Only reason I hit the deport button on the nazi propaganda posted here in the early morning hours is because they're probably just shitlibs trying to give this glorious site a bad rep.
Since when is the Ku Klux Klan an organization that promotes the civil rights of African Americans? And yet somehow, the party which was exclusively responsible for the KKK, the dem party, is touted by the msm as champions of African Americans? Funnier still, the party formed to end slavery is tagged as their oppressors! Welcome to Clown World!
All part of the propaganda we're fed as kids. People don't know who/what the Nazis were, and somehow socialism become a libertarian position by repeating the lie enough
The real irony being that if they didn't constantly censor everyone they'd actually have more control, not less. Their egos are too fragile for their own good.
First, they're great at mobilizing and being able to solidify their shit without constantly worrying about the words of their opponents and fighting harder to keep them banned than working on the in party issues
Secondly, they may have been able to avoid this radical leftward lurch with the bigger exposure to contrary opinions. This would have probably kept the Democratic party reasonably under the radar to people who, like myself, couldn't see them for what they are until I woke up.
"Rather I have a loud ass in the field than a quiet snake in the grass."
Basically, if the danger is announced, you're at the plate to decide what to do with it. The best you can often do when it's silently too close is pray you're not the next to get bit.
I don't think they need to repeal 230. I think someone needs to sue and claim that they've given up their immunity because they're now acting like a publisher.
I can see your point, but rather than have someone spend the money and years of court I would like to see the government do its jobs and just remove protections from platforms that have already violated the rule
The way 230 is written, social media platforms are not liable for any content regardless of whether they exercise editorial control or not - so suing them would end with a dismissal as 230 is a legislated shield from liability. That's why it needs to be repealed and replaced.
Ironic that this guy's name is Godwin, and Godwin's Law states that, "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." It only took that guy one comment!
I think that a company should have the right to decide what their platform is. Then lay it all out in the terms and conditions, and let conversations happen within the parameters that they've set.
Take TDW, for instance. We're a right-wing rally in support of President Trump. That's clearly stated. So the admins have the right to keep the conversation focused there and to deport shills and disruptors.
But FB, YT, and the twit want it both ways. They want to be all-encompassing platforms that monopolize the entirety of the internet while still controlling the conversations. Then they write their rules as vague as possible so they can play with the rules as much as they want.
Doing bullshit like NOT TELLING ANYONE what their rules really are (I'm looking at you, YT) is where we get the dirty dealings.
Thats a good point but 230 already allows for platforms to avoid liability without moderation. It also allows for a fair amount of moderation in the case that laws are being broken but even without that caveat FB and others wouldn't be held accountable.
Also TDW is a forum which is slightly different from a platform.
I'm Jewish. And that's fine.
Yeah. Put the Nazi on. I'll argue with him. Or ignore him.
But if you censor him today, you'll censor me tomorrow.
Amen
Only reason I hit the deport button on the nazi propaganda posted here in the early morning hours is because they're probably just shitlibs trying to give this glorious site a bad rep.
Nazi's are fucking weaksauce.
Nazis are are racist leftards. Why do people associate them with "the right?" Since when are right-wingers socialists?
Because the media tells them to. It's the only reason they think anything.
boy, they sure have done everything they can to associate nazism and fascism with conservatism.
Since when is the Ku Klux Klan an organization that promotes the civil rights of African Americans? And yet somehow, the party which was exclusively responsible for the KKK, the dem party, is touted by the msm as champions of African Americans? Funnier still, the party formed to end slavery is tagged as their oppressors! Welcome to Clown World!
But muh party switch!
All part of the propaganda we're fed as kids. People don't know who/what the Nazis were, and somehow socialism become a libertarian position by repeating the lie enough
Yeah, they probably are.
You're a real mensch.
FACT
Yes, if they want the protection of 230. Otherwise, No free speech = no legal protection.
100% correct
Kapish!
Rockwell was more levelheaded than even the "moderate" left of today. Civility is an endangered species.
As is any common sense in the left wing. It genuinely baffles me that the concept of a neutral platform is the hardest thing for them to conceptualize
The real irony being that if they didn't constantly censor everyone they'd actually have more control, not less. Their egos are too fragile for their own good.
Thats actually a good point on 2 levels.
First, they're great at mobilizing and being able to solidify their shit without constantly worrying about the words of their opponents and fighting harder to keep them banned than working on the in party issues
Secondly, they may have been able to avoid this radical leftward lurch with the bigger exposure to contrary opinions. This would have probably kept the Democratic party reasonably under the radar to people who, like myself, couldn't see them for what they are until I woke up.
As my grandfather once said;
"Rather I have a loud ass in the field than a quiet snake in the grass."
Basically, if the danger is announced, you're at the plate to decide what to do with it. The best you can often do when it's silently too close is pray you're not the next to get bit.
Damn shame we have come to that point
I don't think they need to repeal 230. I think someone needs to sue and claim that they've given up their immunity because they're now acting like a publisher.
I can see your point, but rather than have someone spend the money and years of court I would like to see the government do its jobs and just remove protections from platforms that have already violated the rule
The way 230 is written, social media platforms are not liable for any content regardless of whether they exercise editorial control or not - so suing them would end with a dismissal as 230 is a legislated shield from liability. That's why it needs to be repealed and replaced.
It's "capisce." I bet this guy's not even Italian!
"Are you trying to say capisce? Well don't do it because It hurts my ears when you do it."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYcAwfSL7_M
Lol maybe its Aramaic
Ironic that this guy's name is Godwin, and Godwin's Law states that, "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." It only took that guy one comment!
Lol I didnt even know that
Buh...buh...buh... Muh nazis!!!!!
Roflmao best comment
I think that a company should have the right to decide what their platform is. Then lay it all out in the terms and conditions, and let conversations happen within the parameters that they've set.
Take TDW, for instance. We're a right-wing rally in support of President Trump. That's clearly stated. So the admins have the right to keep the conversation focused there and to deport shills and disruptors.
But FB, YT, and the twit want it both ways. They want to be all-encompassing platforms that monopolize the entirety of the internet while still controlling the conversations. Then they write their rules as vague as possible so they can play with the rules as much as they want.
Doing bullshit like NOT TELLING ANYONE what their rules really are (I'm looking at you, YT) is where we get the dirty dealings.
Thats a good point but 230 already allows for platforms to avoid liability without moderation. It also allows for a fair amount of moderation in the case that laws are being broken but even without that caveat FB and others wouldn't be held accountable.
Also TDW is a forum which is slightly different from a platform.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-for-you-between-a-forum-a-community-platform-and-a-social-network
Great link. I appreciate that one.
No problem always happy to have concersations
HURR DURR SO THEY SHOILD JUST BE NEITRAL???!!?!?
Fucking libshits
Victor Nukewin!
Das it mane
"Should a Jewish owned SM company be required to host nazi propaganda?"
"Should a Christian baker be forced to bake gay-themed wedding cakes?"
You're conflating and your premise in incorrect.
SMCs are, by established law, platforms for speech. Private businesses, such as the one you describe, are not.
Platforms, by denying service, restrict the freedom of speech as they are the public sphere
Private businesses do not, by denying service, restrict the ability for free expression in the public sphere as they are privately owned.
Thanks, Professor.
You sound upset at being wrong
Now wax my balls, BIGOT!
REEEEEEEEEEEE