Repeal Section 230

[Augustine_]

Mitch McConnell has included the repeal of section 230 as a prerequisite for $2000 stimulus checks as a means of blocking that stimulus from happening. Trump supporters think that doing that will force social media organizations to let them post whatever violent, racist insanities they want, but what it will really do is completely end social media. No more Twitter, Facebook, Parler, Breitbart comment section, etc. I don't necessarily think that's a bad idea.

McConnell ties full repeal of Section 230 to push for $2,000 stimulus checks

It’s a poison pill for Democrats.

www.theverge.com

 

[Moonglow]

It's bad enough that they killed Craiglist dating..

 

[Augustine_]

It's bad enough that they killed Craiglist dating..

They replaced it with Tinder

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Mitch McConnell has included the repeal of section 230 as a prerequisite for $2000 stimulus checks as a means of blocking that stimulus from happening. Trump supporters think that doing that will force social media organizations to let them post whatever violent, racist insanities they want, but what it will really do is completely end social media. No more Twitter, Facebook, Parler, Breitbart comment section, etc. I don't necessarily think that's a bad idea.

McConnell ties full repeal of Section 230 to push for $2,000 stimulus checks

It’s a poison pill for Democrats.

www.theverge.com

I guess USMB needs to just shut down and go home. Imagine having a Big Brother deciding what can and what can't be posted. You all think the Mods are tough, get a load of Big Brother.

You seem to think that Section 230 doesn't affect the message boards. It does. It allows for freedom of expression. Can you imagine having one fringe group to be in charge of the Internet where you happen to be on the receiving end of their ire? I think I will stick with the Mods no matter how close their eyes are together.

 

[Moonglow]

It's bad enough that they killed Craiglist dating..

They replaced it with Tinder

Fifteen seconds is not enough ti....

 

[Elton]

Mitch McConnell has included the repeal of section 230 as a prerequisite for $2000 stimulus checks as a means of blocking that stimulus from happening. Trump supporters think that doing that will force social media organizations to let them post whatever violent, racist insanities they want, but what it will really do is completely end social media. No more Twitter, Facebook, Parler, Breitbart comment section, etc. I don't necessarily think that's a bad idea.

McConnell ties full repeal of Section 230 to push for $2,000 stimulus checks

It’s a poison pill for Democrats.

www.theverge.com

I guess USMB needs to just shut down and go home. Imagine having a Big Brother deciding what can and what can't be posted. You all think the Mods are tough, get a load of Big Brother.

You seem to think that Section 230 doesn't affect the message boards. It does. It allows for freedom of expression. Can you imagine having one fringe group to be in charge of the Internet where you happen to be on the receiving end of their ire? I think I will stick with the Mods no matter how close their eyes are together.

Normally I would agree with you but it is obvious that Big Tech is violating the terms of the Section. They need to be reigned in.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Mitch McConnell has included the repeal of section 230 as a prerequisite for $2000 stimulus checks as a means of blocking that stimulus from happening. Trump supporters think that doing that will force social media organizations to let them post whatever violent, racist insanities they want, but what it will really do is completely end social media. No more Twitter, Facebook, Parler, Breitbart comment section, etc. I don't necessarily think that's a bad idea.

McConnell ties full repeal of Section 230 to push for $2,000 stimulus checks

It’s a poison pill for Democrats.

www.theverge.com

I guess USMB needs to just shut down and go home. Imagine having a Big Brother deciding what can and what can't be posted. You all think the Mods are tough, get a load of Big Brother.

You seem to think that Section 230 doesn't affect the message boards. It does. It allows for freedom of expression. Can you imagine having one fringe group to be in charge of the Internet where you happen to be on the receiving end of their ire? I think I will stick with the Mods no matter how close their eyes are together.

Normally I would agree with you but it is obvious that Big Tech is violating the terms of the Section. They need to be reigned in.

And who is going to be in charge of doing that? As it stands, there are going be a ton of lawsuits directed at the Rump Lies as it is. Would you trust the Dems to decide who and what can be printed and broadcast?

 

[blackhawk]

It is safe to say Facebook and Twitter have the financial resources to deal with any possible lawsuits that might come from the repeal of section 230. It is also past time for these two and other social media sites to decide if they are a publisher or a platform for free speech if you are a free speech platform you don't need to be censoring people if you are a publisher your not entitled to the protection of section 230 they have had it both ways long enough.

 

[BertramN]

It's bad enough that they killed Craiglist dating..

Yes, unfortunately, Craigslist dating killed too many women. Not all good ideas turn out well, too many humans involved.


.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WHAT IS SECTION 230?

‘Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996, says an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. This protects websites from lawsuits if a user posts something illegal, although there are exceptions for pirated and prostitution-related material.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) crafted Section 230 so website owners could moderate sites without worrying about legal liability. The law is particularly vital for social media networks, but it covers many sites and services, including news outlets with comment sections — like The Verge. The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls it “the most important law protecting internet speech.”

It’s increasingly controversial and frequently misinterpreted, however. Critics argue that its broad protections let powerful companies ignore real harm to users. On the other hand, some lawmakers incorrectly claim that it only protects “neutral platforms” — a term that’s irrelevant to the law.’ ibid

Clearly few understand the intent of the law, the consequence of misinformation, willful ignorance, and lies.

As we can see the measure predates Google, FB, Twitter, and other so-called ‘big tech.’

Its purpose was to protect the little guy and his startup website and to encourage the growth and development of the World Wide Web in its infancy.

The law protects speech by ensuring that there are online platforms where that speech can take place, regardless how participants use a given platform – if hosting sites are sued out of existence, or aren’t started to begin with out of a fear of being sued, there won’t be free speech on the internet.

The right’s unwarranted opposition to Section 230 is of course is predicated on conservatives’ equally unwarranted hostility toward online hosting sites incorrectly perceived to be ‘liberal’ and seeking to ‘silence’ conservative viewpoints, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Missourian]

Don't repeal...revise.

In order to claim the liability protection, the only moderation allowed should be exceptions to the First Amendment.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Censorship and Thought Crimes are tyranny.
The Progressives are going down a very dangerous road.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Censorship and Thought Crimes are tyranny.
The Progressives are going down a very dangerous road.

lol.

 

[OldLady]

Well, I'll have to get that Kindle after all, if USMB goes away. I'll miss it, but I've thought for a long time that social media takes free speech way too far. So I suppose there has to be a price to pay.

But take a poster like me, for instance, who behaves fairly well unless provoked, and could be even more polite, if pressed. Why would USMB be afraid to have me speaking? I'm not special--most people can behave themselves if they have to, and a lot of the posters here already do. So why couldn't we all continue, on FB, Twitter, Message boards, etc., just civilly? What am I missing? Why does it have to be the end of discussion? Who would sue USMB for an opinion? Like what kind? I guess I need some examples of what people are worried about.

Sane replies only please.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I have been inclined recently to support a bipartisan coalition aimed at ending some of section 230’s “protection from lawsuits” from giant social media companies like Facebook — for anti-monopoly reasons. But obviously this must be done carefully. It seems to me that total withdrawal of such protection from lawsuits for all “interactive computer services” must not be done by simply abolishing 230 — let alone by attaching abolition to a completely unrelated bill as is being proposed in this case.

p.s. I think this is a cynical partisan maneuver by Mitch McConnell, one that will go nowhere.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Well, I'll have to get that Kindle after all, if USMB goes away. I'll miss it, but I've thought for a long time that social media takes free speech way too far. So I suppose there has to be a price to pay.

But take a poster like me, for instance, who behaves fairly well unless provoked, and could be even more polite, if pressed. Why would USMB be afraid to have me speaking? I'm not special--most people can behave themselves if they have to, and a lot of the posters here already do. So why couldn't we all continue, on FB, Twitter, Message boards, etc., just civilly? What am I missing? Why does it have to be the end of discussion? Who would sue USMB for an opinion? Like what kind? I guess I need some examples of what people are worried about.

Sane replies only please.

Do you remember Dark Fury?

Those like him would have sued the USMB for limiting the content they were allowed to post on here or for any banning...

Many posters believe they have the right to say whatever they want without realizing their First Amendment has restrictions and Websites like Twitter, Facebook and even USMB have the right to limit what is written and there is a terms of agreement you sign and many ignore...

Trump want it removed so he can bring lawsuits and try to earn money from it...

I have yet to understand why can’t Conservatives create their own Twitter, Facebook and so on?

Is it because they are not as liberal minded and focus?

 

[OldLady]

Well, I'll have to get that Kindle after all, if USMB goes away. I'll miss it, but I've thought for a long time that social media takes free speech way too far. So I suppose there has to be a price to pay.

