Free Internet vs Controlled Internet

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

You CANNOT have it both ways.
You either have free internet..............or you have controlled internet.

This crap NEEDS to stop where fuktarded people are getting laws changed for their own personal mental issues!!

Laws are made for the good of the MANY, not for the patronizing, naricissistic FEW!!!

SCOTUS to hear challenge to internet companies' legal immunity

The 1996 law shielding internet firms from liability for user-generated content on their platforms has drawn criticism from Republicans and Democrats.

www.aol.com

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the sweeping legal immunity that shields internet companies from lawsuits over user-generated content, a case with potentially enormous consequences for social media.

A provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act known as Section 230 was intended to protect free expression on the internet by shielding internet companies from liability for much of the content their users post on their platforms. The law also protects the companies from lawsuits for removing content that violates their policies.

But the law has drawn criticism from both Democrats and Republicans amid questions about whether social media companies have become too powerful.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

By "free" I assume you mean, as in free speech, not as in free beer, right?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is just what we need, remove the liability protections from sites and sites like this cease to exist overnight.

You think things are not free on the net now, wait till every site out there has a "must be approved before it can be posted" policy.

Just think how fun this site would be if your post had a delay of hours before they showed up for other to see

 

[Harpy Eagle]

By "free" I assume you mean, as in free speech, not as in free beer, right?

This is just one more ButtHurt by FB/Twitter thread. There seems to be a dozen a week now.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

By "free" I assume you mean, as in free speech, not as in free beer, right?

We can't has both????

 

[Lastamender]

This is just what we need, remove the liability protections from sites and sites like this cease to exist overnight.

You think things are not free on the net now, wait till every site out there has a "must be approved before it can be posted" policy.

Just think how fun this site would be if your post had a delay of hours before they showed up for other to see

They only need a disclaimer.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

I think there should be three different internets.

1. Clean internet
2. Adult internet
3. Childrens internet


Much easier for parents to put parental controls on what they want their kids to see.
Having a clean and "diseased" free internet for children would be a start.

Having three seperate internet systems would work much better. People wouldn't be bombarded by sex shit when trying to search for something online, or getting spammed by bots.

Three separate internet systems would also be easier for using security protocols on for spam, bots, and scammers.

There could also be a 4th internet system, International.
The other three systems would be segragated to the USA only. No outside interference. If you want to get online to the International internet, then you just click on over to it.

 

[MinTrut]

You CANNOT have it both ways.
You either have free internet..............or you have controlled internet.

This crap NEEDS to stop where fuktarded people are getting laws changed for their own personal mental issues!!

Laws are made for the good of the MANY, not for the patronizing, naricissistic FEW!!!

SCOTUS to hear challenge to internet companies' legal immunity

The 1996 law shielding internet firms from liability for user-generated content on their platforms has drawn criticism from Republicans and Democrats.

www.aol.com

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the sweeping legal immunity that shields internet companies from lawsuits over user-generated content, a case with potentially enormous consequences for social media.

A provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act known as Section 230 was intended to protect free expression on the internet by shielding internet companies from liability for much of the content their users post on their platforms. The law also protects the companies from lawsuits for removing content that violates their policies.

But the law has drawn criticism from both Democrats and Republicans amid questions about whether social media companies have become too powerful.

Here we go!

 

[MinTrut]

I think there should be three different internets.

1. Clean internet
2. Adult internet
3. Childrens internet


Much easier for parents to put parental controls on what they want their kids to see.
Having a clean and "diseased" free internet for children would be a start.

Having three seperate internet systems would work much better. People wouldn't be bombarded by sex shit when trying to search for something online, or getting spammed by bots.

Three separate internet systems would also be easier for using security protocols on for spam, bots, and scammers.

There could also be a 4th internet system, International.
The other three systems would be segragated to the USA only. No outside interference. If you want to get online to the International internet, then you just click on over to it.

I can't tell if you're serious or not...