Hitting back at corporate liberals

[DOTR]

Gohmert Introduces Bill That Removes Liability Protections for Social Media Companies That Use Algorithms to Hide, Promote, or Filter User Content

About time. The billionaire liberals who have a chokehold on the internet will see it differently when they are treated like any other curated forum.

View attachment 236134

How progressive of you! What ever happened to free market capitalism?!

Protecting Google and Facebook from lawsuits is the opposite of the free market, dumbass.

What kind of lawsuits?

Google apple Facebook et al were given liability protections other platforms don’t have on the condition they give equal access and do not censor or edit content.

Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act

Its about to be repealed in the face of Silicon Valley oligarchy censoring the net to support Democrats.

Ok so take away the protections/conditions and open them up to lawsuits. Now what is illegal about them censoring their content to support democrats if they want?

Well it still may be illegal, depending on what regulations are passed, but mostly it will just be tremendously less profitable for them.
I’m sure their speech won’t be banned. Don’t worry slade...the billionaires will still have a loud voice.

 

[DOTR]

So the main thing is to take their protections away. After that we can still regulate them if need be. I just don’t think it will get that far. The pocketbook hit may be enough.

 

[Mac1958]

About time.

How progressive of you! What ever happened to free market capitalism?!

Times they are a-changin'!

What's next, "you didn't build that"?


.

 

[Slade3200]

How progressive of you! What ever happened to free market capitalism?!

Protecting Google and Facebook from lawsuits is the opposite of the free market, dumbass.

What kind of lawsuits?

Google apple Facebook et al were given liability protections other platforms don’t have on the condition they give equal access and do not censor or edit content.

Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act

Its about to be repealed in the face of Silicon Valley oligarchy censoring the net to support Democrats.

Ok so take away the protections/conditions and open them up to lawsuits. Now what is illegal about them censoring their content to support democrats if they want?

Well it still may be illegal, depending on what regulations are passed, but mostly it will just be tremendously less profitable for them.
I’m sure their speech won’t be banned. Don’t worry slade...the billionaires will still have a loud voice.

I’m not worried about billionaires. Just asking questions. Thanks for giving answers, except that last line.

So less profitable because of lawsuits? Is that the end result? What kind of lawsuits?

 

[DOTR]

Protecting Google and Facebook from lawsuits is the opposite of the free market, dumbass.

What kind of lawsuits?

Google apple Facebook et al were given liability protections other platforms don’t have on the condition they give equal access and do not censor or edit content.

Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act

Its about to be repealed in the face of Silicon Valley oligarchy censoring the net to support Democrats.

Ok so take away the protections/conditions and open them up to lawsuits. Now what is illegal about them censoring their content to support democrats if they want?

Well it still may be illegal, depending on what regulations are passed, but mostly it will just be tremendously less profitable for them.
I’m sure their speech won’t be banned. Don’t worry slade...the billionaires will still have a loud voice.

I’m not worried about billionaires. Just asking questions. Thanks for giving answers, except that last line.

So less profitable because of lawsuits? Is that the end result? What kind of lawsuits?

I explained the carve-out the FCC gave them. Under Section 230, courts are precluded from “entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher’s role.” Here’s a fairly in depth article explaining it and giving case law that has been built around it.
INSIGHT: The Communications Decency Act Safe Harbor: Pendulum Swings In 2018

It was a good idea actually. But they abused it. It’s time to repeal 230...but the liberal machine will go into action here and the money available to fight it boggles the mind.

 

[Slade3200]

What kind of lawsuits?

Google apple Facebook et al were given liability protections other platforms don’t have on the condition they give equal access and do not censor or edit content.

Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act

Its about to be repealed in the face of Silicon Valley oligarchy censoring the net to support Democrats.

Ok so take away the protections/conditions and open them up to lawsuits. Now what is illegal about them censoring their content to support democrats if they want?

Well it still may be illegal, depending on what regulations are passed, but mostly it will just be tremendously less profitable for them.
I’m sure their speech won’t be banned. Don’t worry slade...the billionaires will still have a loud voice.

I’m not worried about billionaires. Just asking questions. Thanks for giving answers, except that last line.

So less profitable because of lawsuits? Is that the end result? What kind of lawsuits?

I explained the carve-out the FCC gave them. Under Section 230, courts are precluded from “entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher’s role.” Here’s a fairly in depth article explaining it and giving case law that has been built around it.
INSIGHT: The Communications Decency Act Safe Harbor: Pendulum Swings In 2018

It was a good idea actually. But they abused it. It’s time to repeal 230...but the liberal machine will go into action here and the money available to fight it boggles the mind.

Bare with me I’m still learning about this... so 230 was put in place to protect ISPs, tech companies and non media applications from being responsible for the content that others post on their platforms. You want this protection removed because these businesses have been editing and steering content towards a specific left leaning ideology and you don’t think they should have the right to do that. Did I get that right?

 

[DOTR]

(I am going to assume for now that you are asking in good faith and will answer as such)

That’s close (if you are asking what I personally think in that last line) but it has nothing to do with “rights.” They may or may not have the “right”. But what they don’t deserve having is special protection.
I think giving them those special protections (and they go way beyond 230...such as OSCILA etc) was wise. But they have been abused.
As an example google isn’t liable under DMCA for a user upload of copywrited material so long as they respond to takedown requests in good faith and in a timely manner. The alternative is that Google would have to hold and vet every video before posting. Imagine the expense...and the lag. Google makes damn sure they abide takedown notices

In the same vein, so long as they aren’t acting as editors, they get 230 protection and society benefits. But they are no longer neutral. Why do they do it then knowing the risks? The same reason the press no longer pretends to be neutral. They feel that an all out attack will win them the gratitude of Democrats if they can get them in office and result in protection. Everything is a delaying game and they have tremendous wealth to play it.

And it’s more than “steering”. Gab is a good example but far from the only example. When Twitter expelled conservatives in two waves in 2016 the jeering response from the left was “make your own nyaaa”. So Gab was born. Google banned the app from their play store. Apple banned it from their phone entirely. Cloudflare cancelled ddos infrastructure. Visa and PayPal refused to process donations.
Microsoft denied Azure cloud hosting, Joynet deplatformed them and Godaddy pulled DNS services.
All of them monopolies or near monopolies in their fields. All colluding. And all profiting from special legal protections.

 

[DOTR]

I got a little carried away and wordy. The short answer...they won’t be able to claim protection as neutral speech facilitators if they are, in fact, editors and publishers. So they will need all the infrastructure and incur the expense of their moving into publishing and editing. They’ve promised a certain range of speech...let them be responsible for it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Gohmert Introduces Bill That Removes Liability Protections for Social Media Companies That Use Algorithms to Hide, Promote, or Filter User Content

About time. The billionaire liberals who have a chokehold on the internet will see it differently when they are treated like any other curated forum.

View attachment 236134

Why does President Trump come up when searching, "idiot"?

 

[DOTR]

By the way patron and go fund me regularly block conservative action as well.