There should be ‘consequences’ for platforms that don’t remove people like Alex Jones, Senator Ron W

dcsports · Aug 24, 2018

Gaius46 said:
I'm not suggesting anything. Frankly I didn't know that Facebook had a liability shield. It should be removed.

I think there's some misunderstanding about it. The 'shield' doesn't protect facebook from all liability. It merely says that they aren't the publisher (liable for) content that people post on their website. So if your friend calls you a silly goose, you couldn't sue facebook for defamation. If Steve posts a the lyrics to 'Livin on a Prayer', Bon Jovi couldn't sue facebook for plagiarism. That does not stop you from suing your sister, or Bon Jovi from suing Steve. If they didn't have this, and Facebook was responsible for everything that anyone posted on it, it wouldn't exist. They cannot review every post. As a note... neither can Debate Politics, and this same concept allows them to have a forum where we can discuss these issues.

Note that this is very different from a Newspaper, where the publisher IS responsible for everything printed, and they must (or should) review every word that goes into print.

Gaius46 · Aug 24, 2018

dcsports said:
I think there's some misunderstanding about it. The 'shield' doesn't protect facebook from all liability. It merely says that they aren't the publisher (liable for) content that people post on their website. So if your friend calls you a silly goose, you couldn't sue facebook for defamation. If Steve posts a the lyrics to 'Livin on a Prayer', Bon Jovi couldn't sue facebook for plagiarism. That does not stop you from suing your sister, or Bon Jovi from suing Steve. If they didn't have this, and Facebook was responsible for everything that anyone posted on it, it wouldn't exist. They cannot review every post. As a note... neither can Debate Politics, and this same concept allows them to have a forum where we can discuss these issues.

Note that this is very different from a Newspaper, where the publisher IS responsible for everything printed, and they must (or should) review every word that goes into print.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with that. So then where does this congressman get off using this reasonable bit of legislation as a hammer to force Facebook to censor content he doesn't like.

dcsports · Aug 24, 2018

Gaius46 said:
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with that. So then where does this congressman get off using this reasonable bit of legislation as a hammer to force Facebook to censor content he doesn't like.

No idea. That's what many on the left like to do. To me there's a huge difference between 'policing' (looking for dangerous content) and content that's some people don't agree with. If crazy people want to post crazy theories for other crazy people, and they aren't doing anything illegal, let them. If Facebook doesn't want crazy on their website - that's up to them. But we shouldn't be threatening them.

JasperL · Aug 24, 2018

dcsports said:
I think there's some misunderstanding about it. The 'shield' doesn't protect facebook from all liability. It merely says that they aren't the publisher (liable for) content that people post on their website. So if your friend calls you a silly goose, you couldn't sue facebook for defamation. If Steve posts a the lyrics to 'Livin on a Prayer', Bon Jovi couldn't sue facebook for plagiarism. That does not stop you from suing your sister, or Bon Jovi from suing Steve. If they didn't have this, and Facebook was responsible for everything that anyone posted on it, it wouldn't exist. They cannot review every post. As a note... neither can Debate Politics, and this same concept allows them to have a forum where we can discuss these issues.

Note that this is very different from a Newspaper, where the publisher IS responsible for everything printed, and they must (or should) review every word that goes into print.

But it also protects Facebook for posting libel, being informed it's libel, and continuing to provide a platform for a sustained puke-stream of libelous claims. That's essentially the case with Alex Jones.

Obviously Facebook with a billion users cannot examine each claim made by users. That's not what is being suggested. The suggestion is they as a $500 billion company enjoying near complete liability protection for what's being posted have a duty to take reasonable steps to purge the garbage. Just for example, if a random user accuses me of being a convicted pedophile who likes raping little boys and have been seen trolling around playgrounds, and that same user has been making similar claims about dozens of others, resulting in some of us losing jobs or clients, it's one thing to argue they cannot be expected to see and verify those claims. Quite another to say they have NO obligation to take that crap down once notified and to do nothing to that user making a series of libelous claims on the platform.

