• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

News FCC "Will Move" To "Regulate Social Media" After Censorship Outcry

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
9,073
7,419
895
On Thursday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said that the agency will seek to regulate social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter at the behest of the Trump administration's executive order signed earlier this year. "Members of all three branches of the federal government have expressed serious concerns about the prevailing interpretation of the immunity set for in Section 230 of the Communications Act. There is bipartisan support in Congress to reform the law," Pai said in a statement Thursday. "Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech. But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters."

On Thursday, Pai said that the commission's general counsel said that "the FCC has the legal authority to reinterpret Section 230." He continued, "Consistent with this advice, I intend to move forward with a rulemaking to clarify its meaning."

"Pai's decision to move forward with rulemaking follows a series of moderation decisions on Wednesday made by Facebook and Twitter against a New York Post article regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, who has been the subject of political attacks from the right throughout the 2020 presidential election," the report adds.

Facebook reduced the reach of the story, while Twitter banned linking to the story entirely. "These moves from Facebook and Twitter incited an outcry over conservative bias from Republicans," reports The Verge.


I was told intent with S.230 was to protect kids from porn, not for twitter and other Californian overlords to engage in political censorship.

S230 it allows a provider to filter "material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable".

One could claim that "harassment" of Hunter Biden was taking place, regardless if it is 100% true or not.
But, hold on, there is even "Otherwise objectionable", which today essentially is "something provider doesn't like".


via slashdot`
 
  • Like
Reactions: #Phonepunk#

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
1,279
994
375
Government getting involved is bad.

good thing technology is way ahead and will be uncensorable
 

dkny1121

Member
Mar 23, 2018
600
1,155
460
Government getting involved is bad.

good thing technology is way ahead and will be uncensorable
No shit, the Government should just take away the 230 but stay out of it, currently the Dems are in bed with big tech it's obvious. They should have no protections that they currently have.
 
Last edited:
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: MightySquirrel

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
7,895
14,313
1,020
Government getting involved is bad.

good thing technology is way ahead and will be uncensorable
If government can’t intervene, then they are failing at their purpose. One of Government’s primary purposes is to protect the inalienable rights of citizens. I see no difference between a terrorist organization that seeks to influence the government of the USA and a multi-billion dollar NGO/corporation that seeks to do the same. Both are enemies of the people.
 

Clear

Deer/Dur
Feb 2, 2009
11,194
5,468
1,245
Government getting involved is bad.

good thing technology is way ahead and will be uncensorable
Technology is very easily censorable, because most people aren't that interested in digging further than social media and big-name outlets. So by controlling them, they control the narrative in the minds of millions.
 
Jan 17, 2014
3,119
508
650
Lol no. They need Congress to act then . “The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, notprivate, abridgment of speech” the SC last year with the 5 conservatives as the majority. There was like only one time private property lost to freedom of speech and it’s narrowly tailored and was dubbed a liberal assault on property rights. Buttt a lot of new territory with President not being able to block people which may entail you can’t remove the President from twitter so we shall see.

Also if the FCC tried this wouldn’t that mean there would also have to automatic net neutrality. Too messy haha.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
21,927
43,758
1,160
Really the problem is TDS and the abuse by the DNC of social media. I would rather they jail these fact checkers and people who decide to limit posts/stories etc... Thats where the problem is. The Democrats have installed people at high levels at these institutions and they are doing the DNCs biding.

If Russians somehow managed to hack and delete prominent Dems and a story about Trumps taxes you know it would be sanctions and election interference. Well Jack and Marc just did that on behalf of the DNC. Jail time and same for anyone who has comms within the DNC between social media and the party.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
21,927
43,758
1,160
They need something in place by the election because the DNC is gearing up to supress Trump saying anything about the election except for Biden won. Nov 3rd and on they wont allow any election related articles that dont declare Biden the winner. So need to nip that in the bud asap.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
41,434
17,610
1,585
Never thought I'd be cheering for this, but then again, I never expected Internet discourse to become so centralized.

The alternative to not doing this has way too many dangerous implications for the future of our society as has already been demonstrated.
 
Last edited:

caffeware

Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,300
1,722
840
I don't know how to feel about about this. Something must be done about the issue, but not sure I like the FCC filtering the internet.
 

slugbahr

Gold Member
Jan 4, 2019
2,670
3,841
540
The edge of a circle
They need something in place by the election because the DNC is gearing up to supress Trump saying anything about the election except for Biden won. Nov 3rd and on they wont allow any election related articles that dont declare Biden the winner. So need to nip that in the bud asap.
I keep seeing this sort of thing posted.
Why the fuck does it matter?
A "news" announcement isn't the arbiter of an election result.
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
1,279
994
375
Government is already involved, where do you think section 230 protections came from? Big Tech is doing the censoring, not the government, lol. You just wake up, Ichabod?
Yea they are involved and have already screwed up.
Facebook and Twitter should never have always been a publisher not a platform.

at this point the government haven’t done anything to stop them from being a publisher and the tech companies just say they are only doing it for “dangerous” content.

