But now I'm a soldier thrown into some Hitler remake god it's awful
I have to say, that I like Donald Trump and have been a big supporter, but with his actions (function insertText() {talkingpoint056}) have really made me question supporting him.
Can you elaborate on what it actually does ?
The relevant section of the law is:
XXXXXXXXXX
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
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.
(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
230(c)(1) gives online platforms special provisions that they can't be treated as a content provider even if they moderate their content (including censorship). The executive order "clarifies" that to state that those protections are lost if any moderation is: (1) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or (2) the result of inadequate notice, the product of unreasoned explanation, or having been undertaking without a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
For anyone curious, Secion 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) has a specific exemption to give internet "platforms" special protections to allow them to "moderate" "offensive" material.
The method that Trump could utilize to "label them as a publisher" would be by using an EO to put certain restrictions on when the "Good Samaritan" Section 230(c) does/does not apply. In otherwords, it could say something to the effect of if a company/person engages in political censorship, then Section 230(c) of CDA does not apply.
This would make Twitter or any of those other social media companies engaging in political censorship liable for all content posted by any of their users. In otherwords, if someone goes and posts something illegal, they're criminally liable. If someone goes and posts copyright material, they copyright owner can sue twitter (rather than the person who posted it).
Here is the relevant law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
For anyone curious, the method that Trump could utilize to "label them as a publisher" would be by using an EO to put certain restrictions on when the "Good Samaritan" Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). In otherwords, if a company/person engages in political censorship, then Section 230(c) of CDA does not apply.
Raise taxes on everyone so that we can give all illegals medical insurance. And open the borders so they can come in to utilize that benefit. It's the noble thing to do.
...except that is the logical path. He can issue an executive order that puts certain qualifying criteria on "good samaritan" Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act. For example, social media can't engage in political censorship and if they do, then 230(c)(1) and (2) do not apply.
While there will probably be more fidelity than my 5 second write-up, that's the legal basis/mechanism for exactly what I posted up above.
He can classify them as a "publisher" (which they should be) instead of a "platform". Being a "publisher" makes them liable for any content posted. So if some user goes and posts something illegal, Twitter is criminally liable. If someone goes and posts copyrighted material, the copyright owner can sue twitter. Etc...
"Platforms" normally have protection from this if they aren't actively censoring non-illegal activity. Only Publishers are free to take down whatever content they want. Of course, they've deviated from this and are acting like a publisher with the protections afforded to them as a platform. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Edit: For any caring about legal details, an EO that makes the "Good Samaritan" Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act not apply when censoring political speech, would accomplish this.
Fact check: Trump never follows up on any of his promises. Therefore Twitter is not shitting its pants right now.
Guys guys... this would never happen in the main election. It's not like there is a single person in America that would ever ever cheat to try to get Trump out of office. Twitter fact checked this and told me that there is no chance this would ever happen.
Harambe didn't kill himself.
Must have had dirt on Clinton.
Executive order classifying them as a Publisher (and therefore liable for all content and open to lawsuits). If they want to act as a Publisher then they should have the consequences
It's likely already been there. All the update probably did was make it unhidden because they're trying to normalize it.
"HCQ safety is unknown (despite it being used for 60+ years)! What we need instead is an untested vaccine that is made mandatory for everyone."
Hillary can barely function.
And in the past that's stopped the democrats?
I wish Babylon Bee did satire. They'd be really good at it.
This is a fake story. He never called Klobuchar a fat pig, slob, disgusting animal, or snow woman. That was only Rosie O'Donnell.
He just got it through book deals, CNN payoffs, and go-fund-me (which are likely only from either useful idiots and payoffs)
Don't worry it uses end-to-end-encryption, which also happens to be decrypted in the middle by Zoom, but "don't worry they don't look at that data they pinky swear".
"The company has since admitted that this is not the case, and now uses the word "encrypted" instead of "end-to-end encrypted" when meetings have the setting enabled." https://www.wired.com/story/zoom-security-encryption/
So you're saying he has a 100% chance of being president and 27% chance that he's also the VP and takes over for himself when he steps down?
I hope they permanently delay Ratcliffe's nomination, because Grenell is doing an amazing job.
Thank you for that.
I'm curious, what is USA today doing with their numbers to skew it completely differently? They are reporting red states take in, on a per capita basis, much more than blue states. Is it due to inclusion of things like social security (which isn't a fair measure when looking at spending)? Or something else? Would like to understand why these two lists are completely opposite of one another.
Hi. My name is Joe Biden. I'm running for Director_of_National_Bird_Watching and I need support from the great state of Puerto_Rico . In my 90 years in office, I cornpopped many hairy_legs . Hey obese, if you don't like it, you are a Egyptian_Hairless_Cat faced DNC_mascot soldier and you should vote for the other guy. We should take it outside and have a Cheese_Rolling contest. Now vote for me, Joe 12#[email protected]. You know the 1982_Film_The_Thing.
I feel dumb.
When internet first started, online forum board hosts and the like were scared of being liable for content that their own users posted. They wanted the ability to allow for free speech, but were scared of the liability. If they took down information (e.g. copyright material that someone else posted) they would be considered a "publisher" and then anyone could sue them. If they left it up, then people could sue them for not taking it down.
In order to strike a happy medium, a law was passed saying they could moderate and take down unlawful or malicious content ("material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable"). That passage has now been stretched to basically say, they can take down whatever they want and be free of all liability.
The EO reigns the original law back to the original intent. They can take down unlawful material, for example, and not be sued. However, if they take down content for political reasons, then they lose their special status and can be sued for any content on their website.