Should Social Media Giant's Keep Their Immunity To US Libel Laws?

[Perraine]

I completely agree xrayy, that this is, on the surface, a difficult subject to decipher. due to the myriad of laws, and customs throughout the world, but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The OP is asking about certain media companies being exempt from US laws.

 

Under current US laws, then, yes, they "should" be exempt IF they were/are providing the open, public, free speech forum they claim. But they are NOT doing that! They are running an echo chamber and censoring only certain content, so therefore they should NOT be exempt.

[HeyYou]

I completely agree xrayy, that this is, on the surface, a difficult subject to decipher. due to the myriad of laws, and customs throughout the world, but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The OP is asking about certain media companies being exempt from US laws.

 

Under current US laws, then, yes, they "should" be exempt IF they were/are providing the open, public, free speech forum they claim. But they are NOT doing that! They are running an echo chamber and censoring only certain content, so therefore they should NOT be exempt.

I suspect that would only make censorship on those platforms even MORE over-the-top.......

[Perraine]

 

I completely agree xrayy, that this is, on the surface, a difficult subject to decipher. due to the myriad of laws, and customs throughout the world, but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The OP is asking about certain media companies being exempt from US laws.

 

Under current US laws, then, yes, they "should" be exempt IF they were/are providing the open, public, free speech forum they claim. But they are NOT doing that! They are running an echo chamber and censoring only certain content, so therefore they should NOT be exempt.

I suspect that would only make censorship on those platforms even MORE over-the-top.......

 

How so? If they aren't held accountable, then surely, provided they abide by the constitution, that should mean less censorship and a free flow of ideas?

[HeyYou]

 

 

I completely agree xrayy, that this is, on the surface, a difficult subject to decipher. due to the myriad of laws, and customs throughout the world, but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The OP is asking about certain media companies being exempt from US laws.

 

Under current US laws, then, yes, they "should" be exempt IF they were/are providing the open, public, free speech forum they claim. But they are NOT doing that! They are running an echo chamber and censoring only certain content, so therefore they should NOT be exempt.

I suspect that would only make censorship on those platforms even MORE over-the-top.......

 

How so? If they aren't held accountable, then surely, provided they abide by the constitution, that should mean less censorship and a free flow of ideas?

 

Depends on what message they want going out. If they don't like your message, they will find some reason to suppress it. Just like our government does.....

[colourwheel]

The original premise of this debate is flawed, because the entire question rest in the perspective of being govern by US laws. The world is much larger and more complex to look at this just through U.S. federal laws alone. Even so, say we do suddenly hold social media platforms liable, I agree with HeyYou, it would only make censorship even more over the top. In the end social media giants would start restricting what could be posted if they were to be inevitably liable for all content uploaded to their platforms.

Edited January 17, 2021 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

The original premise of this debate is flawed, because the entire question rest in the perspective of being govern by US laws. The world is much larger and more complex to look at this just through U.S. federal laws alone. Even so, say we do suddenly hold social media platforms liable, I agree with HeyYou, it would only make censorship even more over the top. In the end social media giants would start restricting what could be posted if they were to be inevitably liable for all content uploaded to their platforms.

Craigslist is a perfect example of just that as well. Congress passed a law (FOSTA) that would hold the liable for content posted on their site. So, in response, craigslist simply completely nuked their personals section.

[DrakeTheDragon]

Isn't this whole debate based on things seen in reverse?

 

Before news aired of stuff getting censored more and more on social media networks, news aired of governments left, right and center, especially here in the EU, deciding to more and more hold those networks liable to what people post on them, because they don't do their part and moderate appropriately to their own terms. They were close to losing their immunity completely over here. "That's" when they reacted and started censoring finally.

 

And yes, make them liable, take away their immunity, and they will "have to" censor you left, right and center just for means of self-defense. They've been law-free crime-supporting zones for far too long by now, and their denial to interfere is starting to cost them.

[Striker879]

It makes absolutely no difference which course of action is chosen out of all the possible things that could be changed ... somebody will be offended at the same time someone else is pleased.

 

So who should we pander to, which of these two people?

[KiCHo666]

So who should we pander to, which of these two people?

To the group that brings in more ad revenue.

[Striker879]

 

So who should we pander to, which of these two people?

To the group that brings in more ad revenue.

 

 

I've always maintained if you are looking for "the truth" follow the money trail ... it will always lead you to the "why" things are the way they are.