Smaller Internet Companies Say They're Open To 230 Reform... To Keep Facebook From Being The Only Voice In The Room

from the no-good-options dept

Earlier this fall, Facebook was (not surprisingly) the first big internet company to cave and to tell Congress that it was open to Section 230 reform. I say not surprisingly, because it's done this before. Facebook was the company that caved in and supported FOSTA, which was the first major reform of 230. We heard from multiple people who said that Facebook recognized that it could weather the storm much better than its smaller competitors.

Indeed, Facebook's executive team seems to have recognized that reforming 230 is a strong anti-competitive weapon. It weakens smaller competitors, making them ripe for buying out, and scares off investors from funding new upstarts. It still strikes me as incredible that the same people who are demanding we dismantle 230 are also calling for antitrust actions -- because those two things work in directly opposite ways. Undermining 230 will do serious harm to competition. But that's why Facebook is so eager to jump on board. The company already admits that it spends more than all of Twitter's revenue on content moderation. So, it's not really relying that much on 230 anyway.

And, of course, it's advocacy for FOSTA has already paid off. After FOSTA passed, a number of dating sites shut down... just in time for Facebook to launch its own dating site.

Of course, when Facebook caved on FOSTA, what happened was Congress announced that "tech" was on board -- pretending that Facebook's move suddenly meant every other internet company approved too (when the reality was that every other internet company was basically furious with Facebook).

So, this puts many other internet companies in an impossible position: if they continue to completely fight changing Section 230 (as they should), then Facebook becomes the only voice in any reform "negotiations." And, seeing how Congress handled this last time, it likely means that Facebook gets to shape the "reform" in a way that helps Facebook and harms everyone else. But, Congress, of course, will pretend that Facebook's blessing means the rest of the internet agrees as well.

The end result, then, is that smaller companies, which absolutely rely on Section 230, feel pressure to get into the negotiations as well. And that's why the NY Times now has a story saying that Snap, Reddit and TripAdvisor have told Congress they're willing to talk about reform options:

On Tuesday, a group of smaller companies — including Snap, Reddit and Tripadvisor — plan to say that they are open to discussing reforms, too.

This is disappointing, but understandable. All three companies have relied heavily on 230 in a variety of lawsuits over the years. Snap just recently needed 230's help to get out of a really silly lawsuit. And TripAdvisor, which is a site that is made up almost entirely of 3rd party reviews, gets threatened with litigation over and over again, based on business owners angry about negative reviews. 230 is what enables Trip to remain in business, and the company has long been a strong advocate for 230's existence. The fact that it now says it will come to the negotiating table is truly a sad statement on the position that the 230 debate is in today.

Too many intellectually dishonest people have convinced Congress that Section 230 is a problem. And Facebook leapt in with wild abandon to help shape any reform in a manner that will most harm competitors. So now the smaller companies are put in the impossible position: continue to fight and be left out of the negotiations (where Congress will point to Facebook's participation as "support from internet companies") or agree to be a part of the process to push back on whatever awful ideas Facebook proposes for reform.

It's ridiculous that these companies had to do this, and now the anti-230 crowd will cheer on this dismantling of their own protections.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: competition, intermediary liability, negotiations, reform, section 230
Companies: facebook, reddit, snap, tripadvisor


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 9:25am

    'That sounds worthy of discussion', said the sheep to the wolf

    Oh those stupid, short-sighted fools...

    Yes sticking to your guns and refusing to compromise on 230 may leave Facebook the only anti-230 tech 'voice' in the room, but it also makes it so that smaller companies can point to the fact that only larger companies who will benefit from crippling or removing 230 are in favor of doing so, because smaller companies understand that if the law is crippled then they might as well just shut down immediately rather than be sued into the ground.

    This is Facebook we're talking about, a massive company, whether smaller companies are in the 'room' or not Facebook is still going to be the one driving the discussion, so all that smaller companies joining does is provide the impression that even more companies are in favor of gutting 230, making it even likelier to happen.

    This isn't shooting your own foot so much as strapping a block of C4 to it and then handing the detonator to someone who really doesn't like you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:07am

      Re: 'That sounds worthy of discussion', said the sheep to the wo

      But you could say by doing this they can push back on whatever awful bad ideas come from Congress making less likely to happen.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Celyxise (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:46am

        Re: Re: 'That sounds worthy of discussion', said the sheep to th

        Why would congress care what a small tech company has to say when Facebookian campaign donations are in the room?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2020 @ 11:14am

          Re: Re: Re: 'That sounds worthy of discussion', said the sheep t

          Because most of there users do not want refroms that help facebook.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 12:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: 'That sounds worthy of discussion', said the she

            That didn't really seem to answer their question. When a politician is dealing with two companies, one relatively small and the other massive why would they give equal credence to what both are saying rather than just focusing on the larger company?

