Section 230 | Explained in Three Minutes
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2024
- This video offers a clear and concise explanation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Should Section 230 be modified? Let me know what you think in the comments section!
0:00 - What is Section 230?
0:25 - Who benefits?
2:00 - Who is harmed?
2:43 - Conclusion
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
My Twitter: / ish13c
My Discord Server: / discord
My DEBATE Server: / discord
My Recording Software: obsproject.com/
My Editing Software: www.sonycreativesoftware.com/v... - Zábava
i absolutely love these small little videos about laws & stuff. please make more !
I'm glad to hear!!
I haven't seen any solid and concise explanations of Section 230-so I decided to make my own. Let me know what you thought!
Also to my regular subscribers-this is my first official "full" video using my new camera/lighting setup. I will continue to make small adjustments until the setup is perfect (for example, in this video, I increased ISO from 320 to 500, making the image a bit brighter). If you have any more advice as to how I can improve my video quality, please recommend some options! Thanksss!!
Ah ok
I'm writing a conclusion on an essay about section 230 and I don't know how to conclude it, this video helped a lot thank you
This was very entertaining! Do it more!
A clear, concise, and unbiased explanation of a legal and politicized topic? How rare! Excellently written and presented!
Very well explained. We are seeing day by day In early October 2021
Thanks for this nice, comprehensive, and comprehensible summary of Section 230. Yes, I think "otherwise obejectionable" is too subjective right now, and it is this clause that needs modification.
Thank you, I appreciate that!
Love you videos man
hey thanks!
@@ish no problem bro
How has college been so far? :) happy late new year!
It has been... interesting
@@ish good interesting?
This was very interesting thanks
nice!!
This is how these companies protect their selfs in the future.
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.
Censorship of harmful, doxing, malicious, stalking content meant to cause harm to individuals is a GOOD thing. We need MORE of it. That's how victims are protected and online harassers with mental illnesses are brought to justice.
@@HC-gt3yg Business's aren't responsible for this though and they shouldn't be, just like a car dealership, isn't responsible for crimes committed in the cars they sell, if the car was used to stalk someone or was involved in child trafficking or sex trafficking or reckless driving, thats not the car manufactures fault OR responsibility and it shouldn't be either.
EVERYONE SHOULD AND IS, RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS.
Parents NEED to be parents and of age people/Adults NEED to make better decisions/think about what their doing, BEFORE they do it and then IF something happens to them, then they NEED to go through the proper channels/legal system, to go after the right person, the one that committed the crime, this route MAY be dangerous, BUT I guarantee, IF the person went beyond stalking/decided to rape or kill someone,blocking a comment/picture, isn't going to stop the predatory, it actually might cause harm, the warning, they MAY have gotten, MAY not be there,because a bot censored something, BEFORE, the victim was able to see it, to know they were being stalked/victimized, another scenario/issue with this, is, because it wasn't seen/allowed to happen, the victim couldn't gather proof, showing, the stalker/predator violated a restraining order and because of that, someone was raped/murdered, instead of the predator being locked away, protecting the victim.
Honestly Its as simple as that/this.
Also if facebook is made to TRY and censor, whats stopping children from going to thousands of other sites on the internet?
The answer SHOULD be, the parents/router security/certain devices have parent control on them.
The ONLY way something should be censored, is IF a company WANTS to censor something,but beyond that, nothing should ever be censored, UNLESS there is a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,that EVERY company on the internet has to follow/it can't be a law, for JUST the companies you don't like, it SHOULD BE a CURRENT law, thats most likely put in place by the FTC/FCC/DOJ and so on, thats in place and regarding content, that isn't protected under the 1st amendment, section 230, user agreements,contracts and so on,beyond that, nothing NEEDS to be censored.
Short Version:
I just want people to understand more about section 230, before they decide that they want to remove it completely.
At the end of the day, they are a business, they can have what ever company policy they want/TOS/Terms Of Service/User Agreement they want, they own the servers/accounts/APPs, the users aren't paying for the service, the customers/Companies/people paying for ads are, we are the product/we are giving our data up, that they sell, so we can use their services, we don't have to use their services/servers/apps, if we don't want to.
If you go in Walmart and run around yelling and screaming profanity, Walmart will escort you out/ask you to leave/they MAY ban you from the store, because you violated company policy.
Also these companies need to keep their customers/the companies/people paying for ads, happy as well, by removing certain content/keeping profanity out/trying to make sure contradicting information/content isn't beside/around customers ads, ALSO SOME of their customers MIGHT NOT want fake news all over their site.
Also without section 230, user agreements/TOS/Terms Of Service, would have to protect these companies, because companies COULD get sued, because they would be liable, for what their users say and do.
It could be for something as crazy/simple as, someone going on to Amazon and leaving a bad review on a product.
ALSO ISP/Internet Service Providers, would ALSO be responsible, for what we do on the internet/they could also be sued, for what we say/do on the internet.
Point being is, this is just going to cause more censorship.
Anyway we don't have to use these services, if we don't want to.
All Section 230 does is immunizes Big Tech from responding to harms to victims perpetrated by cybercriminals. I don't think doxing, stalking, harassment material put online to hurt people should be treated as "free speech." These harmful material deserve to be censored. You can't purposely harm people and hide behind free speech.
