Comment on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sues Meta, citing chatbot’s reply as evidence of shadowban
Buttons@programming.dev 4 months agoA problem is that social media websites are simultaneously open platforms with Section 230 protections, and also publishers who have free speech rights. Those are contradictory, so which is it?
Perhaps @rottingleaf was speaking morally rather than legally. For example, I might say “I believe everyone in America should have access to healthcare”; if you respond “no, there is no right to healthcare” you would be right, but you missed my point. I was expressing an moral aspiration.
I think shadowbans are a bad mix of censorship and hard to detect. Morally, I believe they should be illegal. If a company wants to ban someone, they can be up front about someone and ban them; make it clear what you are doing. To implement this legally, we could alter Section 230 protections so that they don’t apply to companies performing shadowbans.
Dkarma@lemmy.world 4 months ago
They are in no way publishers…ugh you people who don’t know shit about the law are insufferable.
QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Feel free to educate us instead of just saying the equivalent of “you’re wrong and I hate reading comments like yours”.
But I think, in general, the alteration to Section 230 that they are proposing makes sense as a way to keep these companies in check for practices like shadowbanning especially if those tools are abused for political purposes.