I don't know why people think repealing this will help things. From the right-wing perspective, where they feverishly imagine they are being censored, it would obviously make twitter/facebook/etc... completely clamp down on anything even vaguely libelous/slanderous/dangerous. It would increase, not decrease, censorship.
From the left wing, they may be happy with less disinformation and "harassment", but they will be sad when their own disinformation and harassment is also blocked.
The problem is that they *are* editing the news stream. You can think of it in several different ways, but in any of them allowing them to avoid responsibility for their edits isn't reasonable.
The problem, of course, is that the folks who get to decide when they're being unreasonable are the ones currently holding power (at any particular time).
I don't see any good answer here except defending the presentation of the truth, and the question is "What is Truth?". It was valid when Pontius Pilate asked the question, and it's valid in lots of contexts now. And that makes for a very tricky basis for law. Evidence is often equivocal, and different honest people interpret the same evidence differently.
OTOH, unregulated, on-line communication is more destructive to society than malicious gossip...because you know who is spreading gossip to you.
CDA 230.. (Score:2)
I don't know why people think repealing this will help things. From the right-wing perspective, where they feverishly imagine they are being censored, it would obviously make twitter/facebook/etc... completely clamp down on anything even vaguely libelous/slanderous/dangerous. It would increase, not decrease, censorship.
From the left wing, they may be happy with less disinformation and "harassment", but they will be sad when their own disinformation and harassment is also blocked.
It also raises a constitutio
Re:CDA 230.. (Score:2)
The problem is that they *are* editing the news stream. You can think of it in several different ways, but in any of them allowing them to avoid responsibility for their edits isn't reasonable.
The problem, of course, is that the folks who get to decide when they're being unreasonable are the ones currently holding power (at any particular time).
I don't see any good answer here except defending the presentation of the truth, and the question is "What is Truth?". It was valid when Pontius Pilate asked the question, and it's valid in lots of contexts now. And that makes for a very tricky basis for law. Evidence is often equivocal, and different honest people interpret the same evidence differently.
OTOH, unregulated, on-line communication is more destructive to society than malicious gossip...because you know who is spreading gossip to you.