And it's really not a solution to say that I can sue the person making the claim. If that person is in Venezuela/Russia/China, that's not possible. If that person is a fake account, not possible. Even if a real account, the barriers to suing across several states against a person who may or may not have assets often doesn't provide the person harmed an ACTUAL method of enforcing or recovering damages, so IRL I'm probably screwed.

JasperL · Aug 24, 2018

Gaius46 said:
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with that. So then where does this congressman get off using this reasonable bit of legislation as a hammer to force Facebook to censor content he doesn't like.

OK, if you want to discuss the actual issue, you can't frame it as "doesn't like."

No one can sue Facebook or anyone else for posting content a user merely "doesn't like." The standard is causes some kind of harm, libelous. If that's all they do, post content others don't like, they need no liability protection because no one can demonstrate damages, harm.

dcsports · Aug 24, 2018

JasperL said:
But it also protects Facebook for posting libel, being informed it's libel, and continuing to provide a platform for a sustained puke-stream of libelous claims. That's essentially the case with Alex Jones.

Obviously Facebook with a billion users cannot examine each claim made by users. That's not what is being suggested. The suggestion is they as a $500 billion company enjoying near complete liability protection for what's being posted have a duty to take reasonable steps to purge the garbage. Just for example, if a random user accuses me of being a convicted pedophile who likes raping little boys and have been seen trolling around playgrounds, and that same user has been making similar claims about dozens of others, resulting in some of us losing jobs or clients, it's one thing to argue they cannot be expected to see and verify those claims. Quite another to say they have NO obligation to take that crap down once notified and to do nothing to that user making a series of libelous claims on the platform.

And it's really not a solution to say that I can sue the person making the claim. If that person is in Venezuela/Russia/China, that's not possible. If that person is a fake account, not possible. Even if a real account, the barriers to suing across several states against a person who may or may not have assets often doesn't provide the person harmed an ACTUAL method of enforcing or recovering damages, so IRL I'm probably screwed.

And no one is saying they shouldn't take down libelous or damaging claims when reported -- and I think facebook does a pretty good job of that. This senator appears to want to go beyond that.

JasperL · Aug 24, 2018

dcsports said:
And no one is saying they shouldn't take down libelous or damaging claims when reported -- and I think facebook does a pretty good job of that. This senator appears to want to go beyond that.

They might be doing a BETTER job of it, but for a long time they did nothing. Clicks and mining data and ads was all they cared about. Twitter the same thing, but worse from my experience. For Facebook, I expect the combination of public pressure and Zuckerberg getting hauled in front of Congress focused their minds a little bit. There is no question they're now making an effort. A cousin who was working at Facebook on how to mine our data for sale to advertisers is now on that project, and it's a big focus based on what he told us a couple months ago.

TheRepublican · Aug 24, 2018

Why because you are sensitive and,some how it’s effects you because you people are so worried about offering other people. You know how would democrats feel if Vimeo decides to ban liberals. They will be crybabies like liberals are and they will destroy that platform because they cannot let anyone else have opinions

Can’t censor this Patriot

Kal'Stang · Aug 25, 2018

JasperL said:
OK, but Walmart doesn't enjoy the same liability shield that Facebook has. They can be sued for selling defective products. To use that analogy, it would be like granting retailers blanket immunity for defective products, then Walmart doing nothing to ensure what they sell is safe, and in fact continuing to sell products they KNOW to be unsafe. Or a newspaper publishing ALL letters to the editor without regard to libel, and refusing to remove content they know to be libelous.

Except that FB, Youtube etc etc are not giving/selling a defective product. They are simply a platform. Much like a book publishing company. And no newspaper would be able to be sued if their policy is to publish any and all letters to an editor. Or perhaps I should say "they shouldn't be sued". They're just a platform. Not the ones that created the product.

JasperL said:
It's not just "frivolous" lawsuits they're protected against, but nearly ALL lawsuits, including those cases in which the content caused identifiable harm.

