10-29-2020, 08:53 PM
The context is the Senate 230 hearing with Facebook, Google, and Twitter this week. The discussion is between Jack Dorsey of Twitter and Senator Tammy Baldwin (D, WI). The tenor of the hearing at this point was Big Tech and their role in deciding what gets posted and what gets hidden. SEN Baldwin opens up with:
"I believe the tech companies here today need to take more action, not less, to combat misinformation. Including misinformation on the election, misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic, and misinformation and posts meant to incite violence."
I find this astonishing. Amazing. Confusing. Chilling. We have a sitting US Senator actually telling private companies they need to censor people online MORE. She is cheerleading for private entities to basically contract out silencing her opposition. The Blackwater of expression let's say. To silence that with which she disagrees. If she disagrees with you, well it's fine for an unaccountable corporation to shut you out.
There is always the argument these are private companies. They can show or hide what they want. Nope. Not under Section 230 protection can they do that. The whole point of the hearing. Big Tech wants their cash cows to remain a litigation free zone. But it seems they want to play social administrator too.
There are some who argue this is just online, on a few platforms. No one is stopping you from using less used platforms online or not be online at all. To that I offer, what makes you believe this is where it stops? Since when has government reach, once acquiesced, ever receded? When has a bureaucracy ever decided it needs less authority?
I can be 100% sure who I am NOT voting for when time comes up.
"I believe the tech companies here today need to take more action, not less, to combat misinformation. Including misinformation on the election, misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic, and misinformation and posts meant to incite violence."
I find this astonishing. Amazing. Confusing. Chilling. We have a sitting US Senator actually telling private companies they need to censor people online MORE. She is cheerleading for private entities to basically contract out silencing her opposition. The Blackwater of expression let's say. To silence that with which she disagrees. If she disagrees with you, well it's fine for an unaccountable corporation to shut you out.
There is always the argument these are private companies. They can show or hide what they want. Nope. Not under Section 230 protection can they do that. The whole point of the hearing. Big Tech wants their cash cows to remain a litigation free zone. But it seems they want to play social administrator too.
There are some who argue this is just online, on a few platforms. No one is stopping you from using less used platforms online or not be online at all. To that I offer, what makes you believe this is where it stops? Since when has government reach, once acquiesced, ever receded? When has a bureaucracy ever decided it needs less authority?
I can be 100% sure who I am NOT voting for when time comes up.