Entirely reasonable either they are publishers and thus have free speech and carry full penalties for all the content they allow. Or they are carriers and thus should have no say, but also no risks of content.
A situation of only draconian moderation or none at all will tend towards only draconian moderation since very few users want a truly unmoderated space like the more obscure chan sites. Its the worst of both worlds.
This is too direct for me to be putting words in your mouth: do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good?
Yes. Because it's a natural extension of property rights. Do you not believe in property rights?
Might there be situations where property rights need to be weighed against other considerations?
ISPs aren't treated as common carriers at the moment, and these laws were enacted by the same political party that treats this as a free speech issue. So I have trouble taking seriously any politician who supports such laws. They're hypocrites; pure and simple.
Social media is neither of these. I don't rely on it to sustain my life, nor access government services.
If we're going to regulate social media it would be more akin to newspapers or broadcasting.
You are committing the fallacy of begging the question. Whether social media is a common carrier is precisely the matter up for debate.
>> We have established norms for these situations
There is a process by which norms are established and what is going on now is part of that process.
"Natural extensions" of property rights are religious beliefs. I believe they should be protected, but not indulged.
Property rights as assigned by law let you decide who to allow or disallow access to your property. If the property is open to the general public, there are some additional rules you have to follow. But you're free to ban activities from your property.
Very few things are unambiguously good; particularly without specifying a moral or ethical context.
Do you believe that zero content moderation is good?
> Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action.
We should help them by giving them far less latitude.
The problem is that no one filing these various cases against social media is properly alleging sufficient facts to suggest government coercion: it's that Twitter (et al.) are state actors because §230, or yappy politician said they should do this [1], or even merely arguing that First Amendment applies to social media absent showing of state actor just because. All of which are stupid arguments so facially wrong that they're not going to survive a motion to dismiss.
[1] While threatening legislation is in fact illegal government coercion, this needs to be understood on the same grounds as true threats: namely, it has to be reasonably believed and understood to be a specific threat, and not hyperbole or puffery or the like. Also, and there are some people who fail to recognize the basic linearity of time, a supposed threat made after the action in question was taken cannot have been a cause of that action.
Alex Berenson did.
> In sum, plaintiff’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims survive for now. Plaintiff’s other claims are futile and are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
[0]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.38...
Now, if Berenson sues Twitter again (and/or Biden, presumably) and the judge finds those communications (and other facts) sufficient to establish state action (i.e., the claims survive a motion to dismiss), then that may be sufficient to be a counterexample to the original comment.
But I think it is more important to encourage good moderators to moderate more than it is to punish poor moderation.
The freedom of association is a valuable one, and people should be allowed to decide who they associate with to talk to
If Reddit now has legal liability does Reddit need to moderate All subreddits by themselves? That sounds impossible.
> We’ll say it plainly here: there is no legal significance to labeling an online service a “platform” as opposed to a “publisher.” Yes. That’s right. There is no legal significance to labeling an online service a “platform.” Nor does the law treat online services differently based on their ideological “neutrality” or lack thereof.
It wouldn’t take that long for people to read up on what section 230 actually is before saying “publisher” like that means anything (is related to anything the law talks about).
Laws of course need interpretation, but if people think, “Oh, they’re a ‘publisher’” (whatever that means; they probably couldn’t tell you) “they must be subject to different rules,” they’re frankly just kind of dumb.
-----
edit: my guess as to what they are now is online services who republish submitted third-party content or however section 230 defines them.
-----
edit2: An interactive computer service that retransmits material provided by an information content provider.
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
So they are explicitly and definitively not publishers.