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

[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,,,

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.

but you were wrong on your description,,,

they monitor and edit or censor every single post including PMs and decide if it can or cant stay based on their political POV,,,

thats a publisher,,,

 

[colfax_m]

they monitor and edit or censor every single post including PMs and decide if it can or cant stay based on their political POV,,,

That does not sound accurate to me. There’s half a billion tweets every day. It would be physically impossible for Twitter to review each of them.

 

[Meister]

and the law should treat them as a publisher since thats what they are acting like,,,

It’s irrational to treat them as publishers of prior ages.

A publisher of a newspaper can read and approve every word before it goes out. Social media couldn’t do that, ever. Applying the same responsibilities to them is irrational.

its rational to treat them as a publisher if they are behaving like one,, which they are,,

censoring speech based on their opinion is what a publisher does,,,

They’re not acting like any other publisher, as I’ve stated. Publishers review every word before publishing. Social media does not. They review basically nothing before it goes it.

And yet, they censor as if they were a state run media machine. There is no excuse for that.

 

[colfax_m]

And yet, they censor as if they were a state run media machine. There is no excuse for that.

I’d say they censor as if they’re moderating a forum and are enforcing standards that they’ve created.

They own and manage their platform and only their platform. Those who are kicked off of their forum are free to engage in speech anywhere else that it’s permitted. I don’t consider it censorship.

 

[progressive hunter]

And yet, they censor as if they were a state run media machine. There is no excuse for that.

I’d say they censor as if they’re moderating a forum and are enforcing standards that they’ve created.

They own and manage their platform and only their platform. Those who are kicked off of their forum are free to engage in speech anywhere else that it’s permitted. I don’t consider it censorship.

but they arent moderating based on their standards,, they are selectively moderating based on their political views at the time,,

 

[colfax_m]

but they arent moderating based on their standards,, they are selectively moderating based on their political views at the time,,

Seems like a pretty unsupported accusation to me. There’s tons of conservatives on Twitter. They have very conservative opinions that they state regularly and don’t happen to have to resort to nastiness to do so. These individuals don’t seem to have any problem remaining on Twitter.

 

[progressive hunter]

but they arent moderating based on their standards,, they are selectively moderating based on their political views at the time,,

Seems like a pretty unsupported accusation to me. There’s tons of conservatives on Twitter. They have very conservative opinions that they state regularly and don’t happen to have to resort to nastiness to do so. These individuals don’t seem to have any problem remaining on Twitter.

youre dodging the facts again,,, why do you keep doing that???

 

[colfax_m]

youre dodging the facts again,,, why do you keep doing that???

I see you making allegations but I have not seen substantiation with facts. I am doubting whether there is a factual basis for your allegations.

Do you deny the fact that a great many conservatives are on Twitter and use it to promote their conservative ideals? I can provide examples if needed.

 

[progressive hunter]

youre dodging the facts again,,, why do you keep doing that???

I see you making allegations but I have not seen substantiation with facts. I am doubting whether there is a factual basis for your allegations.

Do you deny the fact that a great many conservatives are on Twitter and use it to promote their conservative ideals? I can provide examples if needed.

if you didnt think the allegations are true then why did you start this thread??

see youre just lying again,,,

 

[colfax_m]

if you didnt think the allegations are true then why did you start this thread??

I don’t know what you mean. I didn’t start a thread about your allegations which I think are baseless.

 

[progressive hunter]

if you didnt think the allegations are true then why did you start this thread??

I don’t know what you mean. I didn’t start a thread about your allegations which I think are baseless.

you started it because of them,,

stop the lying,,,

 

[colfax_m]

you started it because of them,,

I didn’t. I started the thread because I’ve seen a lot of conservatives who completely misinterpret the purpose of section 230, because I’ve seen a lot of conservatives want to repeal section 230 and to talk about why that’s such a bad idea.

It had nothing to do with the veracity of what you’re alleging is political bias in moderating content.

 

[progressive hunter]

you started it because of them,,

I didn’t. I started the thread because I’ve seen a lot of conservatives who completely misinterpret the purpose of section 230, because I’ve seen a lot of conservatives want to repeal section 230 and to talk about why that’s such a bad idea.

It had nothing to do with the veracity of what you’re alleging is political bias in moderating content.

youre the one misinterpreting them,,

the idea of repealing them is only the big ask,, the goal is to take it away from the ones abusing it like twitter, facebook and youtube,,

come on man just be honest for once,,,

 

[colfax_m]

you started it because of them,,

I didn’t. I started the thread because I’ve seen a lot of conservatives who completely misinterpret the purpose of section 230, because I’ve seen a lot of conservatives want to repeal section 230 and to talk about why that’s such a bad idea.

