Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
This. Social Media was a mistake. Especially with how it's influenced the younger generation. The only thing I'm wondering is how is Trump gonna communicate with the people if Twitter shuts down?
Right. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding something I'm kind of shocked that Parler doesn't understand this.
I remember hearing two cases involving platforms being sued for comments made by users. The one platform that got in trouble was the one that attempted to moderate. The other, since no attempts to moderate were made, was not held responsible because clearly they were not acting as editors.
I wish I could remember the source. I think maybe I heard it on the Viva/Barnes youtube channel?
Then prepare to be flooded with all sorts of disgusting content. From ultra profane to pornography, they'll shut us down by making our forums offensive to us. You can't do any moderating without becoming a publisher without 230.
230 doesn't need to be removed it needs to be remedied. It needs to specify what content can be removed.
This smells like concern trolling. Pre-section 230, pre-social media internet was just fine. We've already been there. Section 230 has only made the internet a comfortable place for snowflakes and SJWs. If 230 got removed, at worst case, the chan types would crap-post for a few days until they got bored, then life would go on without the snowflakes.
Do you think life would get worse if Amazon, Walmart and soulless big box store monopolies got shut down (over a 2 year period to allow the economy to adjust)?Believe it or not, there was a time when regular people ran small businesses for whatever anyone needed, and every town in America was distinctly different from the next one.
Attack tech market monopolies using antitrust laws to break up vertical markets and media consolidation.
Fix patent law to eliminate various types of competition-stifling abuse
Scale back copyright monopoly to its original 20-year term.
Enforce in-kind donations election laws on large commercial social media platforms who police content.
Ban federal subsidies, tax incentives, and contracts from corporations with ownership of platforms that behave against the principle of free speech.
Drastically reduce H1b visas
Recognize the inherent stewardship responsibilities of corporate entities engaged in computation using private data, including creating liabilities upon institutions that collect, retain, or sell data beyond that which is directly necessary to run their service.
Recognize personal tracked data as an owned asset belonging to individuals, and require those that profit from voluntarily tracked data to share generated profits with the persons who opt in to sharing.
Use infrastructure already in place for spying on citizens to instead provide a ‘public option’ for hosting and bandwith option, so everyone can publish.
Adapt laws that require businesses to share data with government institutions to require the same sharing for individuals to give people the opportunity to ‘exploit’ their own collected data.
I suspect there will be substantial court law emerging if 230 is repealed. Like the lawsuit filed would need to prove it was done in bad faith as opposed to just keeping communities true to their purpose in order to have a successful lawsuit.
You're correct but I'm thinking the Parler exec is kvetching over the amount of harassment lawsuits they would have to handle as a result of 230 protections being stripped.
Moderating is what causes trouble and moderating isn't well defined.
Tldr, Parler exec is lying through his teeth and is out to protect his bottom-line.
That's kind of the point. If 230 is completely revoked, then even if they don't moderate, people are still going to treat Parler as a publisher and take them to court over every little thing someone else says on their platform. Particularly if the "offenders" can stay anonymous. People will libel themselves using sockpuppets just to sue Parler and run them off the internet. Meanwhile, legit complaints aimed at Twitter and FB will never get anywhere in court because of their deeper pockets and any corrupted officials along the way.
What needs to be done is 230 needs to be enforced correctly. "In good faith" is in no way representative of the way they do things at Twitter or FB, yet it is part of the language of the protections, so those companies need to be slapped down when they violate that, and incentivized to moderate in an even-handed way, if at all.
That wasn’t the point. I’ve been a part of online discussions since USENET. The struggle between free speech and censorship has been blowing up online communities for 30 years. There are no bright lines for anonymous free speech we can all live with. If you let them be sued, the platforms will die, if we allow the legal term free speech, we’re going to have an entirely different audience, probably a lot smaller, more splintered, and with All our voices, having much smaller reach. I don’t know what the solution is.
Pretty sure there are already decency laws in place that restrict what type of content is allowed to be viewed by minors.
You should always be able to moderate illegal content from your site, and if you allow minors, then you should have to keep it porn free
Yes, anyone saying "life was better before the internet" sounds like a grandparent harping on about "back in my day". The internet creates issues, yes, but if you can't navigate them, you're weak. Yes, it is arguable that relying on it too much is dangerous, but that's arguable of a lot of things. Given all the gaslighting of the current MSM, and the TDS of some people I know both old and young who don't browse the internet very much, I'm wondering just how fucked we'd be without the internet.
Sure, the US won its independence, but are we forgetting the dozen examples we have of communism/socialism spreading without the internet?
You get 230 protection if you are a platform. You do not if you are a publisher. Facebook twitter etc have turned into publishers. Parler doesnt have to follow suit.
That's what my thoughts were. That it is what they are trying to become. Have heard Parler is already more strict than Twitter which I'm not a huge fan of. Goes against 1st Amendment as a platform. So they want to be a publisher but with a platform's protections just like Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Yes. They censor anything they deem to conflict with FEC - the same that network tv has (cursing nudity etc)
That is what publishers do.
A platform, per law, is only obligated to deal with crime.
The way you stay a platform - a pipe of communication - is you allow users to freely assemble, giving them tools see the things they want, hide the things they don’t.
Reddit could have been this, but they have their super admins that top the scales.
So the solution here is not to leave a hole by removing 230, but replace or change it so that the definition of a platform is clearly defined and that in order to sue one only must prove that non-user/non-crime censorship occurred and a liability happened.
The amount of libel, slander and defamation that could be litigated would be huge. Find one picture that goes hyper-meme would be millions of dollars for companies that choose to not be a platform.
230 was passed in 1996 for protection for ISPs. Verizon of course cannot be accountable for the language in bits of info passing through fiber.
This was years before platforms existed. They are claiming safe harbor that was never intended and if it ever got to scotus, they would be smacked down.
Either way, via order or ruling, it needs to be removed from all platforms, yesterday.
I think that's what Parler is saying. Keep 230, but just interpret and apply it properly. If you censor any legal speech that you don't like, that makes you a publisher, and you lose your platform protections. Twitter and Facebook and Google either stop censoring or get lawsuits up the wazoo.
Makes sense.
But if Trump wants to eliminate 230 entirely and burn down social media altogether? Fine by me. Agree that social media is cancer.
Fuck em all, without 230 we could sue their balls off for applying rules differently. Stop taking this approach popularized by Tim pool.. yes we would have to follow the law. YES WE COULD SUE THEM FOR CENSORING US AS LONG AS WE AREN’T VIOLATING THE LAW. Stop thinking 230 does any good
nah fuck that. social media is ruining the fabric of society. it only effects "social" media really. Every other outlet has editorial standards, and so should social media. we would be better off it not existing at all, then existing in the form that it does.
This is incorrect. The liability only applies if they are publishers. A public forum is not responsible for slander committed by its users. 4 Chan and 8 kun are lawsuit free. If parlor wants to moderate than it will be liable.
Yeah, the question becomes where do you draw that line? If you pull a post, or ban a user cause they're being a douche (as we do here sometimes) then what, you're a publisher now?
Yup, only actual illegal speech can (or should) be censored.
Now, nothing stops any company from providing user tools that allows their users to filter or sort content to their liking. However, default settings should be wide open.
Reddit now bans you for UPVOTING wrongthink. Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people have been banned or shadowbanned for wrongthink on all platforms. It's time for an overhaul.
If you pull a post, or ban a user cause they're being a douche (as we do here sometimes) then what, you're a publisher now?
You give other users the tools to fight it but no more safe spaces. It will push a lot of people out of social media which is also great. If a user is being a douche you learn to deal with it. Everywhere will be like the chans. It will exist.
I'm asking honestly, I don't actually know where the line is drawn though, because it's not just about safe spaces. Two specific examples - SPAM bots, can you ban them without becoming a publisher? Can you block posts unrelated to the topic for your site? IE, you create a gun forum, and people keep posting about trans rights or some shit. There are TONS of reasons you might want to moderate content, but should that make you liable for ALL of the content on your site? I think that's the crux of it.
You can have rules for your website. TOS will still exist, but the TOS has to be legal is all. The problem right now is twitter giving the appearance of being universal and non biased while in reality being a leftist safe space. If they make a rule saying its for leftist garbage only it would not be a problem.
SPAM bots
The above applies to this too.
On top of it, Yes you can ban them without becoming a publisher but it would require spam comments to be defined well.
