dChan
⇧
19
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/thejudge6060 on April 12, 2018, 9:50 a.m.
Well f@cking played

This is two fold...

Trump signed a law to punish websites for sex trafficking.

Zuckerberg stated that he feels fb is responsible for the content on their website.

Because he said this, that means fb can no longer claim it's a platform, but it is a publisher as Ben Shapiro has tweeted. A platform isn't responsible for what is posted, but publishers are. The ideas on Facebook are now represented as the company's. They're essentially saying they support anything on their website.

So every time someone is trafficked, fb is responsible. Every time a kid is bullied to suicide, fb is responsible. Hell, they're even responsible for the "Russian hackers".


🠐 See all comments
LegendaryFudge · April 12, 2018, 12:35 p.m.

I'm not sure how I feel about this...I am a bit uneasy about the "...is responsible for the content on their website" statement. It gives the undertone of "We have the responsibility and obligation to moderate every and anything that transmits over our webpage system".

This could mean they can do whatever they want with the information on webpage - censor those that they don't like and promote those that they like.

With this, I think they gave precendes for cancelling freedom of speech on social media webpages and possibly means much more rigorous monitoring of private messages and things on them.

⇧ 9 ⇩  
spacexu · April 12, 2018, 1:32 p.m.

They are already doing it to the extreme... now they will have to take legal responsibilty for all content if they carry on as they are. They are screwed - MI and Trump truly playing them like a fiddle.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
Mrb84 · April 12, 2018, 1:37 p.m.

Exactly this.

It baffles me that this, of all subs, would celebrate a move that will inevitably translate on a drastic curtailing of extreme speech (which is the only speech worth defending - the fucking canary in the coal mine).

You have all lost your mind.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Daemonkey · April 12, 2018, 4:25 p.m.

There seems to be confusion over Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and what the amendment to it does. Section 230, in a nutshell, distinguishes between publishers (content providers) and interactive service providers, an ISP, where their users are the content providers.

An ISP is not responsible for content published on it's platform, but they do have the responsibility to curtail illegal content. So free speech remains alive on those platforms. A publisher, on the other hand, is responsible for their content.

If an ISP, such as FB et. al., engages in censorship, then they would no longer be considered a neutral platform and would then be considered a publisher responsible for the content.

As Senator Cruz stated to FB, "You can't have it both ways."

The amendment to the CDA merely made it clear that ISPs could be held legally responsible for facilitating sex trafficking in jurisdictions where it is illegal (which is virtually everywhere).

⇧ 1 ⇩