- First Name
- Dec 16, 2020
- Reaction score
- M3, CT triM
Surprise! It's already in motion....
Mark Zuckerberg is on record of saying that he envisioned FB as evolving into more of a utility, like the phone company. Increasingly, we use it as a communications platform, perhaps even our primary communications platform. If it is to be such a platform, like our phone line or our mail service or our internet access, it needs to be unbiased. If I use my phone to hire a hitman to kill someone, I should be charged. If I use it to discuss things that are not illegal - no matter how unpleasant - I'm still allowed to use my phone. My speech is not regulated.
The big example of this topic is, of course, the recent banning of Trump from Twitter, FB, Insta, Youtube, App and Google stores, etc. By all accounts he hasn't done anything illegal - though that's up for debate - but he's been silenced. These are private companies, they're allowed to do that. But should they be able to? Perhaps it's time for communications laws to be updated with the time, and FB, etc, should not be allowed to regulate such content much like ATT can't listen in on your calls and turn off your phone if it doesn't like what you say. As Elon recently tweeted, "A lot of people are going to be super unhappy with West Coast high tech being the de facto arbiter of free speech."
Section 230 sets the limitations and requirements of communications platforms. If they play within lines, they can't be sued. Trump asked
If there's a repeal, chances are good there will be bipartisan support, but my suspicion is that the proposal would be for a modification to the responsibilities of the platforms which won't fly for the Republicans. Dimes to dollars, the platforms will simply (mostly) comply with the law in the area that maximizes profit.