We already have the CANSPAM act for emails and am sure SPAM comments can be added to that or a new rule made for it
The idea that this makes moderation impossible is a false narrative. It just flushes the commies out of the hole and come out in the open.
Hate to have to point this out, but if 230 goes down completely, it's not just social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Parler. EVERY message board will be liable for EVERY comment EVERY person makes on it. This includes, oh, I dunno.... thedonald.win. It's not feasible for companies to moderate EVERY post on the internet. Also, what he's saying here is exactly correct. The big tech companies will make some small adjustments and move on normally, because they have the staff to moderate that much content.
“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." - Without this, if you moderate content, you're a publisher and therefore liable for any and all text on your platform. I'm not suggesting we just leave this as is and move along, but I think it's dangerous to just rip it out and hope for the best.
Yes, my point is there's no magic way to just remove all illegal content. You need staff to manually review every single post that goes up, which is nearly impossible for most sites. This is why 230 exists in the first place.
They mispoke, it has to be removed in a specified time frame after the illegal content is reported; not after someone posts it.
Just like if someone was running through a back ally, tossed something illegal in someone's yard, and then days later reported finding it. That person wasn't hiding the item or their knowledge of the item; they just hadn't found it yet and thats not going to be held against the yard owner.
edit: even saying reported is incorrect, its when its discovered. If you were going through and found something obviously illegal you would be required to report it just like anything else illegal; you couldn't find it and then just be like, "Ah well no one has reported it yet not my problem!"
In all honesty, I wouldn't mind seeing all of these companies and services destroyed. It's fucking toxic as all hell.
We need to establish law that frames our access to social communications (like this site or Parler) as a personal decision and renders us unable to claim any liability for content other than against the actual creator of it and only if it breaks a law, in which case you would just report it the same way you would call the cops if your neighbor was running around with a gun screaming he is going to shoot people. We need to stop giving a shit about peoples feelings. We can't legislate the feelings or words of individuals, only the actions and only if they pose a material threat to the well being of others. Anything more is not an acceptably free society, period.
Why is it that none of these supposedly intelligent people understand that when Trump takes a hard position like this, it's his starting position of negotiation?
It just seems so obvious to me that Trump wants to reform section 230 and is starting the conversation on his terms.
Exactly, this is classic Trump negotiation. He knows saying something like this puts tech companies on their heels, so the deal can be struck more in his favor. What's crazy to me is how continuously effective the move is.
If you remove 230 entirely, you actually go counter to liberty. You basically kill platforms that would support thing I'm sure youd support like, Project Veritas exposing CNN.
The Big Tech companies actually want 230 gone if it were to go that way. Thet already have the power to censor and if you remove 230, you basically kill any chance of a competitor challenging them and helping to keep the market honest.
230 may need amending but more than that, 230's legal definitions need to be enforced. As Ted Cruz implied, those that can choose to selectively censor and promote selective material are no longer what they say they are - they become Publishers and Publishers do not gain protections under 230.
So just like Linda Lee Tarver said in today's MI hearings, you don't to change add or remove laws. You just need to properly enforce the ones you already have.
I agree with this. Section 230 is meant to protect neutral services, like email providers, from being liable for what's said. Section 230 protection should be for neutral platforms ONLY. And ANY platform that engages in shadowbanning, selective censorship, fact checking, editorialization of content (through markers), etc should be denied 230 protection.
No reform is needed. Stop taking this Tim pool approach. If we get rid of 230 we could sue them for censoring our banning from a platform. They will fight they have become a publisher, it’sa win win
Phone companies have been labeled as platforms for decades longer than 230 has been around. A companies actions and their function as a company dictate what they do/are which would be equivocally defined in many courtrooms as long as they backtrack and lie about what they do or don’t do.
Edit section 230 has just protected social media companies from much needed legal action. Reforming it just allows them to have a say in how it would be reformed.
This isn’t true, though, is it? I thought the whole thing was they are only exempt if they don’t curate. That’s just needs to be tightened up. Completely free for users to publish
OR you get screwed. Not both
If you have a system and you sell ads, and your product is your users, you are a publisher (this could be the definition of a paper, magazine, or news station)! This is because you are naturally incentivized to curate content for the purpose of attracting a particular user base for particular ad buys!
If you want to be a platform and have legal protections, you can show ads, but you can’t sell ads!
They at a minimum need to make some qualification to allow legal recourse!
No, make it so they must openly choose to be a publisher (responsible for and will moderate content) or a platform (no moderation.) Platforms are immune; but require some level of transparency to the users.
Gotta find a better solution. Perhaps rework it so a site caught editorializing (including by way of bullshit fake fact checks and arbitrarily banning one side or group over another) can have those protections stripped by lawsuit, perhaps as a preliminary to any libel suit?
We are trying to save the country. Fuck social media. We already dont have free speech on the internet. The President cant even fucking defend himself.
What they should do is not to eliminate 230 entirely but to essentially say you have no liability unless you censor free speech. They could allow defamation with no liability, but they couldn't censor free speech.
It could still get interesting. If you had a Christian forum, could you censor atheists? If you had a forum on politics, could you censor someone for being a jerk? Do you want to open your Twitter feed that's been flooded with gay porn? These are some issues that we've used to draw the line on what free speech means. Do we really want free anonymous speech, if not, how would you define speech that will ever be acceptable?
No. Fuck all social media brainwashing bullshit. It's a blight on society.
Fuck it.
This. Social Media was a mistake. Especially with how it's influenced the younger generation. The only thing I'm wondering is how is Trump gonna communicate with the people if Twitter shuts down?
Yeah, is msm any better.
If Parler acts as a platform only, not a content screener/editor, than the content creator will be liable, not Parker for hosting.
Right. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding something I'm kind of shocked that Parler doesn't understand this.
I remember hearing two cases involving platforms being sued for comments made by users. The one platform that got in trouble was the one that attempted to moderate. The other, since no attempts to moderate were made, was not held responsible because clearly they were not acting as editors.
I wish I could remember the source. I think maybe I heard it on the Viva/Barnes youtube channel?
What’s the problem with “shooting social media in the head” again?
You’re posting on social media. Is there some part of that you don’t understand?
Excellent point. I forgot because I wasn’t being censored. Going to have to call it something different then?
Then prepare to be flooded with all sorts of disgusting content. From ultra profane to pornography, they'll shut us down by making our forums offensive to us. You can't do any moderating without becoming a publisher without 230.
230 doesn't need to be removed it needs to be remedied. It needs to specify what content can be removed.
This smells like concern trolling. Pre-section 230, pre-social media internet was just fine. We've already been there. Section 230 has only made the internet a comfortable place for snowflakes and SJWs. If 230 got removed, at worst case, the chan types would crap-post for a few days until they got bored, then life would go on without the snowflakes.
Do you think life would get worse if Amazon, Walmart and soulless big box store monopolies got shut down (over a 2 year period to allow the economy to adjust)?Believe it or not, there was a time when regular people ran small businesses for whatever anyone needed, and every town in America was distinctly different from the next one.
Section 230 predates social media. Section 230 came a long in the nineties if I remember right.
Nothing is offensive to me
HOW TO REIN IN THE TECHNOCRAT MEDIA COMPLEX:
Attack tech market monopolies using antitrust laws to break up vertical markets and media consolidation.
Fix patent law to eliminate various types of competition-stifling abuse
Scale back copyright monopoly to its original 20-year term.
Enforce in-kind donations election laws on large commercial social media platforms who police content.
Ban federal subsidies, tax incentives, and contracts from corporations with ownership of platforms that behave against the principle of free speech.
Drastically reduce H1b visas
Recognize the inherent stewardship responsibilities of corporate entities engaged in computation using private data, including creating liabilities upon institutions that collect, retain, or sell data beyond that which is directly necessary to run their service.
Recognize personal tracked data as an owned asset belonging to individuals, and require those that profit from voluntarily tracked data to share generated profits with the persons who opt in to sharing.
Use infrastructure already in place for spying on citizens to instead provide a ‘public option’ for hosting and bandwith option, so everyone can publish.
Adapt laws that require businesses to share data with government institutions to require the same sharing for individuals to give people the opportunity to ‘exploit’ their own collected data.
Incentivize ’small-scale’ startups and services
This, this right here is a good list.
I bet this would require civil war
Your terms are acceptable.
I suspect there will be substantial court law emerging if 230 is repealed. Like the lawsuit filed would need to prove it was done in bad faith as opposed to just keeping communities true to their purpose in order to have a successful lawsuit.
