CDZ Section 230 is the foundation of speech on the internet and would hardly exist without it

[colfax_m]

You're in agreement with Mussolini's statement in my signature.

Mussolini would want the private sector (I.e. Twitter) to bend their desire to the needs of his political party (I.e. conservatives and Republicans).

 

[progressive hunter]

This is an baseless accusation. Publishers do choose what not to publish, but they also choose exactly what do publish before it’s published. They cannot be considered the same given the fundamental differences.

and that is exactly what twitter is doing,,, they just do it after it is published,,, and then sometime ban the person that posted it,,,

and they can be consider one since they are acting like one,,

time to be honest and stop your lying,,,

 

[K9Buck]

Mussolini would want the private sector (I.e. Twitter) to bend their desire to the needs of his political party

That's true, and that's why we need LIMITED government so that government hacks cannot do such things. Unfortunately, you're opposed to that concept.

 

[colfax_m]

That's true, and that's why we need LIMITED government so that government hacks cannot do such things. Unfortunately, you're opposed to that concept.

The government hacks getting involved here are Republicans threatening Twitter for not supporting them enough.

 

[colfax_m]

and that is exactly what twitter is doing,,, they just do it after it is published,,

So it’s not exactly the same thing, is it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

People get section 230 wrong all the time. This is a good explainer for why it came to be.

Why the internet’s most important law exists and how people are still getting it wrong

Talking to the author of a new book on Section 230.

www.theverge.com

Social media companies need to have authority to moderate their own forums at their discretion. To not allow them to do so, would degrade the user experience and lead to the internet being awash in abusive behavior, and ultimately impair the free exercise of speech.

Do phone companies need these same protections to protect speech om their lines?

 

[progressive hunter]

and that is exactly what twitter is doing,,, they just do it after it is published,,

So it’s not exactly the same thing, is it.

why do you keep lying???

 

[colfax_m]

Do phone companies need these same protections to protect speech om their lines?

They don’t. Phone companies, by and large, are passive instruments for their users. They’re truly common carriers. Social media is nothing like it.

 

[colfax_m]

why do you keep lying???

You said it’s the exact same thing, except where it’s not. You contradicted your own statement. It’s all there in black and white. I’m merely pointing out the contradiction.

 

[progressive hunter]

Do phone companies need these same protections to protect speech om their lines?

They don’t. Phone companies, by and large, are passive instruments for their users. They’re truly common carriers. Social media is nothing like it.

so youre admitting they are not a platform,, then what are they??

 

[progressive hunter]

why do you keep lying???

You said it’s the exact same thing, except where it’s not. You contradicted your own statement. It’s all there in black and white. I’m merely pointing out the contradiction.

enough of your word games,,,

the timing is irrelevant,, what they do is,, and that is they are acting just as a publisher does and picks and chooses what to allow on their site based on their opinion,,

 

[colfax_m]

so youre admitting they are not a platform,, then what are they??

I never said they aren’t a platform. I’d say that describes them as good as anything else.

What they are isn’t really a debate. How they should be regulated is. I say they’re so different than any other thing that came before them that it’s stupid to expect the old definitions and old rules to reasonably apply to them.

 

[Slyhunter]

so youre admitting they are not a platform,, then what are they??

I never said they aren’t a platform. I’d say that describes them as good as anything else.

What they are isn’t really a debate. How they should be regulated is. I say they’re so different than any other thing that came before them that it’s stupid to expect the old definitions and old rules to reasonably apply to them.

They shouldn't be arbitrators over what is true and what is not true allow the readers to decide for themselves.

 

[progressive hunter]

so youre admitting they are not a platform,, then what are they??

I never said they aren’t a platform. I’d say that describes them as good as anything else.

What they are isn’t really a debate. How they should be regulated is. I say they’re so different than any other thing that came before them that it’s stupid to expect the old definitions and old rules to reasonably apply to them.

of course what they are is the debate,,
and what they are based on their actions is a publisher,,

enough of your word games,, we know youre a liar and this thread doesnt belong in CDZ

 

[colfax_m]

why do you keep lying???

You said it’s the exact same thing, except where it’s not. You contradicted your own statement. It’s all there in black and white. I’m merely pointing out the contradiction.

enough of your word games,,,

the timing is irrelevant,, what they do is,, and that is they are acting just as a publisher does and picks and chooses what to allow on their site based on their opinion,,

Timing is extremely relevant. Timing is the difference between getting sued and not. A book publisher who doesn’t publish something defamatory has no risk. A book publisher who stops selling a book after they discover it’s defamatory is legally in jeopardy because they were expected to find the defamatory statements before it’s published.

No one expects social media to find defamatory statements before they’re published and expecting them to do so would result in people not being able to post on their websites as the risk would be too great.

 

[colfax_m]

They shouldn't be arbitrators over what is true and what is not true allow the readers to decide for themselves.

The reader is free to seek information from a variety of sources.

 

[progressive hunter]

why do you keep lying???

You said it’s the exact same thing, except where it’s not. You contradicted your own statement. It’s all there in black and white. I’m merely pointing out the contradiction.

enough of your word games,,,

the timing is irrelevant,, what they do is,, and that is they are acting just as a publisher does and picks and chooses what to allow on their site based on their opinion,,

Timing is extremely relevant. Timing is the difference between getting sued and not. A book publisher who doesn’t publish something defamatory has no risk. A book publisher who stops selling a book after they discover it’s defamatory is legally in jeopardy because they were expected to find the defamatory statements before it’s published.

No one expects social media to find defamatory statements before they’re published and expecting them to do so would result in people not being able to post on their websites as the risk would be too great.

more of your word games,,

they are deleting more than inflammatory comments and thats based on opinions,,

the least you could do is be honest,,,

 

[ESay]

Social media as any private business can establish their own policy how to operate their property. What is wrong with this conception? That it benefits one of two main parties? What if it benefited the other side?

 

[colfax_m]

why do you keep lying???

You said it’s the exact same thing, except where it’s not. You contradicted your own statement. It’s all there in black and white. I’m merely pointing out the contradiction.

enough of your word games,,,

the timing is irrelevant,, what they do is,, and that is they are acting just as a publisher does and picks and chooses what to allow on their site based on their opinion,,

Timing is extremely relevant. Timing is the difference between getting sued and not. A book publisher who doesn’t publish something defamatory has no risk. A book publisher who stops selling a book after they discover it’s defamatory is legally in jeopardy because they were expected to find the defamatory statements before it’s published.

No one expects social media to find defamatory statements before they’re published and expecting them to do so would result in people not being able to post on their websites as the risk would be too great.

more of your word games,,

they are deleting more than inflammatory comments and thats based on opinions,,

the least you could do is be honest,,,

Debatable, but also irrelevant.

The question is whether they’re “exactly like” publishers as you claimed and my statement was describing how very different they are.

 

[progressive hunter]

Social media as any private business can establish their own policy how to operate their property. What is wrong with this conception? That it benefits one of two main parties? What if it benefited the other side?

they established their own policy and are not following it and instead pick and choose what they allow based on a political POV