            Gutting 230 or crippling it in any meaningful way will help Facebook, so if a company doesn't want to help Facebook then they should refuse to humor the idea that 230 should be changed/killed in the first place because any real reform will help Facebook more than them.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2020 @ 12:14pm

          It may not answer the question, But the thing is:

          With more smaller companies, they could likely push back on any reform.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 12:42pm

            Re: It may not answer the question, But the thing is:

            But that's not at all what they're doing, and in fact they are doing the exact opposite by saying 'We are open to 230 reform', and since any reform is going to hurt them more than Facebook it's entirely counterproductive unless they want to help Facebook.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2020 @ 12:46pm

              Being fair here:

              Too many intellectually dishonest people have convinced Congress that Section 230 is a problem. And Facebook leapt in with wild abandon to help shape any reform in a manner that will most harm competitors. So now the smaller companies are put in the impossible position: continue to fight and be left out of the negotiations (where Congress will point to Facebook's participation as "support from internet companies") or agree to be a part of the process to bold push back on whatever awful ideas Facebook proposes for reform.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                That One Guy (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 12:57pm

                Re: Being fair here:

                They can(and should) do that without accepting that reform is an acceptable idea though, because once they do that then they've already agreed with the idea that some C4 would look mighty fashionable on their foot with the only point of debate left being how big the block should be.

                By agreeing with the flawed premise that will hurt them more than Facebook they've already conceded far more than they should have, and even worse by doing so they've made that harm even more likely to happen making it a bad idea twice over.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2020 @ 1:02pm

                  Meh...

                  I see.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2020 @ 3:26pm

                  Re: Re: Being fair here:

                  Tho the harm is unlikely to happen.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2020 @ 4:40pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Being fair here:

                    Yup.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    That One Guy (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 5:49pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Being fair here:

                    Gut 230 and it absolutely will, if platforms risk being held legally liable for user-submitted content then they are either going to be much more restrictive in what they allow to be posted(almost certainly no anonymous posting for one, so if you wanted to leave that comment you would have had to create an account), if not prohibit outright any user submitted content due to it being far too risky to host.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2020 @ 8:09pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Being fair here:

                      I meant the harm of them being able to pass a bill to gut 230, I agree it should not be repealed but its going to be hard to repeal it.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        That One Guy (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 9:15pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Being fair here:

                        It'll be an uphill battle to do so but if the last few years have taught me anything it's that it can always get worse, so I wouldn't put it past them to try to sneak something like that through or 'put aside their petty differences' to flip the public the bird because the internet keeps calling the nobility out on their lies and that simply will not do.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2020 @ 12:34pm

        Re: Re: 'That sounds worthy of discussion', said the sheep to th

        That's the idea, but what is really happening is another round of bullshit where more companies are "brought around to see the light" nudge nudge wink wink.

        Wait until the next round, whether 230 (the first amendment) wins or loses this time.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Dec 2020 @ 5:26am

        Re: Re: 'That sounds worthy of discussion', said the sheep to th

        "But you could say by doing this they can push back on whatever awful bad ideas come from Congress making less likely to happen."

        Nope.

        This is someone opening their door to a vicious stalker and inviting them in.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Blake C. Stacey (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:32am

    “This coalition brings new voices and diverse perspectives to Washington’s current Section 230 debate, which too often focuses on the largest internet platforms,” [Ackil] said in a statement. The group plans to explain to policymakers how the companies see the core Section 230 protections as essential to the way they do business.

    Not as bad as it could be, I suppose?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:35am

    There is NO contradiction!

    It still strikes me as incredible that the same people who are demanding we dismantle 230 are also calling for antitrust actions -- because those two things work in directly opposite ways.

    NO, BIG HOST corporations immunized yet controlling everyone's Publishing is the key problem with S230, and antitrust is needed because they're TOO BIG.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:35am

      Re: There is NO contradiction!

      See what's in common, there? BIG. There is NO contradiction! It's YOUR blindness.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:53am

      Re: There is NO contradiction!

      Your logical fallacy comes in the assumption that section 230 reform will make big platforms small.

      Section 230 reform would serve to further consolidate "Hosts". Reform would only serve to move general content moderation the direction of copyright-related moderation as safe harbor stop being automatic. To avoid Vemio-like deaths where the company wins in court but goes bankrupt doing so, hosts will consolidate to create big enough war chests to survive as YouTube did.

