Re:FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
by stale2002 on Friday October 16, 2020 @04:48PM
(#24804907)
> Social media platforms can easily argue
Social media platforms are not currently subject to common carrier laws.
And I am saying that the law should be changed so that they are, or whatever needs it be done to make that happen.
Common carriers are absolutely restricted from engaging in certain actions.
Were you not aware that there are regulations that restrict what common carriers do?
Re:FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
by triceratops on Friday October 16, 2020 @05:20PM
(#24805166)
You're repeating the same things over and over with little logic, and no reference to anything I said. There's little point continuing this conversation.
Re:FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
by stale2002 on Friday October 16, 2020 @05:45PM
(#24805358)
> with little logic
Do you disagree that common carriers are subject to certain restrictions?
I am not sure how you could possibly not recognize the fact that we have common carrier laws.
> You're repeating the same things
You are misphrasing the things that I am trying to say, so I have to slightly rephrase it so that you cannot misinterprete my statements.
Yeah, I don't think you know what common carrier actually means.[1]
The moderation that telecoms and ISPs perform relates to traffic that can negatively affect other users of those systems. Social media platforms can easily argue that their moderation already follows similar principles. It just happens that they deal with content, not raw bits, so they have to moderate content.
You also didn't address my other point, which is that ISPs aren't common carriers at all and this same FCC voted to make it so. So this seems pretty hypocritical behavior on their part.
1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153