You're correct but I'm thinking the Parler exec is kvetching over the amount of harassment lawsuits they would have to handle as a result of 230 protections being stripped.
Moderating is what causes trouble and moderating isn't well defined.
Tldr, Parler exec is lying through his teeth and is out to protect his bottom-line.
"Oh no my job would harder." Is the dumbest shit..
No one should be immune from Liability...unless they did nothing wrong.
That's kind of the point. If 230 is completely revoked, then even if they don't moderate, people are still going to treat Parler as a publisher and take them to court over every little thing someone else says on their platform. Particularly if the "offenders" can stay anonymous. People will libel themselves using sockpuppets just to sue Parler and run them off the internet. Meanwhile, legit complaints aimed at Twitter and FB will never get anywhere in court because of their deeper pockets and any corrupted officials along the way.
What needs to be done is 230 needs to be enforced correctly. "In good faith" is in no way representative of the way they do things at Twitter or FB, yet it is part of the language of the protections, so those companies need to be slapped down when they violate that, and incentivized to moderate in an even-handed way, if at all.
Mass produce shortwave radios, and set up a MAGA station.
Also get everyone on CB radio again. You can use SSTV for pictures.
We already mass produce shortwave radios. I’ve had one for decades. I’m not hearing a lot of maga stations out there.
Emergency broadcast system with Trump Talks aka fireside chats comin in hot from the Oval Office.
Presidential alerts
and if we allow "free speech," how will Trump reach America through Twitter when it becomes flooded with porn?
You dont HAVE to follow the porn accounts
That wasn’t the point. I’ve been a part of online discussions since USENET. The struggle between free speech and censorship has been blowing up online communities for 30 years. There are no bright lines for anonymous free speech we can all live with. If you let them be sued, the platforms will die, if we allow the legal term free speech, we’re going to have an entirely different audience, probably a lot smaller, more splintered, and with All our voices, having much smaller reach. I don’t know what the solution is.
Pretty sure there are already decency laws in place that restrict what type of content is allowed to be viewed by minors. You should always be able to moderate illegal content from your site, and if you allow minors, then you should have to keep it porn free
💯
Yes please ban instagram it's making all the girls whores.
Says the guy who is named monkey_scrotum_fever?
That's how bad things are pede.
Just alter 1A and add in freedom of speech on the internet.
You know you’re posting on social media right?
YES
Even God flooded the entire Earth when things got out of hand. It's time for a purge.
Before social media *
Yes, anyone saying "life was better before the internet" sounds like a grandparent harping on about "back in my day". The internet creates issues, yes, but if you can't navigate them, you're weak. Yes, it is arguable that relying on it too much is dangerous, but that's arguable of a lot of things. Given all the gaslighting of the current MSM, and the TDS of some people I know both old and young who don't browse the internet very much, I'm wondering just how fucked we'd be without the internet.
Sure, the US won its independence, but are we forgetting the dozen examples we have of communism/socialism spreading without the internet?
I am only 28 y/o but even when I was in high school internet wasn’t rampant and life was indeed better.
Im 38, and I spent most of my time on IRC when I was in highschool. The only time I wasn't was when I was at parties organized on IRC
Loved IRC. Used mIRC literally all the time. Better than the stupid AOL chatrooms lol
Aka: The Ted Pill.
Uncle Ted did nothing wrong.
Without the internet i never would have been redpilled as many others
Yes it would.
And big tech would survive because they have the resources to actually moderate as a publisher. THIS IS NOT THE WAY.
230 isn't being enforced, is the problem. According to what already exists on the books, Reddit, Twitter et al are flagrantly flouting the law.
Yeah that is an issue with government. The swamp needs to be drained.
230 isn't being enforced because the enforcers are being paid not to
prob not
proper moderation will be enough
you might have to fend off some frivolous suits here and there but if youre moderating the content posted and removing it the problem is gone
facebook and twitter automate it, sure, but they have way more being posted
Depends, is this site hosted in the usa?
You get 230 protection if you are a platform. You do not if you are a publisher. Facebook twitter etc have turned into publishers. Parler doesnt have to follow suit.