      If you want anti-trust, with the goal of making tech companies smaller, requiring them to be big to continue to operate is contradictory.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 11:09am

        Re: Re: There is NO contradiction!

        Your logical fallacy comes in the assumption that section 230 reform will make big platforms small.

        That's your mistake of my view. Antitrust is obviously separate. Are you NOT clear that I want Facebook and all others BIG to be broken up? If so, you didn't read all!

        Now, say: "Oh, that's different! Never mind!", as Gilda Radner's character used to.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 11:16am

          Reforming 230 in a way that keeps Facebook, Google, etc. on top but crushes smaller competitors won’t have any bearing on antitrust issues. It will, however, severely limit how many places you can go to bitch about your personal pet peeves.

          Facebook, Google, etc. have the clout and the money to fight off lawsuits. A small Mastodon instance does not. Should the existence of the Mastodon instance be sacrificed so people can sue Facebook, Google, and their ilk?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 5:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: There is NO contradiction!

          Let me ask a different question: If all the big companies get broken up into small companies through antitrust actions, why would you need to change §230, which protects companies of all sizes as well as individuals equally?

          After all, you have said that the only problem with §230 is having a few large companies being able to moderate with impunity, so if there are many small companies, wouldn’t that solve the problem? Removing §230 would make life much harder for small companies, too.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2020 @ 12:36pm

        Re: Re: There is NO contradiction!

        "Hosts"

        You have to shout it like HOSTS, as if it were a file for name resolution.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 5:32pm

      Re: There is NO contradiction!

      Both big host companies and smaller companies (not to mention private individuals) are protected by §230 equally.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:36am

    Corporations don't have any right to BE big.

    Key problem is you simply cannot conceive of antitrust action EVER being legitimate, so cannot see the obvious solution. Taking BIG corporations apart was never discussed favorably in your elitist Ivy League school, and hasn't happened in your lifetime.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:36am

      Re: Corporations don't have any right to BE big.

      SO break up Facebook and TAX ALL heavily until it's in range of others. Corporations don't have any right to BE big, and they're also supposed to be revenue sources for The Public's needs, not a few goddam tyrants.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:41am

      Re: Corporations don't have any right to BE big.

      But Publishers (including electronic media) got through the paper era without immunity, AND antitrust controlled IBM and ATT, else there'd be only ONE computer company and ONE phone company. Immunity is BAD, so is BIG.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:52am

        Re: Re: Corporations don't have any right to BE big.

        In light of ranting below change "Immunity is BAD" to "Immunity is BAD and undeserved when HOSTS take over as Publisher instead of remaining MERE HOSTS".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2020 @ 12:06pm

        Re: Re: Corporations don't have any right to BE big.

        But Publishers (including electronic media) got through the paper era without immunity,

        By being very selective about what they published. Before the Internet most peoples voices were silenced, or limited to an audience of family and friends. Publishers, political parties, newspapers, and churches had a huge amount of control over public conversations, because they had the the means of controlling what the larger public heard. Later radio and TV became influential, but most people were effective held silent, except when a protest movement became popular.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        bhull242 (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 5:40pm

        Re: Re: Corporations don't have any right to BE big.

        Because during the paper era, we didn’t have the problems of interstate and international reach and the law of big numbers, plus more judges followed common sense.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 5:38pm

      Re: Corporations don't have any right to BE big.

      I’m okay with antitrust cases when they’re being done properly and not for selfish reasons. For example, breaking up the massive ISPs like AT&T is okay by me.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 5:56pm

        It's funny how the same people constantly ragging on about how the likes of Google are 'Too damn big!' and 'Need to be broken up!' never seem to apply that same standard when it comes to companies like Comcast or AT&T...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:37am

    "dating sites" euphemism for open solicitation of prostitution

    After FOSTA passed, a number of dating sites shut down... just in time for Facebook to launch its own dating site.

    SO? "dating sites", your euphemism for open solicitation of prostitution, which were acting criminally were stopped, and Facebook, presumably acting within the new LAW, you now, within FOSTA, has taken over? HOW do you even manage to slant that as bad, Maz? By what perverted thinking do you equate criminals with merely vastly too big but NON-criminal?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:39am

      Re: "dating sites" euphemism for open solicitation of

      DEFINITELY A LENGTH LIMIT TODAY.

      That's why broken up even more than just to show a swath so not mistaken for the commercial spam that Masnick removes -- even though an AC says it's "speech".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 5:41pm

      Re: "dating sites" euphemism for open solicitation of prostituti

      Actually, we mean dating sites. Many dating sites were removed regardless of whether or not they were acting legally.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:48am

    There's nothing particularly wrong with HOST immunity...

