At the current time, faced with the great lack of knowledge that exists on the part of journalists and the general public, I think it is important to try to shed a little light on some actions of dubious ethical, moral and legal correctness that many social networks have committed and in some cases continue to be committed. These actions, which many consider normal, could be considered criminal, or at least, they should be investigated so that they stop being committed, since they could be considered to violate the constitutional foundations of the United States.
It all starts with section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code, which is designed primarily to protect those who provide telecommunications infrastructures, so that they cannot be responsible for the content, data and opinions that circulate through these infrastructures.
Let's give a very simple example so that it can be understood: The regulations specify that telephone companies (and others) that offer the infrastructure for people to talk on the phone or transfer data are not responsible for what circulates through their networks. If this were not the case, if someone ordered another via telephone communication to commit an attack, the corporation that owns the communications infrastructure that allowed this communication to take place, could be held responsible for what happened. The negative impact on the development of communications would be devastating if this standard did not exist, since no one could assume the responsibilities derived from the actions of users, unless we entered a state like the one Orwell proposes with his work 1984. It is like if a car collides with another on a highway, and the person responsible is the owner of the highway, not the drivers.
As the regulations themselves say, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service will be treated as the editor or spokesperson of any information provided by another information content provider."
It is essential to differentiate those who provide an infrastructure from those who have and exercise editorial power. The media, which offer editorial power, cannot rely on these regulations. Social networks, which claim editorial power for themselves, could not rely on this section, but they do. Because? For many reasons, but mainly because of the almost absolute power that these Silicon Valley billionaires have amassed.
It is very important to highlight that if you censor content, you influence the presentation of search results, you influence the order and importance of different content according to ideologies and you limit the access of people (who have not been convicted, although if they had been, they should not be convicted either). be limited with very few exceptions), you are no longer an infrastructure that allows the free exchange of information, but rather you take sides and influence the content. That is clearly editorial power, and let's remember, if you have editorial power, you cannot be covered by rule 230.
The influence of these technology corporations on the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the United States is enormous. Money rules in Washington D.C. and these elites are protected and protected by this norm thanks to the considerable investments in the campaigns of the presidential, legislative and judicial representatives. Let's not talk about their close relationships with government agencies, with which they do not stop working, and with which some indications have already been presented in the US Congress about what seems to be a conspiracy.
In another article we will go into the repercussions of not complying with this rule, and how many Silicon Valley executives and billionaires, creators of these social networks, take advantage of this rule to commit the greatest attacks against freedom of expression and against an elected president. in the US, actions contrary to the country's constitution never seen in the country's long history.
No major changes are expected, since it is almost impossible to legally fight against these practices, since they have almost unlimited resources, and the power of Washington DC is nourished in an important part by their contributions to politicians and other powers that depend on be chosen. Let's not talk about the election process of certain components related to the judicial power in the US.
Comments