META (Facebook) Banning Conservatives over their opinions.....

[MinTrut]

Not if they are a platform which gives them the abity to be protected from what others say on it. Oddly enough sect 230 was to keep sites from having to censor others.

If they want to dictate what content is, that's publisher status and can be held legally liable for what they and others say.

They take the best of both and responsibility of neither.

Some good points, and part of the larger issue.

 

[MinTrut]

Cigarettes will kill him if he smokes. That’s a death prediction not a death threat.

I understood.

 

[MinTrut]

Well, we KNOW that such is the case, the evidence has been posted and blasted all over the news but there is no way to take them to court. The courts do not care.

The problem is, as you point out this thread shows so well, is those attacks are not just coming from the left but the right is right along there with them. The Orwellian named 'Disinformation Governance Board' was exactly that and make no mistake, that has not gone away nor will it fail to get established at some point but listening to the right in every congressional hearing they had with Facebook and Twitter was just littered with politicians openly threating those companies if they did not do what they wanted. DeSantis even passed legislation along these lines even if being a state representative gives it no real teeth it was done. He is likely to take the presidency in the future though and that trend against private property certainly is not going to change any time soon. These are crystal clear violations of the first and the fourth without any hope of being reigned in.

At this point I am unsure if we are going to get past this with our fist amendment rights being recognizable anymore. What we do about it is beyond me though. You cannot fight something the VAST majority of people are demanding and, beyond that, none of them can be reasoned with. This thread makes that abundantly clear that facts are not even remotely relevant. None of these people understand fascism, how it is implemented or what role property owners play in a fascistic regime.

Some very good points.

 

[MinTrut]

Facebook benefits the left

No.

Facebook is liberal, and censors the left and right, seeking to squeeze the Overton Window to as small an opening as possible.

and thats what libs like Golfing Gator want

Liberals do support this dangerous agenda, yes.

If Facebook were conservative he would be screaming his head off against it

Possibly.

 

[MinTrut]

Sec 230 is a simple protection from having to fight off FRIVIOLIOUS lawsuits. That is it, period.

It is not a case of having it both ways. It is EXACLTY the same as the protections offered gun companies from frivolous lawsuits as well. FB can, does and should curate its content and they should also not be responsible when you post something there that is moronic. These 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive and, indeed, the fastest way to kill speech on the internet is to take away sec 230. You will not get uncurated content (as though that will survive anyway as no one wants uncurated content) but instead will simply see the end of open discussion in its entirety.

Curating content - which is a ridiculoulsy broad weasel term - is the issue to be sure.

Who does it, by what methods, and in what context is key.

 

[MinTrut]

Social media companies are private companies.

Yes.

They have private property rights.

And responsibilities as well.

 

[MinTrut]

Social media is not a public utility. It is private property and they have free speech rights.

As do those utilizing these public platforms.

Public utilities are public monopolies and social media is not.

SCOTUS must at some point weigh in...

 

[MinTrut]

It is not. That is illegal seizure of private property. That is what right wing Nazis do.

Nonsense.

Billy Bob's comment...

I would take it a step further as they have become the defacto "Town Square". It is now a public space.

...is a key factor in this matter.

 

[MinTrut]

It's different because one is a platform for all to use evenly agnostic of why or who.

Publisher decides what us right or wrong and cwrrirs a liability for being in that position.

It ain't rocket science.

^ Gets it.

 

[iceberg]

Yes you are.

You are the one that wants to change the basic meaning of publisher to suit your needs. You are the one making claims about 230 that are not related to 230.

And now you are trying to pretend that the points were never made because you do not have an actual counterpoint. If you thought this through tot he conclusion, you would see that you are not presenting a solution here, just rationalizations.

And you are the one who wants no regulation.

We can do this extreme shit all day.

 

[MinTrut]

A publisher gives pre-approval before anything is published.

That is why things like FB and such are not publishers.

This is a substantial difference.

Facebook has the limited right to conceal or remove content of a grossly offensive, illegal or objectively dangerous nature, but has wildly abused this right.

 

[MinTrut]

Why would a conservative be on Facebook?

It's an incredibly large platform, arguably THE town square.

 

[MinTrut]

Definition of PUBLISHER

one that publishes something; especially : a person or corporation whose business is publishing… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of PUBLISHING

the business or profession of the commercial production and issuance of literature, information, musical scores or sometimes recordings, or art… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of publishing​

: the business or profession of the commercial production and issuance of literature, information, musical scores or sometimes recordings, or art



FB and twitter are no more publishers than this site is.

It's complicated; you may want to review a given site's rules.

They do not produce nor issue anything.

See above.

They provide a space for it, nothing more.

See above.

The NYT is a publisher, nothing goes on their site/paper without prior approval.

Is that what you wish for sites such as this and FB and Twitter?

Not a binary choice; the keepers of the square have limited responsibility.

Have you ever been on a site that every post required pre-approval before it was seen by others?

Yes.

 

[MinTrut]

And the original intent of s230 was so you don't have to moderate, not to give it free reign to delete what you don't like. They morphed it.

^ REALLY gets it.

 

[MinTrut]

Everything morphs. If we start to hold FB and Twitter responsible the same way we do the NYT then sites like this one will also have to be, and they will all cease to exist.

False claim/assumption.

So, I would rather err on the side of freedom, and not the other way around

The freedom for Facebook to censor, including at the whim of the government?

That's not erring on the side of freedom - that's fascism.

I was on a Christian site, one of the more active ones, and they were getting too many "trolls" so they changed it so that post did not show up till they were approved by a Mod. The site died in a week.

Binary fallacy.

 

[Curried Goats]

Nonsense.

Billy Bob's comment...

I would take it a step further as they have become the defacto "Town Square". It is now a public space.

...is a key factor in this matter.

Yeah, that's not how private property works. It doesn't become yours just because you really really want it.

 

[MinTrut]

Yes…and that is why you are to associate elsewhere if you don’t the rules of a particular private establishment.

It's much more complicated than this.

For instance, Facebook is the new town square, or the largest corner thereof.

There is no other comparable option, and to censor SOME speech in this public square, particularly at the behest of the government, is odious at best.

At worst, it's far more chilling.

Fascism is a thing.

 

[MinTrut]

As Facebook and social media has done. Sect 230 isn't perfect but it's as close as we have.

Again, the intent of the law was to not make platforms have to moderate content. We are far far from that.

^ Continuing to get it.

 

[Curried Goats]

It's much more complicated than this.

For instance, Facebook is the new town square, or the largest corner thereof.

There is no other comparable option, and to censor SOME speech in this public square, particularly at the behest of the government, is odious at best.

At worst, it's far more chilling.

Fascism is a thing.

Your living room is the new town square.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Facebook has the limited right to conceal or remove content of a grossly offensive, illegal or objectively dangerous nature, but has wildly abused this right.

Then do not use it.

So simple yet you so hard to you.