Zuck and Elon Are Not Neutral

I found Deckey’s argument compelling, and it inspired me to consider the way that statutes treat

social media companies.

According to the Verge, "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 

which was passed in 1996, says an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher

or speaker of third-party content." This protects social media companies from being held accountable

for content published on their sites. Companies that claim Section 230 status, including Facebook and

Twitter, are essentially supposed to be neutral third parties who allow other to share content on their

platforms.

A company that is neutral to the speech and activity on their site cannot also own the speech and activity

taking place on the site. Once you own something, you are no longer a neutral observer as you have a

stake in the game. Social media companies cannot claim neutrality in regard to content that they also

claim to own. Thus, social media companies cannot hold true Section 230 neutrality and also own user

data. By owning and then selling user data, they are de facto stakeholders in the activities that occur

and views that take place on their sites. To claim neutrality, they must genuinely be neutral. To be

genuinely protected by Section 230, a social media site cannot claim to own the activity that takes place

on their bulletin board.



(Sorry if this looks weird on the blog. I am having formatting issues.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even...
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to...
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the...
Read more