I've worked as a IT contractor since '07. Sometimes on a 1099 and sometimes on a W-2. I've made good money and my wife's job provides the benefits. I don't need or want any government protection and I suspect that, like freelance journalists, most workers don't either. There are a few complainers who want to ruin things for everyone, but most who join the gig economy know what they are getting into. We trade flexibility and higher pay for the illusion of job security a traditional job offers. It's not for everyone, and if it doesn't work for you get a traditional job. I'm glad I live and work far from nanny state shenanigans like this law.
I fully expect every article I post on this subject to get torn apart by those who are absolutely positive that there is no bias in social media. Those with an open mind, however, may benefit from understanding the other side of the argument so they can decide for themselves.
That's actually hilarious.
CNN and MSNBC try just as hard or harder than Fox to persuade folks one way other the other.
Google may not be trying to influence folks, but they sure seem to make a lot of mistakes that are mistakenly interpreted as attempts to influence folks.
Owning a virtual monopoly on search makes Google one of the most powerful companies in the world. During the 2018 election cycle, Google's employees gave over 75% of their contributions to democrats. Of course this doesn't prove that Google's search results are biased, but it does illustrate why some might see what you consider perfectly explainable mistakes as evidence of bias.
If Google were to throw their weight behind a candidate or an issue, you'd have to agree they have the power to influence the outcome of an election. Of course - Google would never do that. No matter how their employees feel personally about things, that would not, could not, ever impact how they do their jobs. Any activities that give the impression that Google supports one viewpoint or candidate over another are easily explainable as mistakes and mistakes are going to happen. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
I try to review a wide range of sites. That occasionally includes far right and far left sources. Breitbart, a conservative site, covered a story about a left wing presidential candidate suing Google. The story has since been covered by other sites. There are some stories that major media sites ignore (suppress?), at least until another site covers it.
Many democrats consider social media platforms so powerful that a few Russian trolls were able to sway a presidential election. (I don't believe this but many democrats blame these Russian trolls for electing Trump.)
Today there is evidence that conservative viewpoints now being suppressed on social media. Some examples include pro life groups and groups that believe in traditional marriage. (evidence? try googling it and you'll see plenty of examples)
Some believe that the suppression of conservative view points is an attempt by social media sites to sway the next election. (I guess to make up for what happened in 2016?)
Should powerful social media companies be allowed to discriminate against content in a manner so as to sway an election?
And thus, if you agree that Trump can't block users, it seems that should apply equally to AOC, no matter if you support one of them, neither of them or even (amazingly) both of them.
I'm a bit confused by the use of the phrase "it seems like that should apply equally to AOC" Why does it only "seem" like it should apply equally? Why not simply state "it should apply equally to AOC"? What's the gray area here that makes it only "seem" like the law should be applied equally?
While I support Section 230 and applaud efforts to quantify the impact of it, we are facing an atmosphere of censorship by the very corporations who benefit from it. Google, Facebook, and other social media giants are censoring content that doesn't align with their political views.
Certainly within their rights as private corporations but dangerous to our freedom because of many have amassed almost monopolistic power. I don't think breaking these companies up, as some have suggested, is the correct answer. I do think that if these companies want to continue to benefit from Section 230, they must stop blocking content based on their political views. If you support free speech, then support free speech and not just speech you agree with. If you want to start censoring content based on your political views - fine, but then you must take responsibility for all of the content on your site and you lose the protections of Section 230.