Repeal Section 230

[citygator]

What a great idea. Let’s give my buddy Biden the authority to shut down websites he doesn’t like by selectively enforcing standards. If you righties think your voices are supressed now wait til we tell you what is decent and what is lawsuit worthy.

 

[HappyJoy]

McConnel is only going here so that he doesn't have to support $2k checks. It's a cop out and should be called out as such. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Trump is nobody's friend. It's baffling to me why people are so quick to just go along with everything he says and does. Over the course of his presidency he has effectively set the table for the wolves to feast on the sheep. But I always reflect back to the reality that so many are content to simply be led. I often think that he was always meant to be a one termer for that very reason.

If 230 gets repealed, you're screwing yourselves.

 

[22lcidw]

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

End the opinion based news outlets with it. And tell the entertainers and sports players the same.

 

[22lcidw]

What a great idea. Let’s give my buddy Biden the authority to shut down websites he doesn’t like by selectively enforcing standards. If you righties think your voices are supressed now wait til we tell you what is decent and what is lawsuit worthy.

All of this is a goldmine to Prog shill agendas. The destruction of people is incredible by those with a cause for saying something stupid or misunderstood. With many of the accusers being just the same or worse. There is a lot of good with social media. There is a lot of bad with it.

 

[DBA]

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.

Fine, keep 230, but add a moderators clause to it that must be adhered to. Moderators cannot remove, alter, or flag content that does NOT fall under the guidelines of this clause. If a website decides they want to do their own moderation, then they lose section 230 protection. Twitter and Facebook want immunity from content posted on their site but at the same time, they want the ability to moderate and censor as they see fit. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

 

[G.T.]

Trump is nobody's friend. It's baffling to me why people are so quick to just go along with everything he says and does. Over the course of his presidency he has effectively set the table for the wolves to feast on the sheep. But I always reflect back to the reality that so many are content to simply be led. I often think that he was always meant to be a one termer for that very reason.

If 230 gets repealed, you're screwing yourselves.

American Culture is Idol Worship over & above rugged independence. That's why Hollywood/the music industry determine the clothing trends. The plus side, is that being a successful entrepreneur or inventor & being in the Military are a part of that Idolatry. Perhaps that's what keeps us ticking...those inadvertent plus-sides to our Country's penchant for Idol worship.

Another plus is that many other Countries try to emulate our culture, but they're on like a 1.5-2 decade lag. South Africa, for example, is just starting to get into emulating early 90s hip-hop/gangster rap culture. It's hilarious.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Fine, keep 230, but add a moderators clause to it that must be adhered to. Moderators cannot remove, alter, or flag content that does NOT fall under the guidelines of this clause. If a website decides they want to do their own moderation, then they lose section 230 protection. Twitter and Facebook want immunity from content posted on their site but at the same time, they want the ability to moderate and censor as they see fit. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

That makes no sense to do to a Private Business.

 

[mdk]

I know you're having trouble putting food on the table and could be evicted from your home, but Section 230 needs to be repealed so thin-skinned twats can file frivolous lawsuits every time someone on social media hurts their feels.

 

[DBA]

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.

Fine, keep 230, but add a moderators clause to it that must be adhered to. Moderators cannot remove, alter, or flag content that does NOT fall under the guidelines of this clause. If a website decides they want to do their own moderation, then they lose section 230 protection. Twitter and Facebook want immunity from content posted on their site but at the same time, they want the ability to moderate and censor as they see fit. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

That makes no sense to do to a Private Business.

Then remove section 230. If they are going to moderate, then let them fully moderate. They can remove anything and everything they don't like. If a group of folks plastered offensive posters all over the front of a business and they were NOT removed in a reasonable amount of time, that business could be held liable. If all businesses had section 230 protection, they could choose to leave those posters up and only take down ones that were offensive to them. That is essentially what is going on with Facebook and Twitter. As it stands now, other businesses must take personal responsibility and have no such protection as provided by 230.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Fine, keep 230, but add a moderators clause to it that must be adhered to. Moderators cannot remove, alter, or flag content that does NOT fall under the guidelines of this clause. If a website decides they want to do their own moderation, then they lose section 230 protection. Twitter and Facebook want immunity from content posted on their site but at the same time, they want the ability to moderate and censor as they see fit. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

That makes no sense to do to a Private Business.

Then remove section 230. If they are going to moderate, then let them fully moderate. They can remove anything and everything they don't like. If a group of folks plastered offensive posters all over the front of my business and they were NOT removed in a reasonable amount of time, that business could be held liable. If all businesses had section 230 protection, they could choose to leave those posters up and only take down ones that were offensive to them. That is essentially what is going on with Facebook and Twitter.

They already can remove everything they don't like. It's the nature of being a private business. The internet is not a store's front windows. It's billions and billions of posts to monitor which, aside from imperfect algorithms which cannot possibly monitor for every situation or new slang that folks develop to subvert them, is impossible. Perhaps you don't get that part - the impossibility of monitoring 100% of content posted. There's entire departments JUST for fielding moderation disputes from the ALGORITHMS alone.

