(Stillness in the Storm Editor) The following post by Vox Day offers a view on section 230 that strikes at the heart of the issue. Simply put, the norm when it comes to rights of use and ownership in the internet world is that “we the website/service provider/social media company want immunity from prosecution and use of your information while retaining all the ownership benefits thereof.”
Vox Day cites Gab as one of the companies that use section 230 to their advantage. I suspect, although I can’t confirm, that this isn’t a malicious use of section 230 on the part of Gab. I suspect, like many things in the realm of legally dubious systems in our world, the norm is used because people don’t know how to do it any other way—not that it is used intentionally to manipulate or defraud users.
That said, the issue is nothing to be overlooked.
Think of it like this.
You let someone borrow your car so they can make money at a job requiring deliveries. They get into an accident, and they want you to pay for all the damages despite the fact they were driving—while keeping all the profits made from the use of your car. This is one way of looking at the way section 230 is used.
They claim to own all your information that you post to the platform while claiming immunity from the use of it. But as a principle of law, and common sense, you can’t have a right without responsibility. You can’t own something, profit from its use, and then lawfully justify passing the buck and liability to the person you bought it from because “it’s what everyone else has been doing.”
For most people, the nitty-gritty of these jurisprudence arguments might seem obscure or hard to make sense of. But it’s quite simple really. If you want to enjoy the use of something (namely to profit from it) then you have to share the risk associated with it.
I would argue, as one who studies the law as much as I can, especially the foundations of law, the legal justifications causing untold harm to freedom and our potential for a better world are endemic.
Far too much of what constitutes legal policy in our world is founded on precedent—that we do it this way because that what we’ve always done.
At the core of the law, are several simple and inarguably correct maxims that have yet to been fully expressed or represented in our world.
Book Maxims of Divine Law
But if we the people truly care about making the world a better place, we should learn about the principles of law, understand them, and work toward making that better world a reality. And that means protecting what is sacred (true conservatism) and daring to change what is wrong, immoral, and imperfect (true progressivism).
– Justin
Related Trump Corners Biden? “The GSA letter forces Biden to disclose conflicts of interest”
by Vox Day, November 27th, 2020
President Trump is finally – and correctly – targeting the elimination of Section 230:
Donald Trump today accused Twitter of “conservative discrimination” while once again criticizing how topics trend on the platform.
In a series of tweets, the outgoing president also suggested a law that gives the social media companies a degree of legal immunity against illegal content uploaded by their users—Section 230—should be revoked on grounds of national security.
“Twitter is sending out totally false ‘Trends’ that have absolutely nothing to do with what is really trending in the world,” Trump wrote on Friday. “They make it up, and only negative ‘stuff’. Same thing will happen to Twitter as is happening to @FoxNews daytime. Also, big Conservative discrimination.”
In a second post doubling down on previous threats against the law, he added: “For purposes of National Security, Section 230 must be immediately terminated!!!”
You’ll see some sites like Gab clinging to the idea that Section 230 should be preserved for smaller organizations, but it’s a ridiculous argument. The elimination of Section 230 doesn’t meant that anyone is going to be punished for the actions of their trolls, it just means they’re not going to continue to be able to avoid taking responsibility for their own licensed content.
And it is their own content. Quite literally and legally. Read the fine print of any social media site. If a site doesn’t claim outright ownership of the content, it will at least claim a license to it. For example, this is the license Gab holds for its user content.
By providing any User Contribution on the Website, you grant us and our affiliates and service providers, and each of their and our licensees, successors, and assigns an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free right to use, republish, reproduce, modify, perform, display, distribute, and otherwise disclose to third parties any such material for any purpose.
The point is, Gab cannot reasonably disavow any and all responsibility for the content that it licenses in perpetuity, nor should it, or any other social media company, be able to do so.
Stillness in the Storm Editor: Why did we post this?
The news is important to all people because it is where we come to know new things about the world, which leads to the development of more life goals that lead to life wisdom. The news also serves as a social connection tool, as we tend to relate to those who know about and believe the things we do. With the power of an open truth-seeking mind in hand, the individual can grow wise and the collective can prosper.
– Justin
Not sure how to make sense of this? Want to learn how to discern like a pro? Read this essential guide to discernment, analysis of claims, and understanding the truth in a world of deception: 4 Key Steps of Discernment – Advanced Truth-Seeking Tools.
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammatical mistake? Send an email to [email protected], with the error and suggested correction, along with the headline and url. Do you think this article needs an update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.
Source:
WHY in this article is POTUS referred to as “the outgoing president”? It has not yet been determined. The corruption in this election as widely presented by CREDIBLE sources (Sidney Powell et al) is being examined. WHY say that POTUS is “Outgoing”? WHY, WHY, WHY?