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.
Don't we? Trump SupportersThis is The Donald. Our community is a high-energy Trump rally. There are no exceptions.
If facebook/twitter had a liberal rule 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this boat. We are not meant to be a site "open to the public" it's always been clearly stated.
We do allow access to anyone but there are privileges to post. Anyone can view any of the content but to publish content you need to follow rules. It is important that the rules are clear and stated and apply to everyone equally. No one on fb can post pornography. Clear rule. On Twitter tho some people get banned for mentioning an ever evolving list of things and others can mention it and be fine. They are not stated as being forums for one side. Those kind of differences can and should be defined as subtleties in law. I’m fine w social media deciding and stating it is for the left upfront and then others wouldn’t join, we’d have our own. It should be clear though and not pretend to be neutral. That is the key. People think it’s neutral and so believe their news there’s is neutral. We don’t feign neutrality.
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.
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.
Don't we?
Trump Supporters This is The Donald. Our community is a high-energy Trump rally. There are no exceptions.
If facebook/twitter had a liberal rule 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this boat. We are not meant to be a site "open to the public" it's always been clearly stated.
We do allow access to anyone but there are privileges to post. Anyone can view any of the content but to publish content you need to follow rules. It is important that the rules are clear and stated and apply to everyone equally. No one on fb can post pornography. Clear rule. On Twitter tho some people get banned for mentioning an ever evolving list of things and others can mention it and be fine. They are not stated as being forums for one side. Those kind of differences can and should be defined as subtleties in law. I’m fine w social media deciding and stating it is for the left upfront and then others wouldn’t join, we’d have our own. It should be clear though and not pretend to be neutral. That is the key. People think it’s neutral and so believe their news there’s is neutral. We don’t feign neutrality.
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.