    This is disappointing, but understandable. All three companies have relied heavily on 230 in a variety of lawsuits over the years.

    AGAIN, the part you always leave out is that HOSTS are acting as Publishers in taking down any speech they don't approve of. THAT changes the new forums that S230 establishes back into same old rules as print, except that now the Publishers are entirely immune! WHAT benefit to The Public is there, then?

    Yesterday you trotted out the "freedom of association" by which you claim that HOSTS will still be able to control! WHAT'S THE DIFF, Maz? Except that HOSTS acting as Publishers will become LIABLE? But The Public is still controlled!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:50am

      Yes or no: Do you believe the government should force interactive web services to host all legally protected speech?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:56am

        Re: YES. If by Common and Brandenburg, then YES.

        Yes or no: Do you believe the government should force interactive web services to host all legally protected speech?

        Has that not been clear?

        You've stated that you're going to decide who's a Nazi and deserves equal rights, claiming you're forced to see it, and who is to be locked in network ghettos.

        Is that unfair paraphrase of your position?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 10:57am

          Re: Re: YES. If OK by Common LAW and Brandenburg, then YES.

          Correction to subject line.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 11:03am

            Re: Re: Re: YES. If OK by Common LAW and Brandenburg, then YES.

            And another point, A. Stephen Stone: YOU are often foul and nasty, besides off-topic, so YOU should be moderated NOT me. Maz of course provides The Heckler's Veto here, besides allows you fanboys to say whatever want.

            And a related point: society doesn't work unless everyone is civil. That's included in "Common Law". If you wouldn't say it in person, and a barkeeper wouldn't find it acceptable, then should be moderated.

            (By the way, it's not escaped my notice that fanboys are trying to play civil of late. And you HERE are not showing your nasty side. YOU have two sides. I don't.)

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 11:07am

              If you wouldn't say it in person, and a barkeeper wouldn't find it acceptable, then should be moderated.

              This distinction is irrelevant. Racial slurs are protected speech, but the average person likely wouldn’t find those acceptable in most contexts.

              Yes or no: Do you believe the government should force interactive web services to host all legally protected speech?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 5:45pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: YES. If OK by Common LAW and Brandenburg, then Y

              Neither common law nor Brandenburg (which is part of common law, BTW) outlaw uncivil or rude speech; on the contrary, such speech still receives protection under the 1A. So no, the idea that society doesn’t work unless everyone is civil is very much not included in common law; quite the opposite. Basically, you’ve just contradicted yourself.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 11:01am

          Don't deflect from the question. What I think about moderation and what speech should be welcomed on a given service is irrelevant.

          Yes or no: Do you believe the government should force interactive web services to host all legally protected speech?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 11:05am

            Re: Already answered. Take the link. "Common Law" means civil!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 11:06am

            Re: Maybe you missed the subject line!

            Yes or no: Do you believe the government should force interactive web services to host all legally protected speech?

            See above (IF you can on whatever device), and I repeat it here:

            YES. If by Common Law and Brandenburg, then YES.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 11:09am

              YES

              Okay.

              Yes or no: Since racial slurs, anti-queer slurs, and spam are all legally protected speech, should the government force interactive web services to host that speech?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Lars Yump, former Scandahoovian parachutist, 16 Dec 2020 @ 11:13am

                Re: YOU have been answered YES, WITHIN "COMMON LAW".

                ME: If you wouldn't say it in person, and a barkeeper wouldn't find it acceptable, then should be moderated.

                YOU: This distinction is irrelevant. Racial slurs are protected speech, but the average person likely wouldn’t find those acceptable in most contexts.

                YOU have been answered YES, WITHIN "COMMON LAW".

                Now, I'm not going round any more on your attempt at GOTCHA, because I'm entirely explicit.

                If you wouldn't say it in person, and a barkeeper wouldn't find it acceptable, then should be moderated.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 11:23am

                  “Common law” is legal precedent set by courts, most often by the highest court in the land. “Common law” says the speech you believe should be moderated is legally protected (unless it results in the incitement of imminent lawless action). If that wasn’t true, copies of To Kill a Mockingbird and Blazing Saddles (among other creative works) would be illegal to produce and distribute. That makes your opinion of what speech should be moderated at worst irrelevant, at best a conflict with your opinion of what speech the government should force interactive web services to host.

