The government shouldn’t have the right to force Zoom, or Twitter, or someone’s 30-person Mastodon instance into hosting (or not hosting) any kind of legally protected speech. Zoom’s higher-ups have every right to decide what speech they will or will not allow on Zoom. Private property falls under the control of the owners of said property. Collapse replies (10) Reply View in chronology That would mean the Constitution itself is irrelevant to the gov’t conferred powers and immunity granted in CDA, which simply cannot be upheld. YOU wish corporate control to be TOTAL AT ALL TIMES, a completely literal reading of OBVIOUSLY too broad S230: the text is "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected". "And, I think it’s fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone." Here yet again are your own words on the alleged powers that you wish the gov’t to confer on corporations through Section 230: The ACTUAL argument with Section 230 defenders is that you believe Zoom and other corporations have an absolute arbitrary "right" to stop the not even near questionable "election simulation" itself, NOT the probably accidental exposure. You are making up a hypothetical in order to argue and "win" on what NO ONE advocates. Not Zoom.įiled Under: intermediary liability, jeffrey toobin, liability, section 230 Toobin should be held responsible for his own actions. However, if you hear people talking about the Zoom incident, now you have yet another way to talk about the importance of 230. If you read Techdirt enough, you know this already. As we learned from the GDPR regulations in Europe, these types of regulations harm competition by squashing startups and entrenching existing players. This regulatory burden would likely be crushing to new market entrants who lack the resources for a robust moderation program. This is known as the “moderator’s dilemma.” In terms relevant to the Toobin news, Zoom would either have to allow everybody to show their genitals on the platform or strictly police meetings to ensure that none made it through. If conservatives think that too much of their content is being censored now, just wait until Facebook becomes liable for everything its users post. Websites would then moderate nothing, so they’re not liable, or they would moderate so much that users would face massive barriers to posting. #JEFFREY TOOBIN ZOOM VIDEO ORIGINAL VIDEO FOR FREE#Weissmann’s piece goes on to explain why this is so important for free speech:įurthermore, if Section 230 protections were removed, that would mean that websites would face liability for all user content if they moderated any user content. That’s Section 230 in a nutshell, and the reasoning is bizarrely demonstrated by what is now being called the Zoom Dick Incident. The person who actually did the thing should be held responsible, rather than the tools that they use. It’s this fairly simple concept that so many people seem to be having difficulty grasping: Section 230 is about the proper application of liability. But platforms are liable for their own content that they publish, such as tweets from or any static pages on created by Facebook. It is this same principle that Section 230 protects: that platforms should not be liable for content published by users. Zoom likely had no knowledge of the incident until it was reported, nor did Zoom have anything to do with his actions. And if lawsuits are filed, Toobin, rather than Zoom, should be liable. Revealing one’s self in a work setting can invariably lead to lawsuits. Shoshana Weissmann noted that this story - as horrific as it might be - is also a perfect example of why we have Section 230. CNN and New Yorker famed legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was apparently suspended from both companies, after it was revealed that he was caught masturbating on a Zoom call with New Yorker colleagues, in which they were playing an election simulation game (that appears to be similar, but not identical to the election simulation game we created - though I swear that ours does not involve any masturbating legal analysts). I know that it’s 2020 and the normal concepts no longer make any sense, but on Monday of this week, quite a story broke that spread quickly through the media world. Wed, Oct 21st 2020 01:31pm - Mike Masnick
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |