After the election, they need to finally change the laws. Let us sue these companies. They shouldn't have the protection from lawsuits since they are being biased. Never heard a peep about Trump's "taxes" when it was hacked, or the false "Steele Dossier" or any of the other scams we've seen from the left!
A constitutional amendment to unfettered free speech in digital frontiers lol.
Like the left says, "any internet space without moderation becomes a right-wing den of trolls". The left cannot survive without the suppression of speech.
The left thrive on silencing all people who question and call out their nonsense. They thrive for narrative control. Left wing discussion is only ever sustained through moderation and censorship. Without it the right dominates.
This. The left requires fancy gatekeepers and slick graphics to feel good about their terrible ideas. I'm willing to bet that there's a huge bit of the right that would be just as happy with antiquated usenet style text boards just so long as they're free speech platforms.
Not really. Before Obama, the internet was mostly anti-establishment. When Big Tech lined up to censor for the Left, the anti-establishment neutrals teamed up with the right wing.
Before Obama, the internet was mostly anti-establishment.
Nonsense. Before Obama, there was a large upswell of conservative voices organizing on sites like Free Republic, Drudge was a conservative back then, there were large groups like impeach.Clinton.Whitewater on Usenet. Even Huffington was conservative, before they got compromised. Most of it is a wasteland now, but trust me that you're way, way off base here. Most of the leading conservatives in the media, Hannity, Levin, Coulter, etc got most of their start ONLINE.
There's a lot of rose tinted glasses about the past online, especially by younger people. And a lot of pulling shit from asses, guessing or making things up to have a point.
To be frank, this place would not need controls like that if open debate was the established norm, but it's not. I would shed no tears over this "unintended consequence", personally.
I like this better, as stripping protections will probably endanger smaller tech upstarts and cement tech hegemony and push China forward with the way it protects its intellectual property while we demolish ours.
Here is a very simple fix. Common carrier status to ALL internet communication platforms. Twitter = your phone. Phone company can't hang up on you mid conversation. Twitter can't ban you for saying the wrong things.
A constitutional amendment to unfettered free speech in digital frontiers lol.
You do not need any NEW constitutional amendment in case of Twitter. Twitter operates from California and California constitution already has free speech protection vs. private companies. Section 2, article 1.
Just sue them. You do not need to win, even. A million private lawsuits will cause wonders on theirs bottom line, I guess.
If these big tech companies are stripped of their protections, can't we all come together and sue them as class action? Imagine if we sued reddit out of existence, we can show damages!
It's complicated. Their protections will only be stripped going forwards. They'll get a free pass for everything that happened in the past. I wouldn't hold my breath on them changing their behavior even without protections. Without section 230 they'll get even more draconian in their censorship. They'll simply keep playing the ToS boggle for years to come. The courts will be stuck playing whack-a-mole with that. Most of the courts are friendly to Big Tech, so expect no more than a slap on the wrist in most cases. Sadly, there's no silver bullet here. The best we can hope for is a death by a thousand cuts scenario.
You can actually say Eric CIAramella on YouTube comments now. So someone deliberately went in and re-allowed it. It used to automatically delete when you posted it.
You can sue them. The success of a suit is another matter but nothing stops you taking them to court.
If you looks closely 230 gives immunity for a company only when operating with in a certain capacity.
Lets say your ISP as a company is involved in more than one business. Lets say that it also has it's own news site. Lets say on that site it libels you.
You can still sue it because when it's running a news site that activity does not fall under the protections granted.
Otherwise every company would do just the minimum amount of technical business on the side that qualifies for legal immunity.
A lot of people get confused by this. Quite a lot of stuff twitter has done is acting in the capacity of a publisher and it makes no sense that would be protected.
The problem is people are assuming interpretation of the law rather than putting it to the test empirically. Someone with some bucks needs to sue in some of these cases and find out where the line is exactly.
I know for a fact that some of twitter's activities against Trump should not be immune under 230 because twitter themselves manually published things so if those are immune under 230 the law is broken. That would come out in a trial. The law is intended for passive mediums. When twitter is publishing over it's own network it's actually acting in the capacity of a publisher and 230 should not apply.
The law should pertain to the actual activity undertaken not the type of company or other activities they're involved in, only the activities pertinent to the case.
After the election, they need to finally change the laws. Let us sue these companies. They shouldn't have the protection from lawsuits since they are being biased. Never heard a peep about Trump's "taxes" when it was hacked, or the false "Steele Dossier" or any of the other scams we've seen from the left!
A constitutional amendment to unfettered free speech in digital frontiers lol.
Like the left says, "any internet space without moderation becomes a right-wing den of trolls". The left cannot survive without the suppression of speech.
Exactly!! The internet is naturally right wing!
