“We face some of these censorship problems, we’ve faced challenges with fact-checks being abused to try and get us de-platformed and knocked off the platform. There are new policies now that are aimed at curbing and minimizing hate speech but really they’re going to affect satire like ours because they consider some of our jokes ‘punching down’ because we aim at some of their sacred cows,” Dillon said on “狐 & フレンズファースト。”
“そう, there is a lot of reasons why it’s a deal for us,” Dillon said. “We’ve been threatened with de-platforming many times, we are actively being throttled on Facebook, 例えば, so it’s in our best interest to make sure we have an equal right to these platforms and the content standards that are put into place are applied evenly.”
Dillon feels that the controversial Section 230 の Communications Decency Act of 1996, which 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,” is not being used properly.
“I think the end game should be to basically restore the intended purpose of Section 230, which was to give these platforms a shield from liability and the ability to moderate the content on their platforms. だが, the content moderation is supposed to be done in good faith, that’s one of the provisions of the statute, and right now we’re not seeing good faith,” Dillon said.
“They’re not just taking down objectively obscene or lewd content, they’re engaging in politically motivated viewpoint discrimination.”
He said Section 230 is really a “legal benefit with qualifying conditions” but companies must realize they’re essentially a “public square” and must allow content from all viewpoints.
DeSantis’ legislation proposes fines for tech companies who silence political candidates, would allow residents treated unfairly by tech juggernauts to take legal action and would restrict social media platforms from contracting with public entities.
“I’m optimistic, I think ultimately, this will be resolved. It will either be resolved because Congress is going to end up revising Section 230 language to make it a little bit more explicit about what needs to happen there, you know good faith is kind of vague,” Dillon said.
“I’m optimistic that there is going to be a solution. It may have to go to the Supreme Court.”