Usually, people are more pragmatic than being that daft to the nature of what they're attempting to impose upon, especially free-market folks...but when there's a literally Cult following around a megalomaniac, all values are subverted and out the window.

 

[DBA]

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.

Fine, keep 230, but add a moderators clause to it that must be adhered to. Moderators cannot remove, alter, or flag content that does NOT fall under the guidelines of this clause. If a website decides they want to do their own moderation, then they lose section 230 protection. Twitter and Facebook want immunity from content posted on their site but at the same time, they want the ability to moderate and censor as they see fit. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

That makes no sense to do to a Private Business.

Then remove section 230. If they are going to moderate, then let them fully moderate. They can remove anything and everything they don't like. If a group of folks plastered offensive posters all over the front of my business and they were NOT removed in a reasonable amount of time, that business could be held liable. If all businesses had section 230 protection, they could choose to leave those posters up and only take down ones that were offensive to them. That is essentially what is going on with Facebook and Twitter.

They already can remove everything they don't like. It's the nature of being a private business. The internet is not a store's front windows. It's billions and billions of posts to monitor which, aside from imperfect algorithms which cannot possibly monitor for every situation or new slang that folks develop to subvert them, is impossible. Perhaps you don't get that part - the impossibility of monitoring 100% of content posted. There's entire departments JUST for fielding moderation disputes from the ALGORITHMS alone.

Usually, people are more pragmatic than being that daft to the nature of what they're attempting to impose upon, especially free-market folks...but when there's a literally Cult following around a megalomaniac, all values are subverted and out the window.

I am ok with having 230 as long as they can't couple it with moderation.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Fine, keep 230, but add a moderators clause to it that must be adhered to. Moderators cannot remove, alter, or flag content that does NOT fall under the guidelines of this clause. If a website decides they want to do their own moderation, then they lose section 230 protection. Twitter and Facebook want immunity from content posted on their site but at the same time, they want the ability to moderate and censor as they see fit. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

That makes no sense to do to a Private Business.

Then remove section 230. If they are going to moderate, then let them fully moderate. They can remove anything and everything they don't like. If a group of folks plastered offensive posters all over the front of my business and they were NOT removed in a reasonable amount of time, that business could be held liable. If all businesses had section 230 protection, they could choose to leave those posters up and only take down ones that were offensive to them. That is essentially what is going on with Facebook and Twitter.

They already can remove everything they don't like. It's the nature of being a private business. The internet is not a store's front windows. It's billions and billions of posts to monitor which, aside from imperfect algorithms which cannot possibly monitor for every situation or new slang that folks develop to subvert them, is impossible. Perhaps you don't get that part - the impossibility of monitoring 100% of content posted. There's entire departments JUST for fielding moderation disputes from the ALGORITHMS alone.

Usually, people are more pragmatic than being that daft to the nature of what they're attempting to impose upon, especially free-market folks...but when there's a literally Cult following around a megalomaniac, all values are subverted and out the window.

I am ok with having 230 as long as they can't couple it with moderation.

That makes no sense. A business is free to walk and chew gum. If they don't want someone putting <legal>porn, for example, on their website then that's their prerogative. Conversely, if they miss a poster who plasters <illegal>porn on their site because of the impossibility of 100% moderation - they should not be held liable but instead, the poster should. Unless, of course, they're involved.

But what you and the orange dufus are proposing makes no sense, and not only does it make no sense...it's not even humanly possible.

 

[Dragonlady]

I know you're having trouble putting food on the table and could be evicted from your home, but Section 230 needs to be repealed so thin-skinned twats can file frivolous lawsuits every time someone on social media hurts their feels.

Trump thinks guys like him can sue over everything they don't like, but that wouldn't happen either. Trump wants the ability to sue FaceBook and Twitter. They're rich, they'll settle with him. It'll be a goldmine for him. That's what he's always done - filed suit to prevent people from saying anything about his criminality. FaceBook and Twitter will find a way to make the posters responsible for the lawsuits someway, somehow.

What will happen is that every post on these platforms will be have to be vetted for lawsuits. You'll have to submiti all posts to moderation and approval prior to their being on the platform. I belong to a commercial FaceBook group which moderates all posts prior to posting, and it takes two days for your post to appear. So much for announcing births, deaths etc. on social media.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

I used USMB as an example only. Let's face it, seeing as even Pence is being sued for an action of following the Constitution he has yet to do tells you the dangers of repealing 230. People will sue about the flavor of ice cream.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

/----/ As long as USMB survives - it's all we need.

 

[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

/----/ As long as USMB survives - it's all we need.

If Section 230 is appealed, your comment offends me and I feel the need to sue USMB for all the money it has. And all the money the Mods have as well. The Line forms to the rear.

 

[JoeB131]

Fine, keep 230, but add a moderators clause to it that must be adhered to. Moderators cannot remove, alter, or flag content that does NOT fall under the guidelines of this clause. If a website decides they want to do their own moderation, then they lose section 230 protection. Twitter and Facebook want immunity from content posted on their site but at the same time, they want the ability to moderate and censor as they see fit. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

Sure they can.. it's their platform.

You realize that if Trump got his way on this thing, you can pretty much say goodbye to sites like USMB.