I don't think holding everyone to a standard of not slandering, not libeling, and not lieing is a bad thing. It would force the fake to be labeled fake or sarcastic or opinion much more clearly.
Look at the debate surrounding the covid vaccine right now. There are people raising genuine concerns, but (at this point) the mass vaccine isn't out yet and there's no proof of harm.
The speculation goes against the official narrative. And the courts see the official narrative as truth.
Would we be able to continue to voice our concerns? Would we be able to push back on the election fraud? Hell, remember in the beginning we were alerted to the possibility of election fraud by the statistical data alone. People freaked the hell out and that's what's pushing the investigations.
We do need speech protected. And we need BAD speech protected.
If the platforms are held liable for everything that comes out of our mouths, they'll have to censor the hell out of us to protect themselves.
I don't think that S230 repeal is the answer. I think that holding the platforms to the standards laid out in S230 is. They can only censor speech that's rude, filthy, pornographic, etc. If they go past that, they're acting like a publisher and then they're liable just like a publisher.
It strikes me as wired that everyone is worried about this. You can sue anyone for anything until the real world but that is not always happening. Judges are not retards.
Leaving 230 untouched is not an acceptable position, when free speech is being censored by multiple companies that have absolute control of the public space
If you have certain rules for your website, and they are applied fairly, there isn't an issue.
When you ban conservatives even though they haven't violated platform rules, and censor/delete content that doesn't violate existing US law (i.e. child porn, copyrighted content) or clearly stated rules on your website (i.e. it's ok to ban all porn, even legal porn, etc.), you have crossed the line over to publisher.
It might be a short term solution until 230 (or whatever its new name might be) will be amended to suite both.
Amended so platforms aren't liable for user content, but platforms are not able to editorialize content and censor free speech.
Everyone should watch the documentary on Netflix called "The Social Dilemma". It's a real eye opener about social media and its effects on our society. It's mostly interviews with people who developed and programmed the social media software - Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others. These are the people who started the whole thing, and most of them won't even allow their children to use social media until at least high school. They are very concerned with the unintended consequences of social media. And recently the social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook interfered with posting on their sites, thereby showing that they are not neutral in any sense. So, they are, in fact, publishing sites, not neutral internet sites protected by Section 230. Their effects on our society, and especially the recent election, is disastrous and they need to be held accountable for their actions.
Repealing section 230 will only open them to lawsuits, which given their monopoly status they don't care about. The only thing that scares them is a prison cell, or a free chopper ride!
Question.. Is he doing this as a trap to veto the NDAA? Would that accomplish the same/more? Is that the bigger play? I'm pretty ignorant on the ramifications but it would be a Trump esque move.
Much as I hate what's going on, is repealing 230 the answer?
this will open every forum/blog/etc to being shut-down?
would it not just be easier to make a detemination that Twatter/Cuntbook/etc are now to be classified as publishers?
I don't think holding everyone to a standard of not slandering, not libeling, and not lieing is a bad thing. It would force the fake to be labeled fake or sarcastic or opinion much more clearly.
He also needs to reinstate a ban on propaganda.
and you honestly think that#s what will happen?
Can you affored to defend any comment you make on here from some well funded libtard?
Just look how groups like the Military Religious Freedom Foundation terrorise all kind sof people/organisations...
As well funded as a libtard might be, they can't sue everyone. That's not how the process works.
and your sure about that?
they don;t have to sue everybody, doing a few is the deterant on free speach
Why are you assuming truth wouldn't prevail? Remember the Sandman.
and would that have happened without mega-bucks backing?
All that needs doing is a offical way to desinate outlets, and then classify Cuntbook at at publishers - job done.
the expression baby and bathwater springs to mind.
Look at the debate surrounding the covid vaccine right now. There are people raising genuine concerns, but (at this point) the mass vaccine isn't out yet and there's no proof of harm.
The speculation goes against the official narrative. And the courts see the official narrative as truth.
Would we be able to continue to voice our concerns? Would we be able to push back on the election fraud? Hell, remember in the beginning we were alerted to the possibility of election fraud by the statistical data alone. People freaked the hell out and that's what's pushing the investigations.
We do need speech protected. And we need BAD speech protected.
If the platforms are held liable for everything that comes out of our mouths, they'll have to censor the hell out of us to protect themselves.
I don't think that S230 repeal is the answer. I think that holding the platforms to the standards laid out in S230 is. They can only censor speech that's rude, filthy, pornographic, etc. If they go past that, they're acting like a publisher and then they're liable just like a publisher.
You don't get it, do you? We are rude already.
It strikes me as wired that everyone is worried about this. You can sue anyone for anything until the real world but that is not always happening. Judges are not retards.
Leaving 230 untouched is not an acceptable position, when free speech is being censored by multiple companies that have absolute control of the public space
why?
Only change needed is to desingate Cuntbook etc as publishers, job done.
Every social media should be designated as a publisher. Are you dense?
so, if they were, they would then be held responcible for every comment on their boards, nobody in their right mind will go with that.
take this place, you think the site owners would take the risk?
do you not understand?
there are only two options:
where you manage your site and edit/take down anyhing you think may be actonable
you don't edit the posts on your site except where there are clear legal violations.
the first is a publisher, the second is not.
Right. Orrrrrrr they could simply not block or ban people and avoid publishing characterizations. They brought this upon themselves
If you have certain rules for your website, and they are applied fairly, there isn't an issue.
When you ban conservatives even though they haven't violated platform rules, and censor/delete content that doesn't violate existing US law (i.e. child porn, copyrighted content) or clearly stated rules on your website (i.e. it's ok to ban all porn, even legal porn, etc.), you have crossed the line over to publisher.
It might be a short term solution until 230 (or whatever its new name might be) will be amended to suite both. Amended so platforms aren't liable for user content, but platforms are not able to editorialize content and censor free speech.
Yes, you are spot on.
Good if true
Sometimes you first need to break it down before you can build it up again.
Exactly!!! People afraid of ‘oh their just gonna sue everyone and it will be worse!’ Bullshit.
FBI and cia
Everyone should watch the documentary on Netflix called "The Social Dilemma". It's a real eye opener about social media and its effects on our society. It's mostly interviews with people who developed and programmed the social media software - Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others. These are the people who started the whole thing, and most of them won't even allow their children to use social media until at least high school. They are very concerned with the unintended consequences of social media. And recently the social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook interfered with posting on their sites, thereby showing that they are not neutral in any sense. So, they are, in fact, publishing sites, not neutral internet sites protected by Section 230. Their effects on our society, and especially the recent election, is disastrous and they need to be held accountable for their actions.
Can you imagine being FB + Shitter right now?!
LMAO
I wish I could be a fly on the wall in some of those meetings!
I don’t think the CIA..... I mean facebook/twitter...believe they are touchable.
DON'T REPEAL 230!REFORM IT!
I saw on Twitter. I don't support Faux
Why are we linking to faux?
Repealing section 230 will only open them to lawsuits, which given their monopoly status they don't care about. The only thing that scares them is a prison cell, or a free chopper ride!
I hope he burns the whole federal govt down
Why send traffic to fox? Share the archived link, man.
Question.. Is he doing this as a trap to veto the NDAA? Would that accomplish the same/more? Is that the bigger play? I'm pretty ignorant on the ramifications but it would be a Trump esque move.