Please show me where FB, Youtube etc etc has caused identifiable harm where this shield law protected them.

JasperL said:
Here's what I don't get in theory. If you want government out of the private sector, that's fine. The solution then is for individuals to sue those in the private sector for damages - that's the normal "conservative" or "libertarian" solution to damages in lieu of government regulation.

But what people are arguing is to provide Facebook government protection against lawsuits, AND impose no obligations on them to police content. It's more like crony capitalism than the 'free market.' It just means Facebook, a $500 billion company, can do any damn thing it wants without fear of lawsuits! They just point the finger to someone else when damages happen. That's a sweet gig if you can get it!

And they should be protected. :shrug: Free Speech should always be protected. But in this case they should be protected not because of free speech, but because they are not the creators of the "harmful" content. If anything the government should be making sure that such platforms that reaches millions of people do NOT censor speech of Americans. Other countries can make their own laws.

JasperL said:
I don't think that's correct at all. If it was, then we could repeal Sec. 230 and every platform on the planet adopts some boilerplate language, problem solved. Let's see it proposed and let the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the big boys begin!

But it is correct. I've seen such clauses in TOS's before. Particularly for online games. And as long as Sec. 230 is not being removed as a punishment...I have no problem with it being removed because I know such clauses in TOS's exist right now. I didn't just come up with that clause off the top of my head. I got it from past experiences. In fact there is even a name for it. "Hold Harmless Agreement".

Gaius46 · Aug 25, 2018

JasperL said:
OK, if you want to discuss the actual issue, you can't frame it as "doesn't like."

No one can sue Facebook or anyone else for posting content a user merely "doesn't like." The standard is causes some kind of harm, libelous. If that's all they do, post content others don't like, they need no liability protection because no one can demonstrate damages, harm.

Who determines harm? You? Me? Facebook? I claim you libeled me. You say you posted the truth. Who decides?

JasperL · Aug 25, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
Except that FB, Youtube etc etc are not giving/selling a defective product. They are simply a platform. Much like a book publishing company. And no newspaper would be able to be sued if their policy is to publish any and all letters to an editor. Or perhaps I should say "they shouldn't be sued". They're just a platform. Not the ones that created the product.

It was your analogy.... And Walmart didn't make the faulty product, they and others in the distribution chain just sold it without regard to the harm it might cause.

Please show me where FB, Youtube etc etc has caused identifiable harm where this shield law protected them.

You're effectively arguing the liability protection of Sec. 230 has no value, and that is complete and obvious nonsense.

And they should be protected. :shrug: Free Speech should always be protected. But in this case they should be protected not because of free speech, but because they are not the creators of the "harmful" content. If anything the government should be making sure that such platforms that reaches millions of people do NOT censor speech of Americans. Other countries can make their own laws.

You just glossed right over my main point: "If you want government out of the private sector, that's fine. The solution then is for individuals to sue those in the private sector for damages - that's the normal "conservative" or "libertarian" solution to damages in lieu of government regulation.

But what people are arguing is to provide Facebook government protection against lawsuits, AND impose no obligations on them to police content."

But it is correct. I've seen such clauses in TOS's before. Particularly for online games. And as long as Sec. 230 is not being removed as a punishment...I have no problem with it being removed because I know such clauses in TOS's exist right now. I didn't just come up with that clause off the top of my head. I got it from past experiences. In fact there is even a name for it. "Hold Harmless Agreement".

Great, then get the government out of it, repeal the liability shield for $500 billion companies, and let the "free market" work. In the meantime if your company's existence depends in part on a government-granted shield protecting you from lawsuits, don't whine and cry when that same government providing this government-enforced benefit expects something in return, which is nothing more than reasonable efforts to police the place from the worst of the sewage.

Kal'Stang · Aug 25, 2018

JasperL said:
It was your analogy.... And Walmart didn't make the faulty product, they and others in the distribution chain just sold it without regard to the harm it might cause.

