Following politics – leads to routine sightings of dizzying displays of hypocrisy. So you tend to get at least a little jaded.
But sometimes – the width, depth and breadth of a particular hypocrisy shock you out of your jading.
Big Tech’s whiplash-inducing disconnect from content-monitoring reality – is just such an instance.
To begin the demonstration – behold Section 230:
“Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a piece of Internet legislation.
“It provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an interactive computer service who publish information provided by others.
“An immunity clause in the Act states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
I get the idea behind Section 230. Websites like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter rely almost exclusively on content provided by people who do not work for them.
This lack of direct control of this mind-boggling amount of content – means prospective litigious nightmares.
But Section 230 says:
If I upload to YouTube a movie in its entirety – YouTube can not be sued for stealing the movie…because they didn’t actually steal the movie. All YouTube has to do is – when made aware of the situation – take offline the movie I illegally uploaded.
And Section 230 says:
If I upload slanderous or libel-inducing comments to Twitter or Facebook – Twitter or Facebook can’t be sued for slander or libel…because they didn’t actually make the actual comments. All Twitter and Facebook have to do is – when made aware of the situation – take offline the slanderous-libelous comments I uploaded.
Big Tech’s defense of the big cronyism that is Section 230 makes sense…in a vacuum.
Big Tech asserts that there is simply too much outside content being uploaded to possibly deal with the responsibility of monitoring all of it for removal of slanderous-libelous-larcenous uploads.
Mathematically – that makes absolute sense.
But what makes zero sense whatsoever?
These same Big Tech companies have – in other contexts – publicly dedicated themselves to doing the exact outside content monitoring and removal…they claim is impossible when defending their Section 230 cronyism.
“While stopping short of an outright ban, the social media company plans to label or take down material that appears to have been digitally manipulated.”
Which is how and why Twitter banned one of my accounts. An obviously fake user – with an obviously fake name making fun of Bruce Willis and 15 Followers – asked Twitter that I be banned for posting Project Veritas’ videos of Twitter officials discussing how they shadow ban conservatives. Twitter happily obliged.
Also – of course:
Of course – as demonstrated a million times over in situations like mine and Project Veritas’ – Big Tech…is Big Left. So their definition of “fake news” and “controversial” content – is decidedly warped to the Left.
Facebook has in the past been just this awful on abusing conservatives and its massive megaphone.
But of late, Facebook has at least made public promises to treat we adults – as adults.
Zuckerberg’s shock of sanity – only further demonstrates Big Tech’s titanic hypocrisy.
When it comes to the titanic cronyism of Section 230 – Big Tech claims they receive too much outside content to possibly monitor and control it.
But when it comes to what Big Tech and their Leftist cohorts deem “fake news” – which nigh always ends up being conservative news – Big Tech has no problem monitoring and censoring its outside content. And promises time and again to dedicate all the resources necessary to do so.
Big Tech can and does monitor and remove “fake news” content. Which means they can monitor and remove content.
Which means they do not need the titanic government cronyism of Section 230.
Big Tech has hypocritically had it both ways – for WAY too long.
This first appeared in Red State.