The history of Section 230
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 01. 2021
- Jeff Kosseff, who wrote the book The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet, explains the origin of the now-controversial law. cbsn.ws/3hBcVpC
Subscribe to the 60 Minutes Channel HERE: bit.ly/1S7CLRu
Watch Full Episodes of 60 Minutes HERE: cbsn.ws/1Qkjo1F
Get more 60 Minutes from 60 Minutes: Overtime HERE: cbsn.ws/1KG3sdr
Relive past episodes and interviews with 60 Minutes Rewind HERE: cbsn.ws/1PlZiGI
Follow 60 Minutes on Instagram HERE: bit.ly/23Xv8Ry
Like 60 Minutes on Facebook HERE: on. 1Xb1Dao
Follow 60 Minutes on Twitter HERE: bit.ly/1KxUsqX
Get the latest news and best in original reporting from CBS News delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to newsletters HERE: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Get your news on the go! Download CBS News mobile apps HERE: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Get new episodes of shows you love across devices the next day, stream local news live, and watch full seasons of CBS fan favorites anytime, anywhere with CBS All Access. Try it free! bit.ly/1OQA29B
---
60 Minutes, the most successful American television broadcast in history, began its 52nd season in September. Offering hard-hitting investigative reports, interviews, feature segments and profiles of people in the news, the broadcast began in 1968 is still a hit in 2020. 60 Minutes makes Nielsen’s weekly Top 10 nearly every week and was the #1 weekly television broadcast three times last season.
The program still averages more than 10 million viewers, more than double the audience of its nearest network news magazine competitor. The average audience for a 60 Minutes broadcast is 150% higher than those of the network morning news programs; the audience dwarfs the number of viewers drawn by the most popular cable news programs.
About a million more people listen to the 60 Minutes radio simulcast in several major cities and on its companion podcast. Tens of thousands each week experience 60 Minutes online. The broadcast’s segments can be watched at 60Minutes.com and on the CBS All Access app. Its webcast, 60MinutesOvertime.com, offers content originally produced for the web, including behind-the-scenes video about the production of 60 Minutes stories and timely archival segments.
60 Minutes has won every major broadcast award. Its 25 Peabody and 150 Emmy awards are the most won by any single news program. It has also won 20 duPont-Columbia University journalism awards. Other distinguished journalism honors won multiple times include the George Polk, RTDNA Edward R. Murrow, Investigative Reporters and Editors, RFK Journalism, Sigma Delta Chi and Gerald Loeb awards.
60 Minutes premiered on CBS September 24, 1968. Bill Owens is the program’s executive producer. The correspondents and contributors of 60 Minutes are Sharyn Alfonsi, Anderson Cooper, John Dickerson, Norah O’Donnell, Scott Pelley, Lesley Stahl, Bill Whitaker and L. Jon Wertheim.
"Brawndo...It's got what plants crave."
Interesting knowledge one been enlightening
Section 230 is a no brainer that makes perfect sense. Why there's an outcry to abolish it is as illogical as it gets. You have the freedom to say what you want to say and if its not appropriate, you should be held accountable for it, not the platform/business. A word of advice to all, engage brain before opening mouth.
If own a business, should I be held accountable for two customers having an argument in my business? No, absolutely not. As for the part about Twitter "censoring" right wing voices...they're not. They give separate labels and links to other information and viewpoints separate to the original post. This isn't wrong in my viewpoint. I work in an auto parts store. If one customer starts asking if it will hurt his gas car to put diesel in the tank and another customer jumps in and tells him it will be fine, I'm within my rights to correct that other customer. In fact, I feel I'm ethically required to jump in on that.
I think before you demonize section 230 you have to way the options and evaluate alternatives. So often people whine without offering solutions or the solutions they offer are impractical. Just saying something like "we need to hold these companies accountable" is not a solution it's just a bunch of words that sounds good.
"Suing the perpetrator" is a fallacy. Often the harasser is not even located in the same country as the victim, and there is no federal law yet to govern new types of online harms like doxing, cyberstalking, or swatting. The law isn't effective, and courts/judges don't understand the harms of the internet. Something needs to be done. Victims right now have zero effective recourse to getting online harmful or stalking content about them removed.
We need some of it to remain, some of it to go. The platforms should still be immune from UGC, but they should be held accountable for what they decide to delete or who they (shadow)ban. Platforms should not be allowed to ban hate speech. It is legal.
230 is there to protect the users content from being removed unless they break laws or posts lude content.
"they decide to delete or who they (shadow)ban. Platforms should not be allowed to ban hate speech. It is legal." Why?