Wal-Mart is actually required by law to remove defective products. Hence why they could be sued if they fail to do so. However we're not talking about Wal-Mart selling a defective product. We're talking about them selling a perfectly good product which someone then uses in an illegal manner vs free speech and the government punishing a plat form company for not taking down unapproved speech. Free speech is not defective.

JasperL said:
You're effectively arguing the liability protection of Sec. 230 has no value, and that is complete and obvious nonsense.

So, you can't show it but claim its there? Hmm...

JasperL said:
You just glossed right over my main point: "If you want government out of the private sector, that's fine. The solution then is for individuals to sue those in the private sector for damages - that's the normal "conservative" or "libertarian" solution to damages in lieu of government regulation.

But what people are arguing is to provide Facebook government protection against lawsuits, AND impose no obligations on them to police content."

Whoever said that I want government out of the public sector? As I've said time and again...I'm not a conservative. Or a libertarian. Nor a liberal. I base my evaluations on each specific issue. How people interpret that as to my lean is their problem. Not mine. There is a time and a place for everything under the sun. ~ Kevin Bacon in Footloose reading from the bible is where I learned that phrase. And I wholeheartedly agreed with it then and now.

And imposing an obligation to "police content" based on what the government thinks is "decent" or get protections removed is most definitely a violation of Free Speech Rights. One which would rightfully be shot down by SCOTUS without even the slightest hesitation.

JasperL said:
Great, then get the government out of it, repeal the liability shield for $500 billion companies, and let the "free market" work. In the meantime if your company's existence depends in part on a government-granted shield protecting you from lawsuits, don't whine and cry when that same government providing this government-enforced benefit expects something in return, which is nothing more than reasonable efforts to police the place from the worst of the sewage.

Like I said, I have no problem with it being removed. Provided it isn't being removed based on "remove this content which we disagree with or get punished". The government cannot force companies to censor speech. That is a fact.

JasperL · Aug 25, 2018

Gaius46 said:
Who determines harm? You? Me? Facebook? I claim you libeled me. You say you posted the truth. Who decides?

In the normal course of things, the courts obviously, as I said above.

JasperL · Aug 25, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
Like I said, I have no problem with it being removed. Provided it isn't being removed based on "remove this content which we disagree with or get punished". The government cannot force companies to censor speech. That is a fact.

I'll just leave it with that because that's the core of my point. If companies want the shield, granted by government, fine. Don't whine and cry when government asks you to police your platform in exchange.

If Facebook et al. don't care to do that, whatever, your choice Zuck and @jack, Congress can simply remove the shield and let them play in the "free market" like everyone else.

Kal'Stang · Aug 25, 2018

JasperL said:
I'll just leave it with that because that's the core of my point. If companies want the shield, granted by government, fine. Don't whine and cry when government asks you to police your platform in exchange.

If Facebook et al. don't care to do that, whatever, your choice Zuck and @jack, Congress can simply remove the shield and let them play in the "free market" like everyone else.

What you're advocating for is a forced limiting of free speech or be punished. That should never be something that someone should agree to "just leave it with that".

JasperL · Aug 25, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
What you're advocating for is a forced limiting of free speech or be punished. That should never be something that someone should agree to "just leave it with that".

That's kind of opposite of what I just said and you quoted me saying. I'm perfectly fine with Facebook doing nothing at all and playing in the same "free market" playground as everyone else. They just don't get a government-enforced protection shield against all lawsuits related to the content they choose not to police.

And for the record, "free speech" simply does not and cannot mean, "you can say anything and suffer no consequences."

One other thing - the worst of what Facebook in particular did wasn't "allow" its place to be overrun with garbage. The worst of it was they sold users' private data to companies who then paid Facebook to target these same people whose data they sold with a puke stream of garbage.

Kal'Stang · Aug 25, 2018

JasperL said:
That's kind of opposite of what I just said and you quoted me saying. I'm perfectly fine with Facebook doing nothing at all and playing in the same "free market" playground as everyone else. They just don't get a government-enforced protection shield against all lawsuits related to the content they choose not to police.