Face it if the internet was working the way it is supposed to where it’s a free for all with immutable content there is nothing a government or tech company can do to censor short of shutting the whole thing down.
Encryption, IPFS and other immutable platforms have already made these social media giants obsolete

it just takes time for the population to catch up.
 

Sejan

Member
Sep 28, 2018
421
554
480
No shit, the Government should just take away the 230 but stay out of it, currently the Dems are in bed with big tech it's obvious. They should have no protections that they currently have.
S230 is incredibly important in the basic function of the modern internet. Without its protection, sites like GAF may not be able to exist without serious changes and/or legal risks to the owner and moderation team. S230 needs to exist in a way that equally protects the functions of the internet while simultaneously protecting the rights of the users.
 

Cleared_Hot

Member
Feb 25, 2018
1,045
995
385
Social media is pretty much a public utility at this point. On one hand I'm super against any inkling of violations of rights, but social media platforms are now actively interfering with the election. We don't have people piping in our conversations on the phone to fact check us or provide context, so why should it be any different on social media?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,044
2,549
620
Sure government regulation of social media definitely sounds like it will ensure freedom and not like something they do in dictatorships.
 
Last edited:

It's Jeff

Member
Aug 28, 2015
739
1,309
520
I mean... we've done a good job of defining free speech in this country, so following those guidelines should be easy. Perhaps deferring to the centuries of legal clarification on the subject is better than a small squad of Californians interpreting what the population should know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slugbahr

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
10,507
18,240
1,835
Sure government regulation of social media definitely sounds like it will ensure freedom and not like something they do in dictatorships.
Yes, all those dictatorships that tell social media that they should not block certain material :pie_eyeroll:

TBH, it's not even any real burden on Twitter or Facebook not to block newspapers their political allies told them to block - its bytes amongst trillions. It's not like they are forcing a bookstore to have to stock verboten books or TV to make time. It costs them nothing.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
41,434
17,610
1,585
Sure government regulation of social media definitely sounds like it will ensure freedom and not like something they do in dictatorships.
I get the argument that Twitter/Facebook are just like other discussion forums/platforms and can ban whatever they like according to their arbitrary terms, but they are the de facto public forums of our age whether they like it or not and I think that gives them additional responsibility to not act in a partisan fashion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

The Pleasure

Member
Jan 8, 2019
2,717
3,713
460
Allow the abity to not censor and revive net neutrality giving ajit pai a denial of what he wants or have the supreme court side with big business and their this isn't puic space its private entity. Round one. FIGHT!
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
41,147
75,563
1,225
I get the argument that Twitter/Facebook are just like other discussion forums/platforms and can ban whatever they like according to their arbitrary terms, but they are the de facto public forums of our age whether they like it or not and I think that gives them additional responsibility to not act in a partisan fashion.
Treat them like public utilities since they sell their users information to the highest bidder. And outlaw private info being sold overseas.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
21,927
43,758
1,160
I keep seeing this sort of thing posted.
Why the fuck does it matter?
A "news" announcement isn't the arbiter of an election result.
Yes it is.

Trump says he won, media says it must be wrong all the polls showed the opposite.

Trump declares victory so FB/Twitter block it. Trump says there is some sort of fraud, social media blocks it.

If a tree falls in an empty forest does it make a sound? Trump announces he won but social/legacy media ignores it and blocks anyone saying Trump won, did he win?
 

SF Atlas Shrugged

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
3,044
2,549
620
I get the argument that Twitter/Facebook are just like other discussion forums/platforms and can ban whatever they like according to their arbitrary terms, but they are the de facto public forums of our age whether they like it or not and I think that gives them additional responsibility to not act in a partisan fashion.
I don't really disagree with that in principle but the fucking hypocrisy of saying social media is a ubiquitous utility that needs to be related but INTERNET is not is too ridiculous to even entertain.

Like fuck you Ajit Pai, you rolled back FCC regulations on internet saying it's not a utility.
Agreed in economic examples. Especially the Obama years.

But what if this were just an internet Bill of Civil Rights?
Then legislate it. This isn't the FCC's place especially since the recused on internet.
 
Last edited:

slugbahr

Gold Member
Jan 4, 2019
2,670
3,841
540
The edge of a circle
Yes it is.

Trump says he won, media says it must be wrong all the polls showed the opposite.

Trump declares victory so FB/Twitter block it. Trump says there is some sort of fraud, social media blocks it.

If a tree falls in an empty forest does it make a sound? Trump announces he won but social/legacy media ignores it and blocks anyone saying Trump won, did he win?
If Twatters say that murder is legal, do judges, police and prosecutors accept that?
If Twatters say the Earth is flat, do scientists agree with that?
If Twatters announce that China has won WW3 tomorrow, do we all bow down to our new overlords?
If Twatters say American currency no longer has any value, are people with it in their wallets or bank accounts fucked?