@@HC-gt3yg This is true, the person STILL harassed someone and SHOULD BE PUNISHED, BUT this has nothing to do with the company/the company didn't say ANY OF THIS and in the user agreement, it says EVERYONE that uses this site/software/these servers/APP, is/are responsible for their OWN actions/words/ANYTHING THEY DO while using these services, is the responsibility of the user,NOT THE COMPANY, it also can/does have things in the User Agreement that say, IF you create an account/use these services, you can't sue the company and you are saying that you understand AND AGREE to the TOS/Terms Of Service,ALSO IF the company WANTS to censor something,they can/IF you or someone else violates TOS/Terms Of Service,you can be banned, the main thing is, the government SHOULDN'T be able to censor, MOST OF THE TIME, A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD SAY EVER/NEVER,BUT THE GOVERNMENT CAN CENSOR, SOMETIMES ON SOME THINGS,CONSTITUTIONALLY,BUT THATS A SLIPPERY SLOPE.
Nice video!
Thanks ANT
YOU'RE WELCOME
Judge, The United States federal government should not. repeal section 230 of the communications decency act.
Hey when you get famous I’ll be able to flex with this 1/27/21
I like the premise.
And I will be here in this reply >:D
i think section 230 is just fine if people couldn't send hate they would be incredibly violent and vice versa, you often see this with countries that don't have interenet
In my opinion, Section 230 should not be modified because a company that creates a platform should have the right to decide who can and cannot use it, and what they allow and don't allow on their platform, just as a landlord can set rules for their tenants such as "no pets" or "no illegal activites." Also, thanks for providing such a great distraction from my computer science homework that I didn't want to work on, now I'm getting back to work.
I am the best possible distraction. RIGHT
I guess you could say that, and it actually gave me some inspiration that I needed to overcome 2 large obstacles, so thanks!
They stilll have that right without 230. They just become liable for what users post. So removing 230 would force these companies to censor even more. They would prescreen all content before it gets posted to protect themselves from liability.
Anoda banger
anoda one
Yep - needs to be modified.
Section 230 protects corporations, websites. People using a smartphone or computer have no rights. We lose our first ammendment when on a computer. We have no equal justice while using a device online. I'd like to start a class action law suit to protect the people. Or a civil suit. But are attorney's afraid to go after it?
Wait how are you verified?
magic.
Yo its that minecraft guy who got youtuber rank
hmm
I like watching these and pretending I know what it’s about
Damn my brain dead from all this info lol. nice video
but are you braindead?
This is a newer side of it, FOR SOME PEOPLE, this goes into how companies, that are doing business, with these companies, ALSO have to follow these companies TOS/Terms Of Service,User Agreements and Company Policies.
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, 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.
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, along with the NORMAL stuff, HTML,CSS,PHP,Java Script, Python, 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.
HC
1 second ago
Censorship of harmful, doxing, malicious, stalking content meant to cause harm to individuals is a GOOD thing. We need MORE of it. That's how victims are protected and online harassers with mental illnesses are brought to justice.
just met you on a bw game lmfao
pls respond
g'day
I ALSO JUST MET HIM ON BW LOL
Hey, thanks to both of you for letting me know that someone was playing using my account. This was not me! I've changed my password this morning. Thank ya'll
@@ish ohh okay
@@ish oh god well thank god 2 teams tagetted you it was hypixel just to be sure well have a nice day and lets hope no moar hacks
@@ish also nice vids and no problem thank god i searched you on yt
Long Version:
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/company policy/you agree to these terms/conditions/rules/user agreement, which you agree to, before accessing a site/an app.
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.
They could also claim, they are not biased, this is just a reflection of their customers/our customers don't want certain content, where certain ads are/some of this content conflicts with our customers ads.
OR they MAY do nothing, because their user agreement/TOS/Terms Of Service, that their users agree/agreed to, before using their apps/websites/servers/services, covers them/ that states, that their users/no one can sue them/along with A LOT of other stuff as well.
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.
HC
1 second ago
Censorship of harmful, doxing, malicious, stalking content meant to cause harm to individuals is a GOOD thing. We need MORE of it. That's how victims are protected and online harassers with mental illnesses are brought to justice.
So now that Elon but Twitter some leftists groups and the current regime mentioned section 230 and anti-trust reforms today.
Are you dirty leftists aware of your hypocrisy?
You probably do and don't care, I just wish the right would collectively see it and act accordingly.
Do say you want to keep section 230 as is :)
ooooooooh
oh
If you/we don't like their business practices, about all you can do, is not do business with them/not use their services.
Delete your Facebook/Whats App,Amazon/Alexa/ stop controlling your lights/security cameras/autonomous vacuums/autonomous lawnmowers/sprinkler system/TVs/Fans/Coffee Makers/door locks/voice controls and fast shipping/Convenience, can be no more, Firesticks/show devices,Apple/Facetime/Itunes/Apple TV/ phones/computers,Google/CZcams/Android/Gmail/DUO/Hangouts/Chrome/Chrome Cast/phone/Computers,instagram,Twitter,Microsoft/Windows10/teams/skype/outlook/office/Xbox and so on, accounts/Apps/stop using their devices, delete your accounts, thats about all you can do.
HC
1 second ago
Censorship of harmful, doxing, malicious, stalking content meant to cause harm to individuals is a GOOD thing. We need MORE of it. That's how victims are protected and online harassers with mental illnesses are brought to justice.
Don't forget to delete!