No, its not the opposite. You want FB et al to either be able to be able to be sued via frivolous lawsuits or you want them to remove content that the government does not find decent or loose the protection of the government. Either way you are advocating the FB et al gets punished for not censoring speech that is not approved.

JasperL said:
And for the record, "free speech" simply does not and cannot mean, "you can say anything and suffer no consequences."

Actually, as far as the government is concerned and minus inciting violence, yes you can say anything and suffer no consequences. That is the very essence of the 1st Amendments free speech clause.

JasperL said:
One other thing - the worst of what Facebook in particular did wasn't "allow" its place to be overrun with garbage. The worst of it was they sold users' private data to companies who then paid Facebook to target these same people whose data they sold with a puke stream of garbage.

Irrelevant to the OP and what is being talked about in this thread.

JasperL · Aug 25, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
No, its not the opposite. You want FB et al to either be able to be able to be sued via frivolous lawsuits or you want them to remove content that the government does not find decent or loose the protection of the government. Either way you are advocating the FB et al gets punished for not censoring speech that is not approved.

No, I'm just suggesting we get government out of Facebook's operations entirely, which means they don't get a government shield granted by Congress. The 'free market' and general rules involving consequences for speech apply to Facebook like they do to everyone else. You and I are subject to "frivolous lawsuits" - it's part of the living in a society with the rule of law thing. Those who believe they have been harmed can sue, and the courts work it out.

Actually, as far as the government is concerned and minus inciting violence, yes you can say anything and suffer no consequences. That is the very essence of the 1st Amendments free speech clause.

Great, then Facebook doesn't even need Sec. 230 protection, so get rid of it. I'm good with that!

Irrelevant to the OP and what is being talked about in this thread.

It's not, though, because Facebook wasn't operating as a neutral platform, but was harvesting private data and selling the data so that purveyors of a puke-stream of garbage could micro-target their users with that content.

Gaius46 · Aug 25, 2018

JasperL said:
In the normal course of things, the courts obviously, as I said above.

Okay so then what do you want Facebook to do other take down libelous content once it’s found to be libelous by a court?

JasperL · Aug 25, 2018

Gaius46 said:
Okay so then what do you want Facebook to do other take down libelous content once it’s found to be libelous by a court?

I'm not following the argument at all. What normal people would do is if informed something they're publishing or allowing to be published is libelous, take it down before the court orders it taken down. Seems reasonable enough.

Gaius46 · Aug 25, 2018

JasperL said:
I'm not following the argument at all. What normal people would do is if informed something they're publishing or allowing to be published is libelous, take it down before the court orders it taken down. Seems reasonable enough.

My point is that it isn't libelous until a court says it is. Just because a person says something is libel doesn't make it so.

Under the rules you seem to be advocating If I eat in a restaurant and find half a roach in my food and post something about it on Facebook the restaurant can demand Facebook remove the post because it's libelous.

JasperL · Aug 25, 2018

Gaius46 said:
My point is that it isn't libelous until a court says it is. Just because a person says something is libel doesn't make it so.

Under the rules you seem to be advocating If I eat in a restaurant and find half a roach in my food and post something about it on Facebook the restaurant can demand Facebook remove the post because it's libelous.

I'm really not saying that at all. The closer equivalent would be Google or Yelp finding out a user is going on hundreds of restaurant review pages and posting stories about roaches and does nothing to shut down that account.

prometeus · Aug 25, 2018

Polar Bum said:
Since 2016, everything that social media companies have done has been “either a bizarre idea or not really doing much of anything that’s actually gonna help people.”
So says Senator Ron Wyden, the senior U.S. Senator from Oregon — a Democrat with a self-proclaimed “libertarian streak” and the guest on the latest episode of Recode Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher. As one of the more tech-savvy members of Congress, he’s a proponent of new legislation that will regulate voting machine companies and data firms such as Cambridge Analytica, but also believes existing laws have given platforms like Twitter more power than they have deigned to use.

