Yes. People who downvoted are retarded. It is DEFINITELY a form of censorship, especially since "not being a Trump supporter" is a condition the results in being deported. That IS censorship, it's just in our favor.
If you limit access it’s a bit different. It no longer becomes a public square. If something is “open to the public” you can’t limit what is said like we do. 230 protects this site as it does all web sites.
This is exactly why we need to change section 230.
Personally, I think that the major change that needs to happen is that very large websites with open membership needs to be treated as the public square. That any legal content must be allowed in a non-discriminatory fashion. Sections of that website can moderate for content, legality, and whether it is germane and constructive to the conversation, but the standards of moderation must be documented and carried out in a good faith manner.
Failure to do so risks civil fines or loss of 230 protections.
Section 230 is what creates the distinction between platforms and publishers. Repealing it would make it so all websites are treated as publishers and can be sued for the content that their users post. TDW would definitely be sued out of existence for some of the content on this site.
PLATFORM: anybody can say anything. We just host the content. All speech is the authors'. You can sue them, not us. NO MODERATION.
PUBLISHER: We CHOOSE (aka moderate aka speech codes) what is said on our platform. Others speak here, but both them and us are responsible and liable and can be sued.
In this case, thedonald.win would have to make a choice. Eliminate deportations (we could still click it, as users of the site, and it could be reported (100 people reported for deportation) but the site would have to leave it up or else it's moderating and libel for speech.
Or, stay the same, deport speech that doesnt support Pres Trump and accept liability to be sued. This might be viable.
I think you don't know what you're talking about. Declare yourself a publisher, be liable. Be user generated, you're good. You can sue individuals, sure but you track down an anon user on some random forum for calling you a cuck and sue them.
This isn't acting as a publisher so it won't.
Isn't deporting a type of censorship?
Yes. People who downvoted are retarded. It is DEFINITELY a form of censorship, especially since "not being a Trump supporter" is a condition the results in being deported. That IS censorship, it's just in our favor.
How's that different from any social club that has membership requirements?
Ex: A Ford Mustang social club that requires you to have a Ford Mustang of any year or model to be part of the club.
If you limit access it’s a bit different. It no longer becomes a public square. If something is “open to the public” you can’t limit what is said like we do. 230 protects this site as it does all web sites.
This is exactly why we need to change section 230.
Personally, I think that the major change that needs to happen is that very large websites with open membership needs to be treated as the public square. That any legal content must be allowed in a non-discriminatory fashion. Sections of that website can moderate for content, legality, and whether it is germane and constructive to the conversation, but the standards of moderation must be documented and carried out in a good faith manner.
Failure to do so risks civil fines or loss of 230 protections.
Yeah, we'd have to become a chaotic free-for-all like the chans in that case.
Its user generated content thus they're not acting as a publisher. It's that simple.
Section 230 is what creates the distinction between platforms and publishers. Repealing it would make it so all websites are treated as publishers and can be sued for the content that their users post. TDW would definitely be sued out of existence for some of the content on this site.
every site is a publisher IF they moderate.
You can do one or the other:
PLATFORM: anybody can say anything. We just host the content. All speech is the authors'. You can sue them, not us. NO MODERATION.
PUBLISHER: We CHOOSE (aka moderate aka speech codes) what is said on our platform. Others speak here, but both them and us are responsible and liable and can be sued.
In this case, thedonald.win would have to make a choice. Eliminate deportations (we could still click it, as users of the site, and it could be reported (100 people reported for deportation) but the site would have to leave it up or else it's moderating and libel for speech.
Or, stay the same, deport speech that doesnt support Pres Trump and accept liability to be sued. This might be viable.
If that is the case then forum's never existed prior to 1996
I think you don't know what you're talking about. Declare yourself a publisher, be liable. Be user generated, you're good. You can sue individuals, sure but you track down an anon user on some random forum for calling you a cuck and sue them.
Not true at all