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

[progressive hunter]

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.

thats your opinion and its far from the reality of the case,,,

 

[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.

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.

I'm certainly not going to debate YOUR opinion, everyone has right to their own opinion even if it's wrong.
But when people, not posts are being censored that is wrong, and that tactic is used widely in countries like China and Russia, etc..
I grew up thinking we're so much better than those countries, now we are sliding down to their level.
Have your opinion, you have every right to it.

 

[colfax_m]

thats your opinion and its far from the reality of the case,,,

I don’t think so. I think your reality isn’t very accurate and you have too much faith in some very selfish actors, politicians.

I know, crazy to think that elected officials might want to use government to benefit their own political purposes. Just totally nuts.

 

[colfax_m]

But when people, not posts are being censored that is wrong, and that tactic is used widely in countries like China and Russia, etc..

Twitter has rules about how many chances you get. They start with short bans but repeat offenders are kicked off. It’s nothing strange.

And these are individual corporations and businesses making the call. Anyone kicked off a social media platform has their freedom of speech intact. They can go to any public space and speak just like the rest of us.

 

[progressive hunter]

thats your opinion and its far from the reality of the case,,,

I don’t think so. I think your reality isn’t very accurate and you have too much faith in some very selfish actors, politicians.

I know, crazy to think that elected officials might want to use government to benefit their own political purposes. Just totally nuts.

and now you go to using strawman when your proven wrong,,,AGAIN,,,

tell me ,, how is 230 the foundation for speech on the internet when it only applys to sites with a comment section???

we all know the 1st amendment is the foundation for all speech,,,

230 is a special protection for sites that have comment sections and nothing more,,

so your title is a false premise,,

 

[progressive hunter]

But when people, not posts are being censored that is wrong, and that tactic is used widely in countries like China and Russia, etc..

Twitter has rules about how many chances you get. They start with short bans but repeat offenders are kicked off. It’s nothing strange.

And these are individual corporations and businesses making the call. Anyone kicked off a social media platform has their freedom of speech intact. They can go to any public space and speak just like the rest of us.

youre deflecting again,,,

 

[WTF19]

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.

true. they are doing what they want, no matter what...publishers....yes, quite obvious they do monitor, and delete, quickly if you are not a demonRAT

 

[colfax_m]

thats your opinion and its far from the reality of the case,,,

I don’t think so. I think your reality isn’t very accurate and you have too much faith in some very selfish actors, politicians.

I know, crazy to think that elected officials might want to use government to benefit their own political purposes. Just totally nuts.

and now you go to using strawman when your proven wrong,,,AGAIN,,,

tell me ,, how is 230 the foundation for speech on the internet when it only applys to sites with a comment section???

we all know the 1st amendment is the foundation for all speech,,,

230 is a special protection for sites that have comment sections and nothing more,,

so your title is a false premise,,

Not sure what you man about it only applying to sites with a comment section. It applies to any website that allows user submitted content.

Without section 230, there would be far fewer places on the internet where users could submit content. Any site that allowed user submitted content would be forbidden from moderating at all, unless they were willing to take responsibility for every piece of content posted by any person, which surprise they aren't.

Section 230 is the foundation of speech on the internet. A site like this one probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for that law.

 

[colfax_m]

youre deflecting again,,,

I'm responding directly to the comment of another poster, how could that possibly be considered deflecting?

 

[Meister]

But when people, not posts are being censored that is wrong, and that tactic is used widely in countries like China and Russia, etc..

Twitter has rules about how many chances you get. They start with short bans but repeat offenders are kicked off. It’s nothing strange.

And these are individual corporations and businesses making the call. Anyone kicked off a social media platform has their freedom of speech intact. They can go to any public space and speak just like the rest of us.

AND....it's not being applied evenly and that is the crux of the argument. There are terrorists who can spew all sorts of
hatred and they are good to go. But when a politician says something that the left doesn't like they are kicked off.
Like I said, this is what communist countries do with their state run media, and it really sounds like you are onboard with
this type of application of censorship. sad

 

[progressive hunter]

thats your opinion and its far from the reality of the case,,,

I don’t think so. I think your reality isn’t very accurate and you have too much faith in some very selfish actors, politicians.

