Trump Signs Executive Order Stripping Social Media Companies Of "Liability Shield"

submitted by magnora7 from zerohedge.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]m68k 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

We need to be careful of things like this, because in the wrong hands, it can be used to censor free-speech. Remember the DMCA.

[–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I totally agree, I am sort of worried about it affecting saidit even though our mission goal basically aligns with what his stated goal of the bill is, so it's unlikely we'll be affected. I don't like more government meddling in the internet. But at the same time I don't like these private monopolies controlling the national conversation.

So really I'd just like the anti-trust anti-monopoly laws we already have on the books, to be actually enforced.

[–]whistlepig 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It sounds like it would put sites like saidit out of business since it sets up all social media sites as targets for suing. I mean... all social media sites are going to contain political discussion. Wouldn't this result in only the really large companies that have lawyers being able to survive in the open? Or am I misunderstanding?

I need to dig into this more.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It sounds to me like it will make it so companies that aren't publishers, aren't allowed to pick-and-choose to reinforce a certain agenda. Making public forums more of a public utility, in a way. At least I hope that's how it works, based on what I've read.

[–]whistlepig 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Just the threat of going to court to decide whether it is a legitimate concern can put most such niche services out of business and offline.

I don't really care about the intentions, just the results. And if we're talking about opening up web sites to suing because of their content then that means most sites will be put offline or underground to avoid getting sued whether or not such a suit could win or not. Since any suit would have the same affect whether won or lost.

I'm waiting to learn more before I say for sure, but right now, I don't see how it can happen any other way.

I remember about 20 years ago a aquarium store owner sued people on a hobby email list for criticizing the service they received from his shop. Sued them out of New York City and of course most of them didn't live anywhere near there so all but one particularly stubborn person paid him off since that was way cheaper than fighting it.

Remains to be seen, but this could result in the same activity.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I totally get your concerns and you might be right. However I think that 1. Websites are already open to lawsuits anyways, and DMCA. 2. They're only going to go after companies who are pushing political agendas

But yeah I don't know. But if it forces twitter to be more impartial instead of a huge propaganda machine for the DNC, then maybe it's for the better. I'm pretty tired of private companies dictating the boundaries of the national conversation.

[–]whistlepig 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Everyone pushes a political agenda. Think really hard about how "political agenda" can be defined.

I'm pretty tired of private companies dictating the boundaries of the national conversation.

The companies you are complaining about are public companies... not private.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I meant public in the sense of publicly owned by the collective people, not publicly traded vs privately traded.

All the decisions of the companies are made by private individuals. Sure they're legally obligated to turn a profit for shareholders, but that doesn't mean they're in any way beholden to the interests of the public. In fact this legally demanded profit motive for publicly-traded companies often causes behavior that is in direct opposition to humanity's well-being, and that's obvious even with just a cursory glance at the news.