Or, a cadenza on section 230.
One of my other friends commented on the original series post to the effect that section 230 (specifically, the Wikipedia entry thereon) is an illuminating commentary on the social media speech situation. He’s right.
Essentially, section 230 says that internet service providers (ISPs) are not publishers, and thus cannot be sued for some of the things for which publishers are liable. As I understand it, however, this in no way prevents ISPs from in fact acting like publishers. Facebook doesn’t have to remove libelous information that a random user posts about a random citizen—so section 230 says—because Facebook isn’t a publisher. But Facebook also can, if it wants to, remove that libelous information, if it decides “in good faith” that doing so is the right move from a business standpoint, a moral standpoint, whatever.
Perhaps that’s an overly naïve reading of the law; perhaps I am missing something. Certainly it is a bit rich that some of the same companies that started out by protesting that they can’t possible regulate everything posted through them are now hands-on about regulating certain things. (But are they actually the same companies? Was Facebook, or Twitter, or Youtube instrumental in passing section 230 initially? Were those companies around in 1996/7?)
Regardless, however, I fear I don’t see how section 230 protects users from rule-happy social media bureaucrats.
And I say this as someone who posted (in what context made clear was jest) something derogatory about “men,” and got censored by Facebook as a result (and lost the appeal, no less). So … here we are on my *cough* Google-hosted blog.
I wish I had a happier
ending to this series but, baring more interesting remarks from my wonderful gallery,
that’s all, folks.
No comments:
Post a Comment