The left thrive on silencing all people who question and call out their nonsense. They thrive for narrative control. Left wing discussion is only ever sustained through moderation and censorship. Without it the right dominates.
The right thrives in freedom.
And why many comment sections have disabled dislike counts. Disqus and youtube did this, because lefties get depressed when people dislike them.
All the local newspaper and news channel sites did the same thing around me. You no longer get a voice, unless it's accepted by the polit-bureau!
This. The left requires fancy gatekeepers and slick graphics to feel good about their terrible ideas. I'm willing to bet that there's a huge bit of the right that would be just as happy with antiquated usenet style text boards just so long as they're free speech platforms.
Not really. Before Obama, the internet was mostly anti-establishment. When Big Tech lined up to censor for the Left, the anti-establishment neutrals teamed up with the right wing.
Nonsense. Before Obama, there was a large upswell of conservative voices organizing on sites like Free Republic, Drudge was a conservative back then, there were large groups like impeach.Clinton.Whitewater on Usenet. Even Huffington was conservative, before they got compromised. Most of it is a wasteland now, but trust me that you're way, way off base here. Most of the leading conservatives in the media, Hannity, Levin, Coulter, etc got most of their start ONLINE.
There's a lot of rose tinted glasses about the past online, especially by younger people. And a lot of pulling shit from asses, guessing or making things up to have a point.
The truth is naturally right wing.
Could unintended consequences result in TD.W deport button being removed for hindering free speech in digital frontier?
Maybe not if it is a TOS agreement?
To be frank, this place would not need controls like that if open debate was the established norm, but it's not. I would shed no tears over this "unintended consequence", personally.
I like this better, as stripping protections will probably endanger smaller tech upstarts and cement tech hegemony and push China forward with the way it protects its intellectual property while we demolish ours.
Here is a very simple fix. Common carrier status to ALL internet communication platforms. Twitter = your phone. Phone company can't hang up on you mid conversation. Twitter can't ban you for saying the wrong things.
wouldn't that make it illegal to prevent trolls from doing things like for example flooding any forum online with porn.
Needs to be some caveat for size, like more than a thousand users - common carrier.
You do not need any NEW constitutional amendment in case of Twitter. Twitter operates from California and California constitution already has free speech protection vs. private companies. Section 2, article 1.
Just sue them. You do not need to win, even. A million private lawsuits will cause wonders on theirs bottom line, I guess.
As long as it doesn't lead to "ChildPornhub" or some shit like that.
Child porn doesn't fall under free speech offline, so it's probably not going to be a problem in any free speech clause that is explicitly online.
Would that mean leftists would be able to spam the Donald? Or do you mean frontiers for only platforms?
If these big tech companies are stripped of their protections, can't we all come together and sue them as class action? Imagine if we sued reddit out of existence, we can show damages!
Should get the most damages if you had premium like I did. I was apparently paying them to attack my 1st Amendment rights.
It's complicated. Their protections will only be stripped going forwards. They'll get a free pass for everything that happened in the past. I wouldn't hold my breath on them changing their behavior even without protections. Without section 230 they'll get even more draconian in their censorship. They'll simply keep playing the ToS boggle for years to come. The courts will be stuck playing whack-a-mole with that. Most of the courts are friendly to Big Tech, so expect no more than a slap on the wrist in most cases. Sadly, there's no silver bullet here. The best we can hope for is a death by a thousand cuts scenario.
You can actually say Eric CIAramella on YouTube comments now. So someone deliberately went in and re-allowed it. It used to automatically delete when you posted it.
Say my name, bitch.
You can sue them. The success of a suit is another matter but nothing stops you taking them to court.
If you looks closely 230 gives immunity for a company only when operating with in a certain capacity.
Lets say your ISP as a company is involved in more than one business. Lets say that it also has it's own news site. Lets say on that site it libels you.
You can still sue it because when it's running a news site that activity does not fall under the protections granted.
Otherwise every company would do just the minimum amount of technical business on the side that qualifies for legal immunity.
A lot of people get confused by this. Quite a lot of stuff twitter has done is acting in the capacity of a publisher and it makes no sense that would be protected.
The problem is people are assuming interpretation of the law rather than putting it to the test empirically. Someone with some bucks needs to sue in some of these cases and find out where the line is exactly.
I know for a fact that some of twitter's activities against Trump should not be immune under 230 because twitter themselves manually published things so if those are immune under 230 the law is broken. That would come out in a trial. The law is intended for passive mediums. When twitter is publishing over it's own network it's actually acting in the capacity of a publisher and 230 should not apply.
The law should pertain to the actual activity undertaken not the type of company or other activities they're involved in, only the activities pertinent to the case.
The law is useless if you don't test it.
This is the ticket.
They should do it before the election.