https://www.recode.net/2018/8/22/17...ns-privacy-cybersecurity-kara-swisher-podcast

First, let me make it clear that I’m not in any way a fan of Alex Jones. He is loud-mouthed, frequently a ridiculous blowhard, somewhat paranoid, and is repeatedly inaccurate as well as very, very wrong about the things he says. He makes stuff up, just like his leftist opponents do, because it draws a crowd and pays his bills.
That said, the US Constitution is clear on the subject of freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. If you haven’t read the Constitution or its Amendments in a while, take the time to review them. Just because something was banned in Boston by a committee of descendants of the Puritans, it does not mean it was in any way bad for you. Imagine, if you will, Ernest Hemingway’s ‘The Sun Also Rises’ and ‘A Farewell to Arms’ being banned. “A Farewell to Arms” is a war novel, relating his experiences in WWI written after he left the Army. There is nothing remotely indecent in them, but the Bostonians who made up the Boston Watch and Ward Society decided they should be banned in the 1930s.

I dont see this as any different, and The Senator has yet to define his notion of "indecent".

I think you are missing the point. Bostonians and everyone else are free to band together and ban anything they wish in their society. It only becomes a problem when they attempt to use government to enforce their ban.
Moreover the First Amendment does not state anywhere that private companies or individuals must provide a platform for anyone's speech.

Bum · Aug 26, 2018

prometeus said:
I think you are missing the point. Bostonians and everyone else are free to band together and ban anything they wish in their society. It only becomes a problem when they attempt to use government to enforce their ban.
Moreover the First Amendment does not state anywhere that private companies or individuals must provide a platform for anyone's speech.

I dont think anyone here was arguing that private platforms have an obligation or legal requirement to host anyone's speech....and I certainly was not inferring it, so I dont know what that has to do with my OP.

But, this?

It only becomes a problem when they attempt to use government to enforce their ban

This is what I was speaking of...When the government makes an effort to strip away a protection afforded other companies simply because that company does not remove content individuals in the Government deem unacceptable....then it becomes de facto suppression of the 1st Amendment.

Yes, we have laws prohibiting child porn, advocating violence, and other such forms of unlawful speech.....but when a few "enlightened" people in the government are offended and decide to use the government to enforce their own perception of what is indecent...we now have government censorship.

Social media is free to remove Alex Jones, and anyone else that violates it terms of use, or for anything they feel is unacceptable....its their media platform, I dont care.

But the Government saying "If you dont do this, we'll remove your shield"....or, "If you let this person be heard, we will look for ways to legislatively punish you"....its wrong.

So, I think you might have misunderstood the premise of the OP....or, simply missed the point.

prometeus · Aug 26, 2018

Polar Bum said:
I dont think anyone here was arguing that private platforms have an obligation or legal requirement to host anyone's speech....and I certainly was not inferring it, so I dont know what that has to do with my OP.

But, this?

This is what I was speaking of...When the government makes an effort to strip away a protection afforded other companies simply because that company does not remove content individuals in the Government deem unacceptable....then it becomes de facto suppression of the 1st Amendment.

Yes, we have laws prohibiting child porn, advocating violence, and other such forms of unlawful speech.....but when a few "enlightened" people in the government are offended and decide to use the government to enforce their own perception of what is indecent...we now have government censorship.

Social media is free to remove Alex Jones, and anyone else that violates it terms of use, or for anything they feel is unacceptable....its their media platform, I dont care.

But the Government saying "If you dont do this, we'll remove your shield"....or, "If you let this person be heard, we will look for ways to legislatively punish you"....its wrong.

So, I think you might have misunderstood the premise of the OP....or, simply missed the point.

If so it is my mistake and I apologize and we are then in agreement.

There should be ‘consequences’ for platforms that don’t remove people like Alex Jones, Senator Ron W

I survived. Suck it, Schrodinger.