Amazon using ‘hate speech’ excuse to CENSOR & PURGE the right from existence.

[colfax_m]

The thread's beyond silly, but you raise a fair point imo. Should social media sites have immunity when someone posts objectively proven false information?

Yes. I understand that people want to reform section 230 and I understand why. But I think every conceivable option to reform it would result in a worse outcome than what we have now.

 

[bendog]

OK so if they want to control whos allowed to comment they should loose those protections since thats why they are there,,,

Those protections were written specifically to give websites the ability to control who is allowed to comment.

If a website didn’t control who is allowed to comment, they’d have no liability regardless of the law you quoted.

The thread's beyond silly, but you raise a fair point imo. Should social media sites have immunity when someone posts objectively proven false information?

They are not there to be guardians of verity.....this is where they overstep. They offer an access service and anything short of predation, pornography or pedophilia is none of their business. If that's the case it won't be long before our thoughts are monitored for diverging opinions that can get us arrested.

JO

Well why aren't they responsible when people use their sites (which they make money from) to intentionally lie about issues? There's no constitutional right to lie. Facebook is literally profiting because it provides a platform for intentional misleading.

 

[colfax_m]

they already had that ability cause its their website,,

Not without incurring liability for EVERY post on their website (before the protections in section 230 were passed). The protections were written so that they could decide who posts without having to take responsibility for everyone.

the protections were to protect them from being sued for what outside providers post,,,

The protections were only necessary for people who wanted to control who posts on their website. No law was necessary to protect a website that didn’t moderate.

 

[bendog]

The thread's beyond silly, but you raise a fair point imo. Should social media sites have immunity when someone posts objectively proven false information?

Yes. I understand that people want to reform section 230 and I understand why. But I think every conceivable option to reform it would result in a worse outcome than what we have now.

I respect that, but imo no social media postings would be preferable. The govt is not empowered to just shut down information sharing, but Zukerberg and his partners have no constitutional right to make money for intentionally allowing false information from being shared that damages anyone.

 

[progressive hunter]

they already had that ability cause its their website,,

Not without incurring liability for EVERY post on their website (before the protections in section 230 were passed). The protections were written so that they could decide who posts without having to take responsibility for everyone.

the protections were to protect them from being sued for what outside providers post,,,

The protections were only necessary for people who wanted to control who posts on their website. No law was necessary to protect a website that didn’t moderate.

youre ability to lie through your teeth is incredible,,,

they already have control of their websites because theyre their websites,,

 

[pknopp]

What party is Amazon and what was their candidates name again?

"Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who has had a rocky relationship with President Donald Trump throughout his term, said Biden and Harris’ victory signifies that “unity, empathy and decency are not characteristics of a bygone era.”

Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and other tech luminaries react to Biden's victory

Tech CEOs and Silicon Valley luminaries weighed in on President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris' victory Saturday.

www.cnbc.com

Now you know and, you're welcome.

A large number of CPAC participants seem to think the same.

 

[Leo123]

A large number of CPAC participants seem to think the same.

I dunno, I watched Trump's CPAC speech and it was well received. How many is a 'large number?' Got a link?

 

[colfax_m]

they already have control of their websites because theyre their websites,,

Not without subjecting themselves to liability for EVERY comment from EVERY user on the website. That was really bad for the internet, so they passed these protections so that websites could control their websites without having to worry about that liability.

You really don't understand what you're talking about because you have it backwards.

 

[progressive hunter]

they already have control of their websites because theyre their websites,,

Not without subjecting themselves to liability for EVERY comment from EVERY user on the website. That was really bad for the internet, so they passed these protections so that websites could control their websites without having to worry about that liability.

You really don't understand what you're talking about because you have it backwards.

if youre just going to lie about it you are of no use,,,

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yet another company that conservatives have an issue with. Here, let me break down your options.

1) Boycott Amazon along with the other dozens of companies/organizations that offend you.

2) Stop being so easily offended by everything and just shop at Amazon like the rest of sensible adults.

