Re: Section 230...the real issue
I'm not sure how the government can ever handle individuals who lie, incite, etc... without some changes to the protections to the enterprises that provide the publishing platforms?
Usually badly. Lies are the new norm. Facts are routinely checked before actual facts can be established, so sometimes the lie turns out to be the truth. That's something that's been happening increasingly over the last few years. Unarmed person gets shot, cue riots/protests. Investigation might later discover that the unarmed person was actually armed, but those investigations take time. US police seem to be responding to that challenge with stuff like releasing bodycam footage faster, but that still may not appear until after the fires have gone out from the protests. And even with better evidence, people still might not choose to believe any new 'truth' because the previous lie had been fact checked as truth.
It can all be a tad confusing.
Or there's Joe-
https://www.rt.com/usa/511851-biden-pelosi-capitol-riot-terrorists/
“They weren't protesters. Don't dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists,” Biden said.
“For four years we have had a president who has made his contempt for our democracy, our constitution, the rule of law clear in everything he has done.”
Which is interesting given Biden's refusal to condemn previous riots, and instead preferring to view them as protected 1st Amendment peaceful riots. Same with the rule of law. Many of the previous peaceful protestors weren't charged, or DA's refused to charge/prosecute, which paved the way for yesterday.. Or will be a soundbite Biden may come to regret the next time peaceful protestors start burning & looting.
Some of that at least is already sort of defined in law, although sometimes difficult to prove, or convict. So I tweet "Hey everyone, let's go burn down a Portland police station" and that might be considered incitement. But I was just kidding, and it didn't really burn much anyway, and I wasn't charged or anything, so where's the crime man?
So perhaps instead terms will be redefined so it becomes easier to prosecute incitement. Things are already shifting that way with swift justice for 'hate speech'. That could be taken further and say, automatically fining who retweets anything hurtful or hateful. Or order them to participate in a compulsory, residential rehabilitation programme at their own expense.
The easy bit will be demanding that Big Tech bans this sort of thing, without actually defining in legislation what said 'thing' is.. Which is already sort of happening already, ie Trump's social media ban(s), even though he's still US President, at least for a few more days. Then again, Big Tech's supplying quite a few people for the new administration, so I'm sure they'll be advising light touch regulation.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
