Question.1671 - The layout for the case study is typically as follows: A) Introductory paragraph including your topic (statement of purpose) and your thesis statement. B) Paragraph discussing larger concept (i.e., if you’re writing about Instagram, you’ll want to give an overview of social media in general.) C) Description of the actual case. D) Link the case back to the larger idea (you’ve talked about Instagram and given an overview of social media; now it’s time to talk about how Instagram reflects larger trends in social media). E) Conclude
Answer Below:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: Liability Protections for Social Media Platforms Aaron SowemimoThe University of Houston-Downtown Fundamentals of Communication Technology Comm 3305 Professor Lucas Logan May 2nd, 2024 Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: Liability Protections for Social Media Platforms Introduction Firstly, in order to have a brief understanding of why and what section 230 does, we need to understand that it is an enactment that?tends to provide?authority to social media platforms to moderate their services by deleing incentives or unacceptable posts. Around the early 90s, the spread of the internet was relatively unregulated in infancy, which received a significant boom for the ability to float porn, but the accessibility was in question since several children were able to access it; this triggered ethical issues calling the lawmaker to regulate the situation around 1995 the bipartisan bill referred to as the Communication Decency Act?was enacted?in order to govern obscene use of telephonic services to the internet, while also holding the websites accountable for any indecent things their users posted (Draper, 2023; Morrison, 2023). On the other hand, the legal tussle between Stratton Oakmont and Prodigy led to a court ruling to support the act in terms of protecting internet speech, and by safeguarding online platform immunity from legal liability for content posted by third-party users (Morrison, 2023). Nonetheless, with the advancement in mobile technologies and the accessibility of the internet, social media companies have obtained the secret powers to manipulate the demands of their intended target audiences, which comes as backlash for Section 230 as it is?being scrutinized?by repeals coming from both sides of the political spectrum. However, section 230 tends to state that no provider (which also includes users) of interactive computer services would?be considered?a publisher or a speaker of any information when, in a scenario, the information is provided by another content provider.?? This is a debate over reforming or repealing Section 230 illustrates the immense challenges of regulating social media platforms, highlighting conflicts between free speech ideals within the context of modern responsibilities between the unchecked power battles of tech giants. Media Policy and Online Platforms Media policy in the digital age faces the unprecedented task of regulating platforms that blend elements of publishers, broadcasters, and common carriers. Section 230 tends to allow online platforms to assess the content through their algorithms in terms of what is acceptable content to be on their website, giving them the authority to host the content, but this comes with?a lot of?loopholes. Striking a balance between protecting free expression, curbing harmful content, and ensuring fair competition is an ongoing challenge with global implications. But?this draws towards questioning if the banned social media people's (of those who shared unacceptable content) constitutional right to express? While on the other hand, the current trends on TikTok or even X are not really monitored, rather allowing partial pornography across their platforms; on the reality front, ideally these platforms should monitor on an increased scale but choose not to, which enables the indecent users to thrive on the social media posting unacceptable content, and also nobody wants to expose themselves to the legal liability by engaging in these tech companies in legal battles (Morrison, 2023; Ortutay, 2023). The primary purpose of social media was to serve as a base for connectivity across the world without any barriers, which has taken a different turn as section 230 tends to enable communication by protecting social media platforms who?aren't?liable for the communication. In a scenario, the social media powers take down section 230 to have?full?autonomy over the content flow in their respective platform; it could lead to situations like what happened on Craigslist, which had enabled erotic services till the late 2000s and till 2018, the social media platform had engaged in sex trafficking facilitating prostitution, although it has been now, the possibility of unregulated social media could result in facilitating anti-social activities (Kennedy, 2018).?This?could further result in creating a chain reaction, especially when social media powers tend to abandon moderation; all this ripple effect could be from the change brought to section 230.?? In terms of inconsistent enforcement, users, (especially marginalized groups) often report discriminatory content moderation or having their?own?legitimate posts flagged mistakenly and also due to lack of transparency several social media platforms' moderation algorithms and decision-making processes?are often kept?opaque, making it hard to hold them accountable or appeal unfair decisions (Ortutay, 2023). With the surge in social media market power and antitrust, Section 230 helps smaller platforms and newcomers since they?don't?have to fear?being sued?over user content, which reduces barriers to entering the market.?But?according?to the data from the BipartisanPolicyCenter, as researched by Danielle Draper (2023),?tends?to?had?extensive insight in terms of drawing in Supreme courts take on the issue, considering the Gonzalez v. Google case that?in?involved YouTube's use of targeted recommendations wherein the platform tends to utilize algorithms allegedly amplified terrorist content and radicalized?ISIS?sympathizers into carrying out the 2012 attacks in Europe, during this incident, Nohemi Gonzales was killed, this case had questioned the programming of the algorithms which actively creates content and organizes them for distribution based on user cookies. Another case that tags along would be Twitter v. Taamneh that relates to the ISIS attack, claiming that social media platforms do not necessarily eliminate content that promotes terrorism, but none of the leading companies be it YouTube or X (formerly called Twitter) would intend to promote or support terrorism (Granick, 2023). Nonetheless, in technicality, the blame?shouldn't?entirely?be pushed on the social media platforms since?without?targeted?recommendation?the customer will not be able to?receive?appropriate or desirable content online.?Protections?are argued?to fuel innovation, as companies?aren't?afraid to?experiment with new features and formats that might include user-generated content. Although section 230, in reality, tends to immunize online platforms to a certain extent, the ways to take advantage of the platforms are not within the scope of their control as everything cannot be monitored, be it content they share or post, it always keeps the platform within the boundaries of liability in terms of content violating federal criminal laws, or even with the advancement of AI several intellectual property rights are being breached or even other legal obligation. Allegations that dominant platforms use their power to demote competitors' content in search or give preference to their?own?affiliated products. A diversity of platforms with different approaches to moderation offers users options to migrate to communities that fit their?preference. Section 230 also has its?own?limitations wherein the act does not apply to platform conduct which are outside the scope of publication of others content, for instance, like the discriminatory targeting of ads for housing or employment?on the basis of?race or sex; but immunity?makes big platforms less reluctant to buy out potential rivals, as they?won't?be inheriting liability for past user content. Conclusion The outcome of the Section 230 debate will profoundly shape the future of online speech, power dynamics in the digital marketplace, and societal responses to emerging communication technologies. Finding solutions requires nuanced discussions that go beyond simplistic calls for censorship or unfettered license. References Granick, J. S. (2023, April 14). Is this the end of the internet as we know it?. American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-the-end-of-the-internet-as-we-know-it Draper, D. (2023). Section 230- are online platforms publishers, distributors, or neither?. Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/section-230-online-platforms/ Kennedy, M. (2018, March 23). Craigslist shuts down personals section after Congress passes Bill on trafficking. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/23/596460672/craigslist-shuts-down-personals-section-after-congress-passes-bill-on-traffickin Morrison, S. (2023, May 28). Section 230, the internet law thats under threat, explained. Vox. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/28/21273241/section-230-explained-supreme-court-social-media Ortutay, B. (2023, February 21). What you should know about section 230, the rule that shaped todays internet. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-you-should-know-about-section-230-the-rule-that-shaped-todays-internetMore Articles From Communication
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