It had nothing to do with the veracity of what you’re alleging is political bias in moderating content.

youre the one misinterpreting them,,

the idea of repealing them is only the big ask,, the goal is to take it away from the ones abusing it like twitter, facebook and youtube,,

come on man just be honest for once,,,

You’re close, I think. But it’s not to take it away from people who “abuse” it, as if that could be a thing. It’s to attack corporations who don’t obey the desires and wills of politicians who want to use their platforms for their own political purposes. To me, that’s starting to sound like politicians abusing their power.

 

[progressive hunter]

you started it because of them,,

I didn’t. I started the thread because I’ve seen a lot of conservatives who completely misinterpret the purpose of section 230, because I’ve seen a lot of conservatives want to repeal section 230 and to talk about why that’s such a bad idea.

It had nothing to do with the veracity of what you’re alleging is political bias in moderating content.

youre the one misinterpreting them,,

the idea of repealing them is only the big ask,, the goal is to take it away from the ones abusing it like twitter, facebook and youtube,,

come on man just be honest for once,,,

You’re close, I think. But it’s not to take it away from people who “abuse” it, as if that could be a thing. It’s to attack corporations who don’t obey the desires and wills of politicians who want to use their platforms for their own political purposes. To me, that’s starting to sound like politicians abusing their power.

why are you deflecting again???
this isnt about going after corps.,, its about a few specific companies not equally following their own rules in a specific political direction,,


so based on their actions they are a publisher and should not have the 230 protection of a platform,,

 

[colfax_m]

this isnt about going after corps.,, its about a few specific companies not equally following their own rules in a specific political direction,,


so based on their actions they are a publisher and should not have the 230 protection of a platform,,

You’ve posted another self contradictory post. It’s not about going after corps, it’s going after a few companies, per your statement. So yeah, it is going after corporations that they want to bend to their will.

Claiming political persecution is a pretext in my opinion. Almost all social networks and websites engage in some form of moderation which by your standard makes them all publishers. Republicans are going after these specific ones because they want to use their platforms without having to obey the rules.

 

[progressive hunter]

this isnt about going after corps.,, its about a few specific companies not equally following their own rules in a specific political direction,,


so based on their actions they are a publisher and should not have the 230 protection of a platform,,

You’ve posted another self contradictory post. It’s not about going after corps, it’s going after a few companies, per your statement. So yeah, it is going after corporations that they want to bend to their will.

Claiming political persecution is a pretext in my opinion. Almost all social networks and websites engage in some form of moderation which by your standard makes them all publishers. Republicans are going after these specific ones because they want to use their platforms without having to obey the rules.

your lying again,,

its about a few that abuse the 230 protections,,,

 

[Meister]

you started it because of them,,

I didn’t. I started the thread because I’ve seen a lot of conservatives who completely misinterpret the purpose of section 230, because I’ve seen a lot of conservatives want to repeal section 230 and to talk about why that’s such a bad idea.

It had nothing to do with the veracity of what you’re alleging is political bias in moderating content.

Censoring isn't being applied evenly and everyone but those who use a blind eye to the facts see
it. It's why they are being called in front of congressional committees. It's okay, I get it.
Having said that, if the table was turned, those who are in favor of what is happening wouldn't
be saying what they are now. We've seen it with the transition from the Obama admin. to the Trump admin.

 

[colfax_m]

you started it because of them,,

I didn’t. I started the thread because I’ve seen a lot of conservatives who completely misinterpret the purpose of section 230, because I’ve seen a lot of conservatives want to repeal section 230 and to talk about why that’s such a bad idea.

It had nothing to do with the veracity of what you’re alleging is political bias in moderating content.

Censoring isn't being applied evenly and everyone but those who use a blind eye to the facts see
it. It's why they are being called in front of congressional committees. It's okay, I get it.
Having said that, if the table was turned, those who are in favor of what is happening wouldn't
be saying what they are now. We've seen it with the transition from the Obama admin. to the Trump admin.

I’ve watched the congressional committees that they’ve been called in front, and honestly it seems almost entirely like theatre, especially the way Republicans are just trying to score sound bytes for internet memes and attention. “Owning the libs” basically, something that a few conservatives have been calling out their own party for doing.

As for “fairness”, that’s of course a subjective opinion and there is no need for anyone to be fair anyway. I sure don’t trust Congress to define fairness on social media. I don’t trust government to enforce it. Not their role. Certainly not when the internet is nearly infinite and there’s so many places to engage in speech.

 

[colfax_m]

your lying again,,

its about a few that abuse the 230 protections,,,

I have an opinion. Those that claim is about “abuse” of 230 protections are the ones that are lying. It’s actually about power and Republicans wanting to take power that doesn’t belong to them.