Big Tech Censorship, Just How Do We Deal With It?

[Ingomike]

This topic of big tech censorship has come up in several threads but I would like to see us discuss this specifically, what they are doing and possible solutions, if any. It is no secret that there are voices on both the right and left talking about this. Conservatives being censored want action and leftists want any content not progressive enough struck down.

There is talk of government regulation to achieve these results, and free market types saying it is their toy they can do as they please. Few seem to know that in 1996 government gave unconditional immunity from liability for what is posted by users in return for an open free exchange of ideas.

Passed by Congress in 1996, Section 230 granted “interactive computer services” immunity from civil liability for content posted by users on their platforms. The law’s original intent was to grant platforms, as we now refer to them, the ability to remove pornographic content while still offering “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse … and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”


In other words, Section 230 was part of a trade-off. Platforms would be protected from users employing any sort of private right to action, and in return, they would provide a digital version of the public square, one that advances First Amendment values such as free speech and expression.

But it has not worked out as planned.

That’s not how the law played out, however. Today, Section 230 is interpreted to provide platforms with unconditional immunity from civil liability, regardless of whether those platforms keep their side of the bargain. This is the legal foundation upon which much of Big Tech is built. Now, as a result, a few multinational companies with a monopolistic stranglehold on our discourse appear to be using their position to impose an Orwellian choke-hold on the free flow of information.

I would add that these multinational companies also are trying to appease governments opposed to our freedoms.

Let’s start by clearly delineating between “platforms” and “publishers.” If a company wants to create an open forum or platform that adheres in good faith to a First Amendment standard of free speech and expression, they can do that. If they want to selectively edit and present a particular point of view and be a publisher, they are free to do that as well.

This is where the it's their company they can run it as they please runs off the tracks. To me it is not that simple as the above indicates.

The major problem with Section 230 as currently written is that it denies a right of private action even to users who have a legitimate case that they have been wrongly censored or barred from participation in the digital public square.

This is where tech has abused the intent of the law above.

Who decides what qualifies as a platform shielded from civil lawsuits? While some have proposed giving this power to a regulatory body, such as the Federal Trade Commission, a smaller government approach would dictate leaving it up to the courts. The major problem with Section 230 as currently written is that it denies a right of private action even to users who have a legitimate case that they have been wrongly censored or barred from participation in the digital public square.

It is not right that there is no recourse to those denied participation in the online conversation.

But by making Section 230 immunity conditional on platforms adhering to First Amendment principles, potential plaintiffs who have been unjustly censored or blocked would have their right of private action restored. It would then be on the plaintiffs to demonstrate that a Big Tech company was using its market power to unfairly rig the opinion marketplace.


If they could properly demonstrate that, the company would have two choices: either pay a set amount of damages to the plaintiffs but continue operating as a platform with conditional immunity, or waive the immunity by declaring publisher status, dismiss the cases at hand, and then be faced with the same liability news media have to endure — risking an avalanche of defamation lawsuits naming the company as a defendant because of speech published by the company’s users.

Seems fair to all. Tech can choose exactly what they want to be.

If we are going to provide Big Tech with a sweetheart deal, it must be a deal that also works for the American people. That means Big Tech needs to hold up their end of the bargain by defending the values of free speech and expression online in the digital public square.

This is a good compromise that would not expand government control by tweaking what we the people give tech and get in return, what we hoped to get in the first place.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/1...nt-solution-to-section-230s-big-tech-problem/

If the quotes are too small of text for your eyes, follow the link and read the article. This is important!

 

[Ingomike]

73 people have viewed this and no comments? This is in the top 5 of issues facing our way of life...