Tell me how the posts on social and legacy media control the workings of government?
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
41,434
17,610
1,585
I don't really disagree with that in principle but the fucking hypocrisy of saying social media is a ubiquitous utility that needs to be related but INTERNET is not is too ridiculous to even entertain.

Like fuck you Ajit Pai, you rolled back FCC regulations on internet saying it's not a utility.

Then legislate it. This isn't the FCC's place especially since the recused on internet.
Definitely would prefer comprehensive legislation.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
21,927
43,758
1,160
If Twatters say that murder is legal, do judges, police and prosecutors accept that?
If Twatters say the Earth is flat, do scientists agree with that?
If Twatters announce that China has won WW3 tomorrow, do we all bow down to our new overlords?
If Twatters say American currency no longer has any value, are people with it in their wallets or bank accounts fucked?

Tell me how the posts on social and legacy media control the workings of government?
The entire Russian hoax was because of legacy and social media.

The commie revolution that is going on right now is mainly because of social and legacy media.

Media and Social media lied about the GF case, saying it was racism. This lead to mass riots on the streets, which in turn lead to defunding of cops and all kinds of bills and EOs about police. NY dropped 1 billion in funding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

slugbahr

Gold Member
Jan 4, 2019
2,670
3,841
540
The edge of a circle
The entire Russian hoax was because of legacy and social media.

The commie revolution that is going on right now is mainly because of social and legacy media.

Media and Social media lied about the GF case, saying it was racism. This lead to mass riots on the streets, which in turn lead to defunding of cops and all kinds of bills and EOs about police. NY dropped 1 billion in funding.
Tell me how the the process of election day and votes being counted, declared and followed up by those whose job it is to do so will be effected by the ramblings or silence of Twatter.
Was Twatter, F(uckin)B(ullshit) or any legacy media needed to transition elected officials and government after any elections in the past? What was their role in the official process of government?
Please enlighten me.
 

Derekloffin

Member
Jun 17, 2013
595
234
535
Isn't this basically an empty gesture without congressional approval?
Not entirely. It is a matter of risks.
You see, upto to the federal level, 230 has been interpreted by the courts very broadly. So, the FCC penalizing any corporation for violation would inevitably go to court and with a high likelihood at these court levels have the case dismissed in the corporation's favor. However, unlike many people, the FCC has more than the legal might to bring this case all the way to the supreme court, and as we've just recently learned, the supreme court has yet to weigh in on this subject, and at least 1 judge, Thomas, is highly skeptical of the current legal interpretation that is dominating. So once it gets to that level, and it has a high chance of getting there, it became a very sketchy gamble for the corporation. It may still go their way, or they could suddenly find 230 gutted effectively and that could be devastating, especially as the result could be quite unexpected in interpretation. So, a corp either plays the odds in hopes that either the supreme skips the case, or just confirms lower court decisions, or plays ball with the FCC to avoid the case ever starting.

Now, one might be inclined to think that if Biden gets in that this case is not going to happen, but that's actually not that safe a bet at all as Democrats too are hostile to 230, just for different reasons. So even a Biden Admin might let such a case go forward, although perhaps modified. In fact, I'd be a lot more worried about the Dem's myself if I was a corp as they have gone pretty far left, and Europe, which is down that path already, has already put in place many anti-230 laws and policies. The Dem's, thus, I think are much more likely to go down that route than the GOP who seem to be more content with simply a more strict interpretation of the existing 230.
 
Aug 18, 2020
155
274
220
I feel like all of these things are just happening too late. Two years ago this would have had a real impact. Right now it seems pretty irrelevant, and will only stick until Dems get back into power anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedVIper

Cato

China delenda est
Oct 27, 2017
5,089
7,986
700
Moore Park Beach
If Twatters say that murder is legal, do judges, police and prosecutors accept that?
If Twatters say the Earth is flat, do scientists agree with that?
If Twatters announce that China has won WW3 tomorrow, do we all bow down to our new overlords?
If Twatters say American currency no longer has any value, are people with it in their wallets or bank accounts fucked?

Tell me how the posts on social and legacy media control the workings of government?
Yes to all, at least that is what twitter demands.
 
Dec 15, 2011
9,739
27,650
1,165
All they care about is power and fiscal growth.

Regulate and set up fines and they'll start to behave.

Force complete transparency on the hateful platforms too. Don't trust Jack or Mark or their lawyers. Get the log files.
We already saw, after the BitCoin hack a few month back, that the controls to suppress and blacklist accounts that Twitter vehemently denied existed where very much in existence.
 

Kreios

Member
Oct 5, 2010
3,048
2,207
1,125
U.S.
Twitter told NYP to delete posts if they want their account back


“A Twitter spokesperson told Fox News over the weekend that the Post “has been informed what is necessary to unlock their account.””
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Boswollocks

hariseldon

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
7,822
16,331
835