Sec 230 simply says a platform is NOT liable for content it allows to appear on it. So if I say 'you are a child eating monster' on FB, you can't sue FB for allowing that.
FB is, completely independent of Sec 230, at liberty to define its own 'Terms of Service' that can say 'you must not call someone a child eating monster'. When you first sign up for an account on these platforms, they present you with their 'terms of service' and you have to check a box saying you have read and agreed to them. So they can ban you because you violated the TOS you actually agreed to.
So FB (and twitter, parler, gab, etc), as private corporations, have no obligation to respect the 1st amendment, as that only pertains to the government, not private corps. Now, where this can get tricky is - even though FB (and others) are private companies, they could not exist without the presence of a vast public infrastructure (the 'internet') (well, its a mix of private and public, but it's certainly some federally funded pieces). So the federal govt. does potentially have some leverage over them. Think about broadcast companies (Fox, CNN, etc); they use a scarce public commodity (frequency bandwidth) that is licensed by the FCC (they are granted a limited form of monopoly), and thus, under their control. That's why the FCC can and do stop broadcasters from broadcasting 'undesirable' content.
I agree FB can and shall delete content and eventually ban you should you break TOS.
Maybe my question then should be rephrased: should social media platform be able to delete content and ban people for TOS-compliant speech? I.e. there is nowhere in the TOS that forbids you from saying "abortion is murder" or "Lynch a cracka on your way to work". Yet one will get banned, the other won't, which appears as politically motivated "moderation".
You mention that the Constitution only applies against the government, and as such not on big tech (which are about to get a beating, as a lot of Biden's appointees are Big Tech agents).
The 2nd Amendment applies against the government too, yet the now famous 2008 case DC v. Heller has made precedent the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, that is the use of firearms for self-preservation against other citizens close to harming you to death.
What would it take to bring a 1st Amendment case against Big Tech to the Supreme Court to make precedent the spirit of the 1st Amendment? Is there any recourse?
I really despise 'social media' in most forms. I despise the way they incentivize anger and discord. It's been proven that people engage more on Social Media when there's conflict, so they have absolutely no incentive to stop mis-information and anger. So they allow crazy claims to be made, because they know that will trigger more reaction. Sadly, I see the revocation of Sec 230 as the only way to address this; let them be sued. But while the FB's and Twatters of the world will roll with it and eventually adjust (maybe), it will kill off many smaller operations who simply don't have the time or capacity to moderate sufficiently. So maybe an exemption for smaller operators.
To your example, though, 'abortion is murder' would be allowed I would have thought - it's your opinion - while 'lynch a cracka ...' would be banned because it's a clear incitement to violence. Not sure what your point is. If you said, 'kill an abortion doctor', that would be banned, but not 'abortion is murder'.
It's been proven that people engage more on Social Media when there's conflict
Taking a page out of newspapers: war sells paper.
The pure removal of section 230 would be a disaster for this board. I believe I explained the real issue here well-enough. What we'd get with pure removal of section 230 is removal of anything that isn't an MSM outlet, and that's it.
Regarding the "lynch a cracka...", I was remembering this tweet which has since been "deleted" (don't know by whom), after "backlash". It is unclear whether it was "moderated" or not, my guess is not but that's only my guess.
Aside from that, Twitter has a clear anti-white bias in their algorithm, as has been demonstrated by several people on T_D, and others like Candace Owens, who got suspended for tweeting the same thing Sarah Jeong said and only replaced "white" with "Jewish". Twitter said it was "an error". https://www.newswars.com/candace-owens-swaps-white-for-jewish-in-sarah-jeong-tweet-gets-suspended/ Can we agree there is no call to action there?
Twitter also "temporarily" banned the pro-Life movie's account "Unplanned" and reinstated it after backlash...
This is scary: how many are banned for wrongthink that we don't hear about?
Sec 230 simply says a platform is NOT liable for content it allows to appear on it. So if I say 'you are a child eating monster' on FB, you can't sue FB for allowing that.
FB is, completely independent of Sec 230, at liberty to define its own 'Terms of Service' that can say 'you must not call someone a child eating monster'. When you first sign up for an account on these platforms, they present you with their 'terms of service' and you have to check a box saying you have read and agreed to them. So they can ban you because you violated the TOS you actually agreed to.
So FB (and twitter, parler, gab, etc), as private corporations, have no obligation to respect the 1st amendment, as that only pertains to the government, not private corps. Now, where this can get tricky is - even though FB (and others) are private companies, they could not exist without the presence of a vast public infrastructure (the 'internet') (well, its a mix of private and public, but it's certainly some federally funded pieces). So the federal govt. does potentially have some leverage over them. Think about broadcast companies (Fox, CNN, etc); they use a scarce public commodity (frequency bandwidth) that is licensed by the FCC (they are granted a limited form of monopoly), and thus, under their control. That's why the FCC can and do stop broadcasters from broadcasting 'undesirable' content.
I agree FB can and shall delete content and eventually ban you should you break TOS.
Maybe my question then should be rephrased: should social media platform be able to delete content and ban people for TOS-compliant speech? I.e. there is nowhere in the TOS that forbids you from saying "abortion is murder" or "Lynch a cracka on your way to work". Yet one will get banned, the other won't, which appears as politically motivated "moderation".
You mention that the Constitution only applies against the government, and as such not on big tech (which are about to get a beating, as a lot of Biden's appointees are Big Tech agents).
The 2nd Amendment applies against the government too, yet the now famous 2008 case DC v. Heller has made precedent the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, that is the use of firearms for self-preservation against other citizens close to harming you to death.
What would it take to bring a 1st Amendment case against Big Tech to the Supreme Court to make precedent the spirit of the 1st Amendment? Is there any recourse?
I really despise 'social media' in most forms. I despise the way they incentivize anger and discord. It's been proven that people engage more on Social Media when there's conflict, so they have absolutely no incentive to stop mis-information and anger. So they allow crazy claims to be made, because they know that will trigger more reaction. Sadly, I see the revocation of Sec 230 as the only way to address this; let them be sued. But while the FB's and Twatters of the world will roll with it and eventually adjust (maybe), it will kill off many smaller operations who simply don't have the time or capacity to moderate sufficiently. So maybe an exemption for smaller operators. To your example, though, 'abortion is murder' would be allowed I would have thought - it's your opinion - while 'lynch a cracka ...' would be banned because it's a clear incitement to violence. Not sure what your point is. If you said, 'kill an abortion doctor', that would be banned, but not 'abortion is murder'.
Taking a page out of newspapers: war sells paper.
The pure removal of section 230 would be a disaster for this board. I believe I explained the real issue here well-enough. What we'd get with pure removal of section 230 is removal of anything that isn't an MSM outlet, and that's it.
Regarding the "lynch a cracka...", I was remembering this tweet which has since been "deleted" (don't know by whom), after "backlash". It is unclear whether it was "moderated" or not, my guess is not but that's only my guess.
Aside from that, Twitter has a clear anti-white bias in their algorithm, as has been demonstrated by several people on T_D, and others like Candace Owens, who got suspended for tweeting the same thing Sarah Jeong said and only replaced "white" with "Jewish". Twitter said it was "an error". https://www.newswars.com/candace-owens-swaps-white-for-jewish-in-sarah-jeong-tweet-gets-suspended/ Can we agree there is no call to action there?
Twitter also "temporarily" banned the pro-Life movie's account "Unplanned" and reinstated it after backlash...
This is scary: how many are banned for wrongthink that we don't hear about?