You'll get no argument from me on this. Social media companies aren't required to provide freedom of speech to their users. They have the legal right to be as liberal or conservative as they want. They can use their algorithms to push or suppress anything they want. They can even try to help Biden win the election. But they should lose their Section 230 protection if they're doing these things because they're actively involved in what's being published on their sites. This actually started under the Obama administration when Facebook's curators admitted that they regularly suppressed conservative stories. It's been an issue ever since.
Have you personally seen, or are you aware of any specific cases where Trump posts were improperly censored; and Biden posts were improperly not censored?
Why though? Section 230 has been in place since 1996 and some of these companies relying on it for nearly 2 decades. It only became an issue under Trump's and his supporters' fragile egos.
Section 230 protected forums and comments sections on news websites. It was not designed with the ubiquitous social media we have now in mind. The level of influence and control the technocracy has over speech is unconstitutional for several reasons, not the least of which being that they each possess a monopoly over the section of tech they control. It even goes to ads. If you don't comply with Google's draconian ad policy you can't advertise. This matters because Google is the defacto advertising monopoly and if, say, you wanted to sell gun parts you literally are unable to advertise on the only actual place where it matters. A simple solution is to use laws to smash anti-competitive behavior and break the companies into several hundred smaller companies. This won't happen because the democrats are in bed with the technocracy and refuse to prosecute the laws they swore to protect. I guess we should probably start by recalling senators and governors under new laws that target people who are unwilling to perform their civic duty, and then go after the companies who have a monopoly. Then there's the argument of the "public square". There are no current laws that cover this because prior to the advent of tech no one could really stop you from shouting your ideas with a megaphone in a park, and worst case you get trespassed from one or two places. With the current incarnation of tech where social media has become so ubiquitous that it is essentially a "public square" the "its a private company" argument ceases to be relevant in all practical senses. The anarcho-libertarian idea being tried here is failing and the only reason you're not complaining is because you have far left views. They have what is called an information monopoly and therefore any idea they disagree with will defacto not be heard. You can make shitty one-off blogs all you want but even if your opinion is good, but dissenting from the dogma of the technocracy, your voice is effectively muted. This is a good parallel to being put in a soundproof box in the very park you were once able to actually stand on a soapbox and talk in. Imagine how up in arms you'd be if Google wasn't a far left radical friendly technopoly and instead was a far right venue. Would you be upset when you couldn't use Telegram/Facebook/Twitter/etc because you got banned when you presented a different opinion on something? Certainly you would. Now is the time realize that you're being played because of your political views and forcing these companies to break up, implementing "public square" laws for the internet, and enforcing the first amendment is probably the most important thing we can do in the next 50 years. Unfortunately no one wants to reach across the aisle to get it done. Certainly, this is because the censorship currently benefits the far left and lord do we know the democrats love suffering when it benefits them. We're reaching Brave New World levels of bullshit and frankly it should be terrifying. Perhaps if the democrats had more of that "empathy" they keep spewing bullshit about they'd see this.
That's not what cons said for 3 yrs of Russian meddling investigations. They kept swearing that what they read online had no influence on their vote. So why the sudden butt hurt hipocrisy? They kept reassuring those worried about foreign meddling that we do it to them anyway and they've been doing it for years and on past elections. So if that's the case, then the "spooky" technocracy has done it in past elections by that same logic and thus acceptable.
Websites that are considered publishers are held responsible for everything posted to their sites. CBS, ABC, CNN, the NYT, etc. have all had to face lawsuits over the past year due to things published on their sites. Why should social media companies receive immunity from lawsuits if they're actively involved in what's published on their sites? Like I said before, I don't want to see Section 230 removed. It's an integral part of the internet. I just want social media sites to adhere to its rules if they're going to claim the legal immunity it provides. It really needs to be updated and expanded though, because the internet has evolved significantly since 1996.
Because they're press. It's understood that the word of journalists who go to college for their profession carry more weight than grandma's latest Qanon FB group. How is this even comparable?
That's not how it works. Defamation of character, libel, & slander laws apply to everyone, not just the press. As crazy as it sounds, Andrea Wylan could sue newwurldmn over the post that was made earlier in this thread. She wouldn't however be allowed to sue this site, because it isn't considered a publisher of content. That might be a different story if ET took an active role in shaping its published content like some social media companies.
Yeah, the story would be that the posts would not even exist in the first place because no company is going to take the suicidal risk of starting an online platform if they'll be held liable for what randoms post. No facebook, no twitter, no blogging, no youtube, no online forums. May sound like battered boomer Nirvana, but this is an example where regulations cons are so quick to attack, actually kills an entire industry
It should be noted that anyone can sue anyone else. The question is whether or not the suit is viable; (and whether or not a counter-suit would be in order).