That's what my thoughts were. That it is what they are trying to become. Have heard Parler is already more strict than Twitter which I'm not a huge fan of. Goes against 1st Amendment as a platform. So they want to be a publisher but with a platform's protections just like Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Yea Parler is not a "free speech" platform like they claim.
im suspicious of parler because of how many con$ervatives embraced it so quickly
Yes. They censor anything they deem to conflict with FEC - the same that network tv has (cursing nudity etc)
That is what publishers do.
A platform, per law, is only obligated to deal with crime.
The way you stay a platform - a pipe of communication - is you allow users to freely assemble, giving them tools see the things they want, hide the things they don’t.
Reddit could have been this, but they have their super admins that top the scales.
So the solution here is not to leave a hole by removing 230, but replace or change it so that the definition of a platform is clearly defined and that in order to sue one only must prove that non-user/non-crime censorship occurred and a liability happened.
The amount of libel, slander and defamation that could be litigated would be huge. Find one picture that goes hyper-meme would be millions of dollars for companies that choose to not be a platform.
yeah if they're not trying to censor people then why would this be a problem for them?
230 was passed in 1996 for protection for ISPs. Verizon of course cannot be accountable for the language in bits of info passing through fiber.
This was years before platforms existed. They are claiming safe harbor that was never intended and if it ever got to scotus, they would be smacked down.
Either way, via order or ruling, it needs to be removed from all platforms, yesterday.
Exactly. If they stay a neutral platform and do not censor content then they aren’t liable. Ignore him.
I think that's what Parler is saying. Keep 230, but just interpret and apply it properly. If you censor any legal speech that you don't like, that makes you a publisher, and you lose your platform protections. Twitter and Facebook and Google either stop censoring or get lawsuits up the wazoo.
Makes sense.
But if Trump wants to eliminate 230 entirely and burn down social media altogether? Fine by me. Agree that social media is cancer.
isn't thedonald.win social media?
Burn it all down
Fuck em all, without 230 we could sue their balls off for applying rules differently. Stop taking this approach popularized by Tim pool.. yes we would have to follow the law. YES WE COULD SUE THEM FOR CENSORING US AS LONG AS WE AREN’T VIOLATING THE LAW. Stop thinking 230 does any good
And FUCK tim pool
Why can't ALL AND ANY speech be free speech, that is until you directly threaten violence against someone else? Seems easy to fix to me.
There is no legal concept of "hate speech" in America. It's a foreign doctrine.
Agreed
Because a huge chunk of what websites censor is actually just spam. Once that issue is addressed, I'd agree.
230 is already un-Constitutional, as it violates the equal protection clause
Most everything these days is unconstitutional. The republic is hard to recognize anymore
Don't forget to cover your webcam.
Is that a link to Jeffrey Hand "Tubin"?
Death to social media. bring back chat rooms. A/S/L?
Bring back AOL. Bring back Facefuck. Bring back MySpace. Bring back OfficeSpace.
Just a number/ok/your place is probably best, dont want to be interrupted by mom bringing us tendies
nah fuck that. social media is ruining the fabric of society. it only effects "social" media really. Every other outlet has editorial standards, and so should social media. we would be better off it not existing at all, then existing in the form that it does.
TD.win also enjoys 230 protection.
This is incorrect. The liability only applies if they are publishers. A public forum is not responsible for slander committed by its users. 4 Chan and 8 kun are lawsuit free. If parlor wants to moderate than it will be liable.
Yeah, the question becomes where do you draw that line? If you pull a post, or ban a user cause they're being a douche (as we do here sometimes) then what, you're a publisher now?
Yup, only actual illegal speech can (or should) be censored.
Now, nothing stops any company from providing user tools that allows their users to filter or sort content to their liking. However, default settings should be wide open.
Or antifa posts on thedonald
Reddit now bans you for UPVOTING wrongthink. Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people have been banned or shadowbanned for wrongthink on all platforms. It's time for an overhaul.
You give other users the tools to fight it but no more safe spaces. It will push a lot of people out of social media which is also great. If a user is being a douche you learn to deal with it. Everywhere will be like the chans. It will exist.
I'm asking honestly, I don't actually know where the line is drawn though, because it's not just about safe spaces. Two specific examples - SPAM bots, can you ban them without becoming a publisher? Can you block posts unrelated to the topic for your site? IE, you create a gun forum, and people keep posting about trans rights or some shit. There are TONS of reasons you might want to moderate content, but should that make you liable for ALL of the content on your site? I think that's the crux of it.
