Biden demands end to 'special immunity' for social media companies

submitted by [deleted] from (dailymail.co.uk)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (5 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

    This is "adapted From A book By J Randy Taraborrelli" (noted at the top) who writes biographical FICTION.

    Um, what? What are you talking about....

    Also this articles appears to be factually correct, he is calling on congress to remove section 230 protections. Yes, it says Biden 'demands' congress do something, because he can't unilaterally do it himself. I don't see any lies in this article, would you care to point out anything that isnt factual in this article?

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      There are already Federal Hate Crime laws:

      Indeed there are, but what we don't have in the US are hate speech laws. White supremacists saying racist things is protected speech

      Biden is merely "calling on Congress" to enforce the laws that are already in place, though now with a a focus on social media. There have been many times whe social media had to comply with requests from the US government, and they've deleted numerous accounts and posts that were obviously in violation of federal or state laws.

      As you state, the government can already force content to be removed if it breaks the law. Biden is saying he wants congress to repeal section 230, which is a different matter altogether.

      And yes, the article mentions that Biden is calliing on congress to do this and cannot do this on his own. Biden 'demanding' action is referring to the tone of his address, not suggesting he has the ability to unilaterally force congress to act

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Largely agree with your take on this. Section 230 is not a perfect solution by any means, but repealing it without addressing it in a different way seems like it would have a lot of undesirable consequences. A discussion on this would be interesting, because I don't see either party talking about a comprehensive solution to this problem, and what the laws ought to be like around this. How can we hold corporations accountable without having a chilling effect on user's speech or an avalanche of petty lawsuits? I don't know, lol, but agree this is what an ideal situation looks like