                  You can’t say “the government should force Twitter to host all legal speech”, then turn around and say “except for this legal speech which I find offensive”. The two positions cancel each other out — either you want forced hosting of all speech or you want Twitter admins to moderate speech they don’t want (and you claim to believe shouldn’t be) hosted on Twitter. So which position do you truly hold?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  bhull242 (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 5:52pm

                  Re: Re: YOU have been answered YES, WITHIN "COMMON LAW".

                  Here’s the problem with that: speech that falls under

                  If you wouldn't say it in person, and a barkeeper wouldn't find it acceptable, then should be moderated.

                  is actually protected speech under common law, not banned speech. In other words, such speech is legal, which means either your answer to the previous question should have been “no” or your answer to the second question should have been “yes”. By answering “yes” to the first and “no” to the second, you have contradicted yourself.

                  Again, speech that is protected speech is, by definition, speech that cannot be prohibited or punished by the government. That’s why it’s protected. Whether or not it’s polite is 100% irrelevant to whether it’s covered by common law.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 11:53pm

                  Re: Re: YOU have been answered YES, WITHIN "COMMON LAW".

                  "If you wouldn't say it in person, and a barkeeper wouldn't find it acceptable, then should be moderated."

                  A barkeeper wouldn't find your obnoxious, abusive behaviour acceptable, and he would ask you to leave for the sake of his other customers. He would also reserve the right to stop you returned at a later date after being kicked out too many times.

                  So, you're supporting yourself being kicked out of this site permanently instead of what's happening to you now? Interesting...

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              JMT (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 11:38am

              Re: Re: Maybe you missed the subject line!

              So you've finally admitted you want the government to control what people can and can't say. Good to know.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2020 @ 4:59pm

                Re: Re: Re:

                Especially so since we can quote this thread back at him when he complains about government overreach.

                Then again, the last four years has been him trying to kiss the toes of Trump's government - so I still have no idea why it's a bad thing for him.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 16 Dec 2020 @ 1:35pm

    Have we considered..

    That all of this is to condense the WHOLE of the internet?
    They dont want to deal with 10,000+ small companies. they want the MAIN companies responsible for everything ON their systems.

    Lets put it this way. They dont want the NEED to improve the IRS in tracking all these smaller companies to get taxes.
    If the IRS could track Every business in every state, as well as match up all the internet sites and Ownership, and then send out Bills for taxes, based on the traffic and business estimated. It wouldnt be that hard to do it to the larger corps.
    Can you see being able to get taxes from ANY site in the world, that does USA business over the internet?
    Would take allot of power to monitor and track all those sources, and collect all taxes on all purchases.
    Let alone Showing that all those taxes means the rest of us DONT NEED to pay taxes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    errol scrunched, 17 Dec 2020 @ 5:22am

    another option

    They have another option, and that is to spend some money on publicising the so called reforms and getting these jack asses kicked out by the electorate. Go buy a large advertising slate and destroy these rogue politicians and severly weaken them. thats the option i would take. fight, fight and fight.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2020 @ 12:27pm

      Re: another option

      Nah. The wisest option is for Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. to stop censoring people who don't take their marching orders from anti-American Leftists.

      If they'd police their own behavior, the big business Thought Police wouldn't have patriots repeatedly smacking them around.

      Big business Leftists are like other bullies: give them a beating is the only lesson they understand.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        ECA (profile), 17 Dec 2020 @ 1:08pm

        Re: Re: another option

        GET OFF YOUR HORSE and look around.
        Its not GOOGLE doing what you think.
        Its all, those Sites that have Bought servers to create their OWN sites.
        You think Google does what? I will bet you dont even know WHO is the largest Server system on the net. ITS NOT GOOGLE.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Dec 2020 @ 1:40pm

        I’m surprised you didn’t call for “leftists” to be lined up against a wall and executed for crimes against (in order of increasing importance) humanity, God, and Donald Trump, given how you seem to both hate “leftists” and desire to see violence inflicted upon those you hate.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2020 @ 4:49pm

        Re: Re: another option

        How's that Shiva Ayyadurai fund coming along, Hamilton?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        bhull242 (profile), 17 Dec 2020 @ 5:05pm

        Re: Re: another option

        Except they do police their own behavior and don’t censor anyone. They’re also just exercising rights given to them by the Constitution.

        Also, leftists are for more regulation of businesses.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          ECA (profile), 18 Dec 2020 @ 11:29am

          Re: Re: Re: another option

          So you acknowledge, that over the last 20 years the repubs have taken away most of the pollution laws?
          The Stock regulations?
          And the banking regs that would have STOPPED about 1/2 of the failures in the last 20 years??

          YEA, now we know who to blame.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.