But take a poster like me, for instance, who behaves fairly well unless provoked, and could be even more polite, if pressed. Why would USMB be afraid to have me speaking? I'm not special--most people can behave themselves if they have to, and a lot of the posters here already do. So why couldn't we all continue, on FB, Twitter, Message boards, etc., just civilly? What am I missing? Why does it have to be the end of discussion? Who would sue USMB for an opinion? Like what kind? I guess I need some examples of what people are worried about.

Sane replies only please.

Do you remember Dark Fury?

Those like him would have sued the USMB for limiting the content they were allowed to post on here or for any banning...

Many posters believe they have the right to say whatever they want without realizing their First Amendment has restrictions and Websites like Twitter, Facebook and even USMB have the right to limit what is written and there is a terms of agreement you sign and many ignore...

Trump want it removed so he can bring lawsuits and try to earn money from it...

I have yet to understand why can’t Conservatives create their own Twitter, Facebook and so on?

Is it because they are not as liberal minded and focus?

Thanks, Bruce. I've read a couple articles on it, too, and I'll be damned if I can figure it out. Seems Trump would be in the Dark Fury camp and want to sue for limiting their voices, but as you said, there are user agreements we accept first before using those platforms, so I can't see how they'd be successful. The free speech thing doesn't apply to private companies--not even publishers have to accept all comments or op eds; far from it. So a trip to the Supreme Court would be fruitless, wouldn't it?

I wonder if Trump is doing this not to sue, but just to destroy Twitter for flagging his posts.

 

[JoeB131]

It is safe to say Facebook and Twitter have the financial resources to deal with any possible lawsuits that might come from the repeal of section 230. It is also past time for these two and other social media sites to decide if they are a publisher or a platform for free speech if you are a free speech platform you don't need to be censoring people if you are a publisher your not entitled to the protection of section 230 they have had it both ways long enough.

Actually, there isn't enough censorship on Facebook or Twitter.... you should see some of the garbage that gets through. The problem is there are millions of posts and only a few hundred checkers.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Well, I'll have to get that Kindle after all, if USMB goes away. I'll miss it, but I've thought for a long time that social media takes free speech way too far. So I suppose there has to be a price to pay.

But take a poster like me, for instance, who behaves fairly well unless provoked, and could be even more polite, if pressed. Why would USMB be afraid to have me speaking? I'm not special--most people can behave themselves if they have to, and a lot of the posters here already do. So why couldn't we all continue, on FB, Twitter, Message boards, etc., just civilly? What am I missing? Why does it have to be the end of discussion? Who would sue USMB for an opinion? Like what kind? I guess I need some examples of what people are worried about.

Sane replies only please.

Do you remember Dark Fury?

Those like him would have sued the USMB for limiting the content they were allowed to post on here or for any banning...

Many posters believe they have the right to say whatever they want without realizing their First Amendment has restrictions and Websites like Twitter, Facebook and even USMB have the right to limit what is written and there is a terms of agreement you sign and many ignore...

Trump want it removed so he can bring lawsuits and try to earn money from it...

I have yet to understand why can’t Conservatives create their own Twitter, Facebook and so on?

Is it because they are not as liberal minded and focus?

Thanks, Bruce. I've read a couple articles on it, too, and I'll be damned if I can figure it out. Seems Trump would be in the Dark Fury camp and want to sue for limiting their voices, but as you said, there are user agreements we accept first before using those platforms, so I can't see how they'd be successful. The free speech thing doesn't apply to private companies--not even publishers have to accept all comments or op eds; far from it. So a trip to the Supreme Court would be fruitless, wouldn't it?

I wonder if Trump is doing this not to sue, but just to destroy Twitter for flagging his posts.

It is possible that he is doing just that and throwing a fit because he want his words to be consider the Holy Truth and if anyone disprove his comments and flags them he would try to shut them down with lawsuits that will cost the platform millions of dollars.

Also let be clear Freedom of Speech has limitations and people can not yell fire in a theater and proclaim freedom of speech nor can they make slanderous comments or lies and then proclaim they are protected by the first amendment.

These sites have the right to regulate what is said and the issue for Trump and his minions is they can not accept the reality they are limited in what they can say especially when it is a flat out lie and they know they are lying and spewing just propaganda.

Also those that are in support of repealing the rule need to think very hard because this will open Pandora’s Box on their ass but let face reality those people never think and just react until they realized they messed up and then want it back the old way when that will never happen!

 

[G.T.]

I don't understand how the right thinks this would mean MORE free speech...

No, it removes the liability protections from the Social Media Companies for what YOU post, therefore they have to FURTHER LIMIT what YOU post, or else be open to Lawsuits.

How fucking dumb does Trump think you all really are?