3) Start your own company like Amazon and run it however you want within the boundaries of the law. Maybe it's time for you guys to stop being so dependent on liberal innovation.

4) Continue whining like a bunch of crybabies about how unfaaiiirrrrr it is and get exactly nowhere with that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

‘END OF CONSERVATIVE BOOKS’: Amazon using ‘hate speech’ excuse to CENSOR & PURGE the right from existence.



From The Daily Wire:

As noted by The Daily Wire, Amazon has ramped up its censorship on conservative views in recent weeks. For example, a popular documentary on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was banned from their streaming service this past week. Before that move, the company deplatformed conservative Ryan Anderson’s book critical of gender theory, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement.

remind me again what party/group keeps accusing the other of being fascist??

They are a free enterprise just like the women who said no natural women in the beauty pageant.

We despise hate books.

Then you better stop reading about 90 percent of everything printed by liberals..... sorry to say you eat your foot just about every time your yap opens six inches.

JO

Amazon had the right to delete books as the lady has the right for natural women to compete in the "beauty contest".

thats not the issue and you know it,,,

Sure it is, they are both independent companies. Who decides what books to sell on amazon, is you you!!

but if youre a conservative baker, florist or photographer you are forced against you will to participate,,,

I won't go to their places, and I refuse to sue them as well, as there's too much suing going on for minor stuff.

good for you,,,

but as we saw the gays did sue them and stole their money with the help of the government,,,

Well the court ruled they could, but that's their prerogative. It goes back and forth.

but the outcome remains the same,, the government forced a person to do something they didnt want to do,,,

They just don't see it.....it's a form of mental illness I'm tellin'ya. It's never wrong as long as the purpose advances liberalism. They are the ultimate " ends justfies the means " morons that will never be able to grasp the concept of fairness.

That's because they're sociopaths, in that they utterly lack any ability for empathy - however much they claim to be "empathizing" with their selected victim groups du jour - and cannot genuinely put themselves into another's place.

Well it could be you folks are just as much a victim as the gays who sue rather than just buyign a cake elswwhere. There's no lack of sellers of media for rw xians.

Oh? By all means, tell me where one buys an electronic copy of "When Harry Became Sally". I'll wait.

It could be that YOU folks want to eat your cake and have it too, by oppressing everyone else while pussy-aching about how "victimized" you are by the mere existence of anyone who disagree with you.

No, wait, that's not a "could be". That's your actual MO.

You have your homework assignment, Chuckles. Get busy proving that you shouldn't be ashamed of your asinine post. Move out.

 

[colfax_m]

if youre just going to lie about it you are of no use,,,

It’s reality. You call it a lie because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Start here and see how I’m completely right.
Why the internet’s most important law exists and how people are still getting it wrong

 

[Cecilie1200]

OK so if they want to control whos allowed to comment they should loose those protections since thats why they are there,,,

Those protections were written specifically to give websites the ability to control who is allowed to comment.

If a website didn’t control who is allowed to comment, they’d have no liability regardless of the law you quoted.

The thread's beyond silly, but you raise a fair point imo. Should social media sites have immunity when someone posts objectively proven false information?

They are not there to be guardians of verity.....this is where they overstep. They offer an access service and anything short of predation, pornography or pedophilia is none of their business. If that's the case it won't be long before our thoughts are monitored for diverging opinions that can get us arrested.

JO

Well why aren't they responsible when people use their sites (which they make money from) to intentionally lie about issues? There's no constitutional right to lie. Facebook is literally profiting because it provides a platform for intentional misleading.

Clearly, your emotional development was stunted around the age of 3, and you need to have empathy explained to you the same way it's taught to 3-year-olds who have just pulled the dog's tail.

Try to picture if Amazon and Jeff Bezos were big donors to the Republican Party, and they decided they weren't going to carry left-wing books because they considered anything from the left they disagreed with to be "lies". (Admittedly, that wouldn't bother a lot of leftists too much, since they don't really read.) Would you be okay with every Big Tech company on the Internet telling you, "You can't speak your beliefs where people can hear them, because we have decided that disagreeing with us means you're lying"?

