Biden has as much problem with Facebook / Section 230 as Trump

[hedrick]

Zuckerberg's Biden problem

though for different reasons. He thinks Facebook is a major vector for false information and hate. He thinks -- with some reason -- that section 230 lets it ignore its own bad effects.

I share Biden's concern, but I think public forums are important, and I don't see how Facebook or anyone else can reasonably be responsible for content.

 

[BobRyan]

Zuckerberg's Biden problem

though for different reasons. He thinks Facebook is a major vector for false information and hate. He thinks -- with some reason -- that section 230 lets it ignore its own bad effects.

I share Biden's concern, but I think public forums are important, and I don't see how Facebook or anyone else can reasonably be responsible for content.

If they declare themselves neutral and simply keep hands off political POV censorship - it would be different

 

[durangodawood]

If they declare themselves neutral and simply keep hands off political POV censorship - it would be different

These days people are trying to pass off threats of violence and nonsense Q type libel (the contents of which we wisely cant promote here) as "political pov".

Closer to the gray area are lies like "stolen election" which are incredibly damaging to our republic. I also dont see how FB etc can be responsible for the consequences of that. But for sure I understand how I wouldnt want to host it if it was my platform. Would I want to participate in the dismantling of our constitutional form of govt? Probly not.

 

[Desk trauma]

As another poster said, I look forward to having rational adult disagreements with the positions of the president. Didn't take a full week and here we are.

While the alleged motive and rhetoric are easier to like I still offer my full throated disagreement with the President. If a platform choses to clamp down on such things themselves, great. If not, pound sand on over to the marketplace of ideas and make your case while leaving the coercion of the state out of it.

 

[stevil]

Without section 230 you won't have social media.

It was fascinating seeing a powerful political party (Republicans in the Whitehouse) using social media to spew out propaganda, not just propaganda, but messages that were just plain dangerous and has caused many lives to be lost (with regards to the disinformation on the pandemic)
And then they same group put out the disinformation campaign of election fraud, causing so much anger and frustration amongst Trump supporters and leading to a violent insurrection attempt.

Of course propaganda and disinformation isn't new. Non Government organisations have been supporting anti-vax, Traditional Chinese Medicine etc that have cost many lives and led to the near extinction of many rare animals.

 

[Arcangl86]

This is one of the places where I tend to disagree with both the Republicans and the Democrats. Democrats think that social media especially doesn't moderate enough, Republicans think they moderate too much. I tend to support CDA 230, because I think both the GOP and Dem position are infringement on free speech.