81

All the biggest example of disinformation come from the govt.

82

How do you know?

83

Right, but it’s not like a phone call. A phone call is between two, or in the case of a conference call, a couple hundred, private parties clearly intending to partake in the conversation.

Social Media is more like billboards that the hosting companies algorithms duffle around on the the side of the highway so they are shown to people who they think want to see them.

84

Right - ending 230 puts them on the same footing as new services.

How many wacky and deceitful conspiracies does Fox News publish on its website?

85

Why? Does Zuckerberg share the same opinions as Hannity?

86

Because we know how news outlets operate, and ending 230 puts social media in the same legal jeopardy as them.

87

230 makes it so internet companies are not liable for the content other people post on their website.

If you remove 230 and make them liable… they will increase moderation so that they are not sued.

88

They don’t care. They just want to be able to lie freely with no pushback. Normally I’d be happy for the right wing wanted to actually do some data privacy laws or something but they don’t. Any push they make in that direction is just a smokescreen to put pressure on the companies to let them do what they want.

89

I assume you think a lot. Fine, and yet they are doing ok without 230 protection, so obviously it is not needed.

90

No, they don’t print any because they don’t want to get sued.

That’s the point.

If you want your facebook feed to look like Fox News or the NYT then advocate for the end of 230.

91

Sadly that’s the bottom line. They don’t care about algorithms that lead to greater societal breakdown. They would prefer to use that to their advantage to spread disinformation that can be effective politically for them.

Would Jan 6th have happened if the Big Lie hadn’t been disseminated and amplified via social media?

92

You mean it will make social media, comment sections of sites, and political discussion boards like abortion in Texas, where individuals can sue for any disparaging remarks on the internet?

What a concept.

WW

93

I don’t see how that will address concerns over censorship.

94

Yep. So it is strange that conservatives want 230 removed while at the same time not wanting BIG TECH CENSORSHIP!!

95

They will moderate all sides, I guess. Rather than leave their political bed-fellows unmoderated while censoring their political bed-bugs. It will produce a more level playing field. It will likely also force them to police terrorist groups and sex traffickers. Is that a bad thing?

96

Can individuals sue successfully for any disparaging comments in media now?

97

How?

Removing 230 will increase moderation. How is an increase in moderation going to force Facebook to moderate all sides?

They are already required to do this for sex trafficking and child pornography. 230 forces them to moderate that.

98

So do y’all want more moderation or not?

If you remove 230, and and companies are going to be held liable, than say goodbye to most forums. There would just be too much overhead on making sure that the thousands of daily posts made by people won’t get them sued.

Places like Facebook, would probably ban all kinds of speech.

99

No.

Facebook is entertainment, not Guardians of Society.

100

Fox is protected under Section 230, as well.