Whoever gets influence from social media should get examined for mental illness
230 is there to protect your speech so you can say whatever you want without fear of being taken down. unless you are breaking the law or spreading lude content. 230 is to protect the peoples freedom of speech. if u take 230 protection then u agree to let the user posts what they want . and the user should have no fear of removal this is the intent to protect the peoples speech. not to protect the services freedom of speech. they have no right to remove users unless they are committing crimes or posting lude content.
Social media platforms are world wide platforms, US laws don’t apply out of the country. However, social media should have a responsibility for what they allow to be put on their platform. Not everyone deserves to be online. Sexually predators aren’t allowed, and anyone who falls within that group. It should include flatearthers, lairs about fraud, people pushing religion as an excuse to threaten someone’s life.
@michael turley He's got a pretty solid argument, though. Flagrant lies simply wouldn't propagate as well without internet-mediated social media. The loudest voices, which are the crazy ones pushing the false ideas he/she mentions, are favored by interest driven algorithms, imparting a false sense of legitimacy that leads to a feedback loop.
Not sure what you mean by "more speech," and honestly, I doubt you do either. At least avoid name calling, though.
@michael turley that is simply “bumper sticker” level of logic. This debate is deeper than that. Fraud, lies, sedition should not be allowed period. Conspiracy theories that accuse someone of fraud without evidence are as bad as the fraud itself, and should be punished as severely as actual fraud (e.g. 2020 U.S. election fraud claims).
@michael turley lol thanks MIKE. If I wanted your opinion I would have asked for it.
Yes, but it is not an open platform any longer. They are editing, posting, and prioritizing posts at their own discretion. Come on Scott. Get tough.
No, they are NOT editing or posting.
Calling themselves an “open platform” amounts to puffery and creates no legal obligation for them. Plus, all of the actions you describe are protected under the First Amendment. Companies also have First Amendment rights of their own. And Section 230 protects even publishers, regardless of how biased they are.
230 doesn't require them to her an open platform
Social media has never been an "open platform." Opening a social media account is a privilege allowed by the platform's owner. It's not a political right.
from looking at some of the comments here there are a lot of misinformed people or a lot of people who don't know how to comprehend what they watch or hear.
Well, how long have you been accessing social media? I hate to give you bad news but how do you explain 70 million people voted for Trump in 2020? STUPID IGNORANT MISINFORMED MORONS WHO CAN HIDE BEHIND ANONYMITY. Nevertheless, we know that the number is right.
@@craigjgomez Kind of sounds like you want to censor the opinion of 70 million people? How do you think like this exactly? The internet shouldn't be owned by conglomerates or governments, unfortunately it has been since its inception. Censoring people shouldn't be the goal, protecting people from harmful products and illegal content should be the goal.
@@ReeferSmoker Buuu buuu buuu I say.... Don't take my harmful products away!😁
HAHAHAHA
@@ReeferSmoker HAHAHAHAHAH
The First Amendment and its subsequent case law is what insures our freedom of speech, not some law from 1996 that gives any idiot (sorry) a megaphone to say whatever he or she wants to millions of people with no accountability.
u sound idiotic where does 230 give no accountability. its there so the people dont get removed by the service unless they break the law or posts lude content. and yes its there to protect your right to speak to millions of people. so you cant be silenced. like tyrants would want to.
It never states anything about rules , so creating rules that change daily , instills zero confidence.
Hey 60mins good journalism is getting both sides of the story, this guy is clearly paid to support and protect 230.
In Trump interviews they also didn't invite Biden or vice versa. Maybe there comes an interview with someone else.
@@nilsp9426 hey buddy did you just blow in from stupid town ?
You faked me long enough for you to blow it. 😩
The opposite is if 230 is revoked not only will twitter disappear but no online website, including CZcams, Fox News, Parlar, Instagram, Reddit, online forums, etc.. will allow any more user comments. Companies will not accept liability for someone else’s words so it will be easier to shut it all off then deal with the headache of trying to maintain it. For Facebook and twitter I could see them staying online but only allowing approved celebrities to post since they can make deals with those celebrities regarding what they can talk about. If you want to go back to the 80s style of only sharing your opinion with the public when the newspaper publishes it then yes do continue to support revoking 230.
@@gw7120 czcams.com/video/2A2e35sIelM/video.html this is the actual segment that I alluded too. If you don't live in stupid town, then you will notice that there were multiple people interviewed in the context of the interview shown in the segment here.
Mark Zuckerberg violates Section 230
They get paid as a publisher, don’t they?!
LOL What? How do publishers get paid? Is that different from the way other companies get paid? It has nothing to do with being publishers.
Enjoy your fall 60 minutes
I'm single 😥😥😥😥😥
Not good enough
Cry more.