You can have rules for your website. TOS will still exist, but the TOS has to be legal is all. The problem right now is twitter giving the appearance of being universal and non biased while in reality being a leftist safe space. If they make a rule saying its for leftist garbage only it would not be a problem.
On top of it, Yes you can ban them without becoming a publisher but it would require spam comments to be defined well.
We already have the CANSPAM act for emails and am sure SPAM comments can be added to that or a new rule made for it
The idea that this makes moderation impossible is a false narrative. It just flushes the commies out of the hole and come out in the open.
Super helpful comment, thanks for clearing that up! I never fully understood the nuance of the whole section 230 thing.
Bingo
Bye bye parler
I mean... if it takes out twitter facebook and google... Parler will have to take one for the team 🤣🤣🤣
It would take out this site as well, until 230 is rewritten with clear guidelines.
Oh no, social media disappears. Big fuckin deal.
We can do way better without this social media bullshit. A threat to National Security. Can't have it both ways.
good old forums like this. good ol' days.
Hate to have to point this out, but if 230 goes down completely, it's not just social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Parler. EVERY message board will be liable for EVERY comment EVERY person makes on it. This includes, oh, I dunno.... thedonald.win. It's not feasible for companies to moderate EVERY post on the internet. Also, what he's saying here is exactly correct. The big tech companies will make some small adjustments and move on normally, because they have the staff to moderate that much content.
message boards existed prior to 230
also if you just... moderate the platform its not a problem to exist without 230
will be easier for smaller sites to moderate the content
“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." - Without this, if you moderate content, you're a publisher and therefore liable for any and all text on your platform. I'm not suggesting we just leave this as is and move along, but I think it's dangerous to just rip it out and hope for the best.
no what im saying is, without 230, if ppl post illegal content youd be liable
you can remove illegal content, and therefore not break any laws
Yes, my point is there's no magic way to just remove all illegal content. You need staff to manually review every single post that goes up, which is nearly impossible for most sites. This is why 230 exists in the first place.
if you remove illegal content shortly after someone posts it, you arent hosting it
you have to leave it up for a relevant period of time before youre actually hosting bad content
How do you find it?
They mispoke, it has to be removed in a specified time frame after the illegal content is reported; not after someone posts it.
Just like if someone was running through a back ally, tossed something illegal in someone's yard, and then days later reported finding it. That person wasn't hiding the item or their knowledge of the item; they just hadn't found it yet and thats not going to be held against the yard owner.
edit: even saying reported is incorrect, its when its discovered. If you were going through and found something obviously illegal you would be required to report it just like anything else illegal; you couldn't find it and then just be like, "Ah well no one has reported it yet not my problem!"
Yeah, that's the thing... The big companies wouldn't flinch, the small companies will be crushed. And it extends WAY beyond just social media.
Big companies would crumble too.
It's unclear to me why big companies would crumble with their near infinite resources.
In all honesty, I wouldn't mind seeing all of these companies and services destroyed. It's fucking toxic as all hell.
We need to establish law that frames our access to social communications (like this site or Parler) as a personal decision and renders us unable to claim any liability for content other than against the actual creator of it and only if it breaks a law, in which case you would just report it the same way you would call the cops if your neighbor was running around with a gun screaming he is going to shoot people. We need to stop giving a shit about peoples feelings. We can't legislate the feelings or words of individuals, only the actions and only if they pose a material threat to the well being of others. Anything more is not an acceptably free society, period.
It was designed for startup companies. It's being abused and needs to be fixed
Why is it that none of these supposedly intelligent people understand that when Trump takes a hard position like this, it's his starting position of negotiation?
It just seems so obvious to me that Trump wants to reform section 230 and is starting the conversation on his terms.
Exactly, this is classic Trump negotiation. He knows saying something like this puts tech companies on their heels, so the deal can be struck more in his favor. What's crazy to me is how continuously effective the move is.
No more corporate welfare
Gab CEO has the same take. Big tech should be prosecuted for antitrust violations.
Incorrect.
Act like a platform, and you will be fine. Act like a publisher, and pretend that you are a platform, you will die.
Parler should stop requiring phone numbers. Until then, fuck ‘em too.
IM GOING TO SHOCK YOU PEDES
But he is right.
If you remove 230 entirely, you actually go counter to liberty. You basically kill platforms that would support thing I'm sure youd support like, Project Veritas exposing CNN.
