The Chairman of the Federal Communications Committee, Brendan Carr, takes the first steps in erosion of the main legal protection enjoyed by the Big Tech, which, if it succeeds in the cost of some of the most profitable companies in billions of dollars in the world, has learned the post.
Since President Trump chose him to manage the agency, Car's actions to sell Paramount suffocate to Skydance due to the uncomfortable partisan concerns in CBS, which violated the “public interest” rules in the Federal Communications Committee (FCC), had the most interest.
But his plan, which is still to weaken the so-called “Section 230” of the major technology and social media companies-depending on how they were written and interpreted by the courts-have the most obvious effects.
Not only social media companies for major technology companies such as Facebook or Twitter (now known as X), which depend on the “Shield of Responsibility” to provide countless billions of dollars in legal costs on alleged defamation and other potential obligations.
Investors who have accumulated shares such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon and even Apple can be affected depending on the extent that it places in the obligations of all types that protects 230.
The Congress approved the rule of Section 230 as part of the 1996 Testimonial Law of Communications-which mainly gives technology a pass of third-party publications on its platforms.
Thinking was that the lawsuits related to defamation, etc., created by third parties could paralyze innovation in the new economy.
In addition, unlike traditional media, they are simply unbiased convictions.
They do not work as a traditional publisher by hosting a letters and chat room and should not accept the responsibility that corresponds to it.
But my sources, she says, believe that the world has changed dramatically from the first days of the Internet.
Social media has replaced chat rooms.
The factors of these sites make all types of editorial decisions.
Facebook Meta is hardly a biased warehouse of opinions and news.
Remove porn removal for children or invitations to commit violent actions, and you will find Facebook judgments about what is permitted on his platform all the time.
Facebook control
In other words, he is publisher of reality.
Facebook literally monitored the letter that questioned the effectiveness of Covid vaccines, as did the old Twitter before it was purchased by the Llon Musk Free Lawyer.
Both platforms suppressed the post of the post for the Hunter Biden laptop scandal during the election year.
According to my sources, the Big Tech depends on section 230 important, according to my sources.
Amazon cannot be prosecuted for virtual books despite the damage to author's book sales; Microsoft has successfully argued in court that 230 were protected from the removal of the incorrect ads that were discovered in her information control program.
Because of 230, the courts rejected a case against Apple on the applications of Zumal Zaal in its applications store.
Conservatives regularly complain that 230 allows YouTube, owned by Google, to monitor the right content. The Google search engine highlights the content that gives the left while reducing the sources of news with right tendencies.
Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, publishes things free of results based on progressive political opinions often for volunteers who provide their content, as critics claim.
Even obstetric artificial intelligence can tend to section 230 to relieve responsibility.
Car, by communicating with balls and strikes, is intentionally believes, technology platforms act like the New York Times more than just a blind tight information, and must be subject to defamation and other potential responsibility such as any publisher or traditional work.
How does it happen there is the great unknown among the attorneys of the communications you spoke to.
FCC – with a new GOP majority led by Carr – is the best media organizer, new and old.
The legal authority has the interpretation of Article 230, and the change of the previous guidance that gave this wide protection to large technology.
It can weaken or eliminate the shield by issuing the so -called consultative opinion.
Then it is up to the courts to decide whether they should use his guidance when they weigh section 230.
There is a good opportunity for a lot of will, especially in litigation before conservative judges.
This means that defamation cases against large technology that have been rejected in the past based on brief rulings can have a “position” in the courts and move towards discovery depending on how the judge explained the FCC studio.
Technology companies can settle instead of fighting because litigation is never cheap.
It is difficult to estimate the damage that this can cause to large technology, but some smart legal types that I am talking about say that responsibility has the ability to be enormous.
All kinds of crazy things can be found anywhere on the Internet, of course, and if you are the late type that feels injustice by someone who publishes something that Wikipedia says or on YouTube, targeting the deep pocket pockets instead of some logical dwarf.
For technology companies circulating, there is a dual threat.
Google led by Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook and other shares that are market shares, and with new possible legal responsibility, market risk comes.
Many investors may empty their shares if the protection of section 230 is destroyed out of what will happen.
