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

[progressive hunter]

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.

youre deflecting again,,

your claim in the OP is 230 is the foundation of speech on the internet and it wouldnt exist without it,,,

that is not true,,

as for twit and facebook ,, if they applied their rules equally across the board there wouldnt be an issue,, but they refuse and are open about where they stand,,

and please dont come back with another deflection or lie,, they are getting pathetic,,,

 

[Mac-7]

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

As I see it any speech that is not against the law on a public street or the public square should be allowed on the private media forums

and that will include speech that can piss liberals off

or speech that blasphemes the God of Abraham

its all good

if libs dont like it go somewhere else

but thats not happening now

Powerful liberals with billions in assets are censuring speech to suit their personal political taste

 

[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.

youre deflecting again,,

your claim in the OP is 230 is the foundation of speech on the internet and it wouldnt exist without it,,,

that is not true,,

as for twit and facebook ,, if they applied their rules equally across the board there wouldnt be an issue,, but they refuse and are open about where they stand,,

and please dont come back with another deflection or lie,, they are getting pathetic,,,

You misquoted my title, I didn't say it wouldn't exist, I said it would hardly exist. I think that the majority of the use of the internet is by user generated content. Twitter, Faceboo, Youtube, Reddit, even Wikipedia is user generated content.

Why would you want the government to tell Twitter and Facebook how to apply their rules? That's not their place.

 

[colfax_m]

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

As I see it any speech that is not against the law on a public street or the public square should be allowed on the private media forums

and that will include speech that can piss liberals off

or speech that blasphemes the God of Abraham

its all good

if libs dont like it go somewhere else

but thats not happening now

Powerful liberals with billions in assets are censuring speech to suit their personal political taste

You may want that speech to be allowed on private media forums, but given you don't own those forums, you don't get to demand that of them.

If you don't like the way these forums are run, "go somewhere else". Powerful Republicans with elected offices are threatening private companies to suit their personal political advantages, in my opinion. That's far worse to me than what some billionaire does with their own money.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

youre deflecting again,,

your claim in the OP is 230 is the foundation of speech on the internet and it wouldnt exist without it,,,

that is not true,,

as for twit and facebook ,, if they applied their rules equally across the board there wouldnt be an issue,, but they refuse and are open about where they stand,,

and please dont come back with another deflection or lie,, they are getting pathetic,,,

You misquoted my title, I didn't say it wouldn't exist, I said it would hardly exist. I think that the majority of the use of the internet is by user generated content. Twitter, Faceboo, Youtube, Reddit, even Wikipedia is user generated content.

Why would you want the government to tell Twitter and Facebook how to apply their rules? That's not their place.

its their place when they are the ones giving them special protections,,,

and the internet will be just fine if not better if the social sites arent there,,,

 

[Mac-7]

You may want that speech to be allowed on private media forums, but given you don't own those forums, you don't get to demand that of them.

I dont personally

but through congress its entirely possible

 

[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.

youre deflecting again,,

your claim in the OP is 230 is the foundation of speech on the internet and it wouldnt exist without it,,,

that is not true,,

as for twit and facebook ,, if they applied their rules equally across the board there wouldnt be an issue,, but they refuse and are open about where they stand,,

and please dont come back with another deflection or lie,, they are getting pathetic,,,

You misquoted my title, I didn't say it wouldn't exist, I said it would hardly exist. I think that the majority of the use of the internet is by user generated content. Twitter, Faceboo, Youtube, Reddit, even Wikipedia is user generated content.

Why would you want the government to tell Twitter and Facebook how to apply their rules? That's not their place.

its their place when they are the ones giving them special protections,,,

and the internet will be just fine if not better if the social sites arent there,,,

They're not given special protections, they're given the exact same protections as any other website on the internet.

 

[colfax_m]

I dont personally

but through congress its entirely possible

Since when does Congress get the authority to make that demand?