I know, crazy to think that elected officials might want to use government to benefit their own political purposes. Just totally nuts.

and now you go to using strawman when your proven wrong,,,AGAIN,,,

tell me ,, how is 230 the foundation for speech on the internet when it only applys to sites with a comment section???

we all know the 1st amendment is the foundation for all speech,,,

230 is a special protection for sites that have comment sections and nothing more,,

so your title is a false premise,,

Not sure what you man about it only applying to sites with a comment section. It applies to any website that allows user submitted content.

Without section 230, there would be far fewer places on the internet where users could submit content. Any site that allowed user submitted content would be forbidden from moderating at all, unless they were willing to take responsibility for every piece of content posted by any person, which surprise they aren't.

Section 230 is the foundation of speech on the internet. A site like this one probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for that law.

of course you dont know what I'm talking about cause youre a fucking liar,,

tell us oh smarter then everyone,,, how would the internet not exist without 230 protections when it only applys to site with comment sections??

 

[progressive hunter]

youre deflecting again,,,

I'm responding directly to the comment of another poster, how could that possibly be considered deflecting?

because you said it,,,

 

[Mac-7]

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.

The only people trying to restrict free speech on the internet are the far left internet companies like Twitter and Facebook

 

[colfax_m]

The only people trying to restrict free speech on the internet are the far left internet companies like Twitter and Facebook

You realize this forum is moderated as well and that these moderates are "restricting free speech" by doing so.

Almost every website with user submitted content has some form of moderation, and those that don't are pretty dodgy.

 

[colfax_m]

because you said it,,,

You are not making sense.

 

[progressive hunter]

because you said it,,,

You are not making sense.

more than you are,,, youve been all over the table when you werent lying,,,

 

[colfax_m]

tell us oh smarter then everyone,,, how would the internet not exist without 230 protections when it only applys to site with comment sections??

It applies to any website with user submitted content. Twitter and Facebook would not exist without it. Twitter and Facebook would not allow people to submit their content if they had to assume legal responsibility for it.

 

[colfax_m]

AND....it's not being applied evenly and that is the crux of the argument. There are terrorists who can spew all sorts of
hatred and they are good to go. But when a politician says something that the left doesn't like they are kicked off.
Like I said, this is what communist countries do with their state run media, and it really sounds like you are onboard with
this type of application of censorship. sad

Social media has done a LOT to crack down on terrorists, specifically when it came to combatting ISIS. Most of it was not really covered by the mainstream media, but they did a ton of work. A lot of it was quite difficult given how prolific the content was and how much media there was, so they had to develop some automated systems with hashes of known terrorist content.

There's tons of politicians on the internet, and tons of them say things the left doesn't like. Some of them cross the line and get into trouble, but honestly not that many because most politicians have some brains.

This isn't state run media, it's private media. What's ironic is that it's the Republicans trying to tell these private media corporations how they should be run but I don't know if you are going to see that.

 

[progressive hunter]

tell us oh smarter then everyone,,, how would the internet not exist without 230 protections when it only applys to site with comment sections??

It applies to any website with user submitted content. Twitter and Facebook would not exist without it. Twitter and Facebook would not allow people to submit their content if they had to assume legal responsibility for it.

so it only protects sites with comment sections,,

so why did you lie in the title of the thread???

twitter and facebook would face the free market if the protections are taken away because they would exist as a publisher not a platform,, if they fail thats on them like any other publisher

 

[colfax_m]

so it only protects sites with comment sections,,

so why did you lie in the title of the thread???

twitter and facebook would face the free market if the protections are taken away because they would exist as a publisher not a platform,, if they fail thats on them like any other publisher

There's already a free market on the internet, one of the freest markets out there given the near infinite space for these websites to exist in and the basically universal accessibility to them by anyone on the internet. The fact that Twitter and Facebook have been successful with their moderation policies speaks to the benefit of these policies in the market. The protections that you are describing exist for every website in this sector, and are not specific to Twitter and Facebook. No website with user submitted information is consider a publisher for that user submitted information. None.

Calling Twitter a site with a comment section is beyond reductive.