like to start a class action law suit to protect kids and people by updating 230. Help.
#begrateful #FB #helps #positiviTY
Internet is a joke right now. Instagram deleted my comment and sent me a warning because I said something about prostate cancer
2nd
1st
It needs to be abolished. There is a reason we have a domain name system. You should have both freedom and full responsibility at your own legally registered domain AND NOWHERE ELSE.
The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Section 230 is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL make no laws restricting/censoring Freedom of Speech by the People.
The algorithms are far more harmful.
230 is basically the internets first amendment.
We have to keep this law the way it is.