In the U.S. (at least), for now, companies are protected from what other people post on their site, thanks to Section 230. Unfortunately, it is being attacked by Congress so we're at risk of losing that protection; and it's concerning that people don't really realize or appreciate the implication of losing that -- politicians are spinning that it's about "social media" (which is loosely define) but that fact is that it applies to everything online, every site. Meaning, losing that protection will cause every site, every business, to be liable for anyone else anyone says. That fact that people aren't up in arms that Washington is considering eliminating Section 230, is disturbing.

A bit more about that here; Repealing Section 230 in the United States; Here’s the Implication

Bottom line, the internet as we know it, all of it (product reviews, blog comments, YouTube threads) all of it will cease to exist if websites are liable for what other people say.

What I'm trying to encourage is that our protections are in fact more extreme. Clause #5, "Internet properties privately owned, including but not limited to websites, apps, widgets, and eCommerce, are considered virtual (online) experiences for the purposes of commerce, and are not subject to local, regional, state/province, nor country, commerce regulations, limitations, tariffs, or taxation."

Which is to say, no localized governance at all should apply to virtual (online) experiences. That would include a region of the world making a site liable for what others say/do upon it.

And it's that Country By Country movement that's building momentum, to regulate things locally (by way of a hundred different countries, and thousands of states/provinces/municipalities), that has to be arrested. It's inconceivable for the internet to continue to thrive if (WHEN) every site has to adhere to local laws thousands of times over.

This was in the news today; Why Facebook, Twitter, Instagram could be banned in India from tomorrow?

Wait... what? India wants to ban social media?

HOW?? How could it possibly enforce that? Who is responsible? Who is accountable? If someone just across the border sets up a repeater so that people in India can get on Twitter, then what?? Satellite internet? A country is going to force a company that exists in another part of the world to prevent anyone specifically within that country from being able to use a site that also has offices somewhere else in the world??

This is getting ridiculous.

As to the 1st Clause, indeed. I agree that need not all be said but we seem to be in an era in which that which isn't explicitly stated leaves wiggle room. It just felt like something that needed to be enumerated; not that I agree that it should need to be so.

Right to access to the internet does not impose upon anyone an obligation to provide access... yep. Wasn't sure that really applies to the "internet" though; I distinguished that on purpose. That access is by way of physical infrastructure, which the internet is not. So that notion, that no one should be obligated to provide something, is a right that *should* supersede this; the fact that it's wires to access the internet is no different than saying everyone has a right to a car, or a gun (that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to make sure you have one).

CEO of MediaTech Ventures, CMO to #VC, #Startup Advisor. I get you funded. Father, marketer, author, #Austin. @seobrien & @AccelerateTexas.

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.