Because despite what your masters have told you to believe, your political positions are not Ultimate Truth and Virtue, justifying the silencing of anything that dares dissent. The more you try to justify no one speaking but you and your verminous ilk, the more you show that you are the evil you pretend you're fighting.

 

[beagle9]

‘END OF CONSERVATIVE BOOKS’: Amazon using ‘hate speech’ excuse to CENSOR & PURGE the right from existence.



From The Daily Wire:

As noted by The Daily Wire, Amazon has ramped up its censorship on conservative views in recent weeks. For example, a popular documentary on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was banned from their streaming service this past week. Before that move, the company deplatformed conservative Ryan Anderson’s book critical of gender theory, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement.

‘END OF CONSERVATIVE BOOKS’: Amazon using ‘hate speech’ excuse to CENSOR & PURGE the right from existence.

You know all about the ongoing and very real and well documented Big Tech Purge that the media pretends doesn’t exist. And about Amazon’s removal of a book about the transgender movemen…

therightscoop.com

remind me again what party/group keeps accusing the other of being fascist??

They best get the hell out of politic's, because I order a good bit through them, but I can stop on a dime. Try me Amazon.

I've pretty much stopped,, and look long and hard for other options before I do order from them,,,

It's ashame isn't it ?? These idiot's putting their businesses on the line for one-sided social justice, and one-sided politic's is a fail big time. Let'em keep it up, because people have just about had a belly full of the bullcrap. Enough of the stupidity already.

 

[Leo123]

It's ashame isn't it ?? These idiot's putting their businesses on the line for one-sided social justice, and one-sided politic's is a fail big time. Let'em keep it up, because people have just about had a belly full of the bullcrap. Enough of the stupidity already.

We used to punish and regulate monopolies.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Trump Conservatives spend 200 MILLION daily at Amazon.

They must not be too concerned.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

they already had that ability cause its their website,,

Not without incurring liability for EVERY post on their website (before the protections in section 230 were passed). The protections were written so that they could decide who posts without having to take responsibility for everyone.

the protections were to protect them from being sued for what outside providers post,,,

The protections were only necessary for people who wanted to control who posts on their website. No law was necessary to protect a website that didn’t moderate.

youre ability to lie through your teeth is incredible,,,

they already have control of their websites because theyre their websites,,

But CNN tells them the RIGHT controls and manipulates the media, and does all thew cheating....so naturally, they believe it.

The ability to think for oneself is lost on the Left

 

[colfax_m]

they already had that ability cause its their website,,

Not without incurring liability for EVERY post on their website (before the protections in section 230 were passed). The protections were written so that they could decide who posts without having to take responsibility for everyone.

the protections were to protect them from being sued for what outside providers post,,,

The protections were only necessary for people who wanted to control who posts on their website. No law was necessary to protect a website that didn’t moderate.

youre ability to lie through your teeth is incredible,,,

they already have control of their websites because theyre their websites,,

But CNN tells them the RIGHT controls and manipulates the media, and does all thew cheating....so naturally, they believe it.

The ability to think for oneself is lost on the Left

Data shows that the right wing dominates social media.

Despite cries of censorship, conservatives dominate social media

GOP-friendly voices far outweigh liberals in driving conversations on hot topics leading up to the election, a POLITICO analysis shows.

www.politico.com

 

[beagle9]

It's ashame isn't it ?? These idiot's putting their businesses on the line for one-sided social justice, and one-sided politic's is a fail big time. Let'em keep it up, because people have just about had a belly full of the bullcrap. Enough of the stupidity already.

We used to punish and regulate monopolies.

Yep until the unregulated internet came along. Now the Genie is out of the bottle, but not so far that it can't be reeled back in some if need be.

 

[Leo123]

Trump Conservatives spend 200 MILLION daily at Amazon.

They must not be too concerned.

got a link for those stats?