My understanding is that the social media giants are hiding behind 230 protections to do what they're already doing, which is to censor the right. If they are denied that protection, it'll open them up to the potential of regulation.
Under regulation, they can no longer act autonomously in their their sly censorship. They'll have to either censor both sides equally, or stop the guerrilla censorship entirely.
In a self-regulating world, a simple reminder would suffice, but nooo. These are leftists we're dealing with; if they had self-control, they wouldn't be leftists. They've been dragged up to capitol hill numerous times and they can't take a hint.
Our choices are to keep reminding them with sternly-worded admonishments and arch looks of disapproval till they've destroyed the country, or battle them with regulatory restrictions till they've gone bankrupt. I'd rather kill them than us.
The point is that they aren't supposed to be censoring anyone, yet they are still heavily censoring. So, they are violating 230. Well, if they are violating 230, they why have 230?
we just need to remove their ability to "police thought" on their platforms and only block what they can prove is actually illegal. They should not under any circumstances be able to censor, post disclaimers to, or other wise "fact-check" any post on their platform. "Muh private company" be damned. It's the VIEWER's responsibility to decide what to believe, not the platform's place to label what it wants you to believe is correct
It also means that they'll be open to a flood of lawsuits for various reasons. They'll go broke quick/stock will tank if they have to spend every waking moment in court.
If they censor more aggressively and openly dont you think more normies would wake up? They already censor us so what difference would this make? It would result in more legitimate social media similar to this website.
my opinion: put in a nasty/deadly/threatening tweet, phone message, tic tck thing, or whatever: IMMEDIATE reveal of identity, IMMEDIATE place in confinement until resolved. Don't care who you are; hiding behind "media" and "electronics" = bad. expand law to INCLUDE 14 and up. no questions, no waiting around. if an 'innocent ' is caught up, a few day in confinement is not the end of the world waiting for answer
I know trump isn’t stupid, but we’ve got law makers that I don’t think fully understand the implications of how these regulations can affect the internet, we need to ensure the internet remains a bastion of free speech, repealing section 230 is a good start but I worry that approaching this strictly from a point of deregulation opening the doors to regulation by litigation doesn’t quite address the actual issue.
My understanding is that the social media giants are hiding behind 230 protections to do what they're already doing, which is to censor the right. If they are denied that protection, it'll open them up to the potential of regulation.
Under regulation, they can no longer act autonomously in their their sly censorship. They'll have to either censor both sides equally, or stop the guerrilla censorship entirely.
In a self-regulating world, a simple reminder would suffice, but nooo. These are leftists we're dealing with; if they had self-control, they wouldn't be leftists. They've been dragged up to capitol hill numerous times and they can't take a hint.
Our choices are to keep reminding them with sternly-worded admonishments and arch looks of disapproval till they've destroyed the country, or battle them with regulatory restrictions till they've gone bankrupt. I'd rather kill them than us.
The point is that they aren't supposed to be censoring anyone, yet they are still heavily censoring. So, they are violating 230. Well, if they are violating 230, they why have 230?
yes deleting 230 is not the way to go. only the tech GIANTS would survive
Yeah it seems to me like Trump is getting played on this one
I don't know who is paying for TDW, but they might not like suddenly being legally liable for shit that gets posted.
“Gallows or nothing” lol
Deleting section 230 kills Parler and Gab. Google, Facebook and Twitter have infinitely deep pockets and lawyers on retainer.
we just need to remove their ability to "police thought" on their platforms and only block what they can prove is actually illegal. They should not under any circumstances be able to censor, post disclaimers to, or other wise "fact-check" any post on their platform. "Muh private company" be damned. It's the VIEWER's responsibility to decide what to believe, not the platform's place to label what it wants you to believe is correct
It also means that they'll be open to a flood of lawsuits for various reasons. They'll go broke quick/stock will tank if they have to spend every waking moment in court.
If they censor more aggressively and openly dont you think more normies would wake up? They already censor us so what difference would this make? It would result in more legitimate social media similar to this website.
Or they could just not censor at all and not have to worry about liability
All we need to do is properly define editor vs. publisher. Perhaps terminate 230 and add something new.
my opinion: put in a nasty/deadly/threatening tweet, phone message, tic tck thing, or whatever: IMMEDIATE reveal of identity, IMMEDIATE place in confinement until resolved. Don't care who you are; hiding behind "media" and "electronics" = bad. expand law to INCLUDE 14 and up. no questions, no waiting around. if an 'innocent ' is caught up, a few day in confinement is not the end of the world waiting for answer
This would just infringe on freedom of speech and give carte blanch authority to lock anyone up.
yeah I know :) but damn i dislike those people. I want a pesticide available for general usage
Rescinding 230 is a start, not necessarily the end. Social Media giants have become too powerful. Trump is not stupid.
I know trump isn’t stupid, but we’ve got law makers that I don’t think fully understand the implications of how these regulations can affect the internet, we need to ensure the internet remains a bastion of free speech, repealing section 230 is a good start but I worry that approaching this strictly from a point of deregulation opening the doors to regulation by litigation doesn’t quite address the actual issue.