The Big Tech companies actually want 230 gone if it were to go that way. Thet already have the power to censor and if you remove 230, you basically kill any chance of a competitor challenging them and helping to keep the market honest.
230 may need amending but more than that, 230's legal definitions need to be enforced. As Ted Cruz implied, those that can choose to selectively censor and promote selective material are no longer what they say they are - they become Publishers and Publishers do not gain protections under 230.
So just like Linda Lee Tarver said in today's MI hearings, you don't to change add or remove laws. You just need to properly enforce the ones you already have.
Social media turned a generation into brainless zombies. Parler can go too
Retard. Free speech is already dead on these anti-social media platforms. It's called censorship, and immunity to lawsuits.
That’s fair. The issue right now is FB and Twitters abuse of 239.
I agree with this. Section 230 is meant to protect neutral services, like email providers, from being liable for what's said. Section 230 protection should be for neutral platforms ONLY. And ANY platform that engages in shadowbanning, selective censorship, fact checking, editorialization of content (through markers), etc should be denied 230 protection.
No reform is needed. Stop taking this Tim pool approach. If we get rid of 230 we could sue them for censoring our banning from a platform. They will fight they have become a publisher, it’sa win win
Phone companies have been labeled as platforms for decades longer than 230 has been around. A companies actions and their function as a company dictate what they do/are which would be equivocally defined in many courtrooms as long as they backtrack and lie about what they do or don’t do.
Edit section 230 has just protected social media companies from much needed legal action. Reforming it just allows them to have a say in how it would be reformed.
The world was a better place before social media. I say let it all burn to the ground.
This site isn't social media...this is the NEW MEDIA!
This isn’t true, though, is it? I thought the whole thing was they are only exempt if they don’t curate. That’s just needs to be tightened up. Completely free for users to publish OR you get screwed. Not both
This isn’t that hard.
If you have a system and you sell ads, and your product is your users, you are a publisher (this could be the definition of a paper, magazine, or news station)! This is because you are naturally incentivized to curate content for the purpose of attracting a particular user base for particular ad buys!
If you want to be a platform and have legal protections, you can show ads, but you can’t sell ads!
They at a minimum need to make some qualification to allow legal recourse!
Change section 230 from allowing platforms to delete objectionable content to unlawful content.
No, make it so they must openly choose to be a publisher (responsible for and will moderate content) or a platform (no moderation.) Platforms are immune; but require some level of transparency to the users.
Remove it and replace it. Remove the part that lets them get away with censorship!
Good. Get rid of Myspace once and for all!
Folks, this means TD_W as well.
Gotta find a better solution. Perhaps rework it so a site caught editorializing (including by way of bullshit fake fact checks and arbitrarily banning one side or group over another) can have those protections stripped by lawsuit, perhaps as a preliminary to any libel suit?
Say goodbye to the deport button I guess?
230 should be admended to only apply to PRIVATE FORUMS. Not to public institutions which include Publicly trade companies
We are trying to save the country. Fuck social media. We already dont have free speech on the internet. The President cant even fucking defend himself.
MODS STICKY, its true, just Big Tech and censorious social media should loose their sec 230
Nah, burn it down.
Oh well.
Nah fuck Parler. Gab isn’t complaining and they’re 100x better
Not true. Gab is raising exactly the same concerns.
https://news.gab.com/2020/10/16/the-repeal-section-230-narrative-is-being-pushed-by-silicon-valley/
" but I WANTED to ruin society, too!"
look at symbol for shekel; look at symbol for parler.
Why would they have to moderate at all? The lack of moderation is the progenitor to free speech
What they should do is not to eliminate 230 entirely but to essentially say you have no liability unless you censor free speech. They could allow defamation with no liability, but they couldn't censor free speech.
It could still get interesting. If you had a Christian forum, could you censor atheists? If you had a forum on politics, could you censor someone for being a jerk? Do you want to open your Twitter feed that's been flooded with gay porn? These are some issues that we've used to draw the line on what free speech means. Do we really want free anonymous speech, if not, how would you define speech that will ever be acceptable?
No, fuck you. Let's go back to forums!
Reform it!
The issue right now is hiding behind "good faith moderation". That phrase is never defined so it can mean whatever anyone wants.