Spectrum - Roku dispute (2 Viewers)

ncted

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Jul 4, 2004
5,138
3,450
Durham, NC
FWIW: I do know a lot about this as I was worked at what was, at the time, the third largest online media conglomerate in the US, where I was VP of Technology. We resold our software platforms to other media companies and hosted them on our servers as well as used them ourselves. We had hundreds of lawsuits related to User Generated Content, and we won them all because of Section 230. I spent way too much time with lawyers talking about this topic. I do think Section 230 should be adjusted for the current state of things, but I will avoid specifics so as to no offend any individual points of view.
 

ncted

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Jul 4, 2004
5,138
3,450
Durham, NC
The First Amendment only applies to government actions, not to private enterprise actions...
The first amendment applies to the press as well, which are largely private enterprises. Arguably (as in people have successfully argued in court) Social Media are considered publishers just like WSJ, NYT, etc. Section 230 did turn them effectively into the town square since there is no liability for the publishers, which is why they are hesitant to moderate posts unless necessary as it would hurt their business of showing ads to users of their platforms. Therefore, any moderation, deletion of posts, or banning of accounts is considered censorship to many. Essentially everyone became used to saying whatever they want online without repercussions. Section 230 is directly responsible for the rise of Google, Facebook, etc. who rely primarily on ad revenue, for better or worse.
 

NYDutch

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Dec 28, 2013
3,452
4,718
Where our wheels go
The first amendment applies to the press as well, which are largely private enterprises. Arguably (as in people have successfully argued in court) Social Media are considered publishers just like WSJ, NYT, etc. Section 230 did turn them effectively into the town square since there is no liability for the publishers, which is why they are hesitant to moderate posts unless necessary as it would hurt their business of showing ads to users of their platforms. Therefore, any moderation, deletion of posts, or banning of accounts is considered censorship to many. Section 230 is directly responsible for the rise of Google, Facebook, etc. who rely primarily on ad revenue, for better or worse.
The first amendment applies to government actions against the press, not the content published by the press. Are you claiming that privately held media publishers have no editorial control over the content they publish? Really? WSJ, NYT, etc., are required to publish every letter to the editor they receive? What "many" consider censorship is irrelevant. Only what the law and the courts consider censorship is relevant. You do realize we're posting on a "public forum", don't you? Are you claiming Scott and the mods have no control over what's posted here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dishdude

ncted

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Jul 4, 2004
5,138
3,450
Durham, NC
The first amendment applies to government actions against the press, not the content published by the press. Are you claiming that privately held media publishers have no editorial control over the content they publish? Really? WSJ, NYT, etc., are required to publish every letter to the editor they receive? What "many" consider censorship is irrelevant. Only what the law and the courts consider censorship is relevant. You do realize we're posting on a "public forum", don't you? Are you claiming Scott and the mods have no control over what's posted here?
TL;DR No, that is not what I am claiming.

Privately held media publishers have liability exposure over the content they publish that online platforms which host user generated content do not. Section 230 shields them from that liability in almost all cases and transfers it to the individual who publishes it. Control is a separate issue, which is why I didn't mention it. I was actually stating the difference between traditional publishers and sites such as this in the eyes of the law.

There is arguably a tipping point where the value proposition of having completely unmoderated content changes in favor of some moderation so as to not drive too many eyeballs away from your platform due to unpopular content. This late-to-the-game moderation is what many, and I use that term intentionally, consider to be censorship. Many people considering something thus does not make it so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NYDutch

edisonprime

SatelliteGuys Pro
Dec 12, 2012
2,534
828
55901
The first amendment applies to government actions against the press, not the content published by the press. Are you claiming that privately held media publishers have no editorial control over the content they publish? Really? WSJ, NYT, etc., are required to publish every letter to the editor they receive? What "many" consider censorship is irrelevant. Only what the law and the courts consider censorship is relevant. You do realize we're posting on a "public forum", don't you? Are you claiming Scott and the mods have no control over what's posted here?
A public forum that doesn’t allow political discussion. If a public forum allows political discussion they have to allow all sides of the argument.
 

Howard Simmons

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
1,814
1,441
Northwest Florida
Good point, Scott, I'll move on to other topics...
Preach Neil Degrasse Tyson GIF
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ncted and NYDutch

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top