Doesn't seem like that's the case in this country, maybe in some less free countries where government can push around the media, like Russia or something.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

youre deflecting again,,

your claim in the OP is 230 is the foundation of speech on the internet and it wouldnt exist without it,,,

that is not true,,

as for twit and facebook ,, if they applied their rules equally across the board there wouldnt be an issue,, but they refuse and are open about where they stand,,

and please dont come back with another deflection or lie,, they are getting pathetic,,,

You misquoted my title, I didn't say it wouldn't exist, I said it would hardly exist. I think that the majority of the use of the internet is by user generated content. Twitter, Faceboo, Youtube, Reddit, even Wikipedia is user generated content.

Why would you want the government to tell Twitter and Facebook how to apply their rules? That's not their place.

its their place when they are the ones giving them special protections,,,

and the internet will be just fine if not better if the social sites arent there,,,

They're not given special protections, they're given the exact same protections as any other website on the internet.

wrong again,, its doesnt apply if they dont have a comments section,, which is most of the sites on the internet,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

I dont personally

but through congress its entirely possible

Since when does Congress get the authority to make that demand?

Doesn't seem like that's the case in this country, maybe in some less free countries where government can push around the media, like Russia or something.

since it was congress that gave them the protections,,

and it has nothing to do with pushing them around,, its about equal treatment,,

 

[Mac-7]

Since when does Congress get the authority to make that demand?

They can withdraw this rule that you are so fond of

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

as long as hey apply those rules equally I have no problem,, but they dont and clearly have a one sided approach to it which makes them a publisher not a social media platform,,

They’re always publishers in reality, just that the law doesn’t treat them as publishers.

Social media websites put speech into a form for wide consumption and distributed it which is basically the definition of a publisher in my opinion. But making them liable as a publisher makes zero sense. The number of postings on social media sites exceeds the capacity to monitor all postings, unlike a typical publisher of a book or newspaper, who can go through the speech before disseminating it.

Social media websites are different than anything we’ve had before. We shouldn’t try to force them into the regulations designed for other systems.

Correct.

Social media are private publishers at liberty to edit their content as they see fit – where how they might edit their content in no manner ‘violates’ free speech; as private entities social media are neither subject to the doctrine of free speech nor First Amendment case law.

 

[colfax_m]

wrong again,, its doesnt apply if they dont have a comments section,, which is most of the sites on the internet,,,

It only applies to comment sections (as you so simplistically put it) so yeah you’re right but totally missing the point.

It’s not a special protection given it applies to the comment section of anyone that has a comment section.

 

[colfax_m]

Since when does Congress get the authority to make that demand?

They can withdraw this rule that you are so fond of

Which would limit speech on the internet, not expand it.

Given it would accomplish the opposite of your stated goal, I can only assume that would be intended to be punitive

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

This is ignorant, wrong and a lie.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, no between or among private entities or private persons – such as social media.

Only government has the potential to violate free speech because of government’s authority to enact laws and impose punitive measures.

Private social media have no such authority, and are consequently incapable of ‘violating’ free speech.

 

[progressive hunter]

wrong again,, its doesnt apply if they dont have a comments section,, which is most of the sites on the internet,,,

It only applies to comment sections (as you so simplistically put it) so yeah you’re right but totally missing the point.

It’s not a special protection given it applies to the comment section of anyone that has a comment section.

if you cant understand it in its simplest form you will never understand the big picture,,,

its a special protect because it only applies to sites with a comment section,, thats what speacial means,, its specific to who it applies, not every site,, hence special,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Since when does Congress get the authority to make that demand?

They can withdraw this rule that you are so fond of

Which would limit speech on the internet, not expand it.

Given it would accomplish the opposite of your stated goal, I can only assume that would be intended to be punitive

speech is already limited,, THATS THE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!

 

[Mac-7]

would limit speech on the internet, not expand it.

Its being limited now by liberals

 

[Mac-7]

Given it would accomplish the opposite of your stated goal, I can only assume that would be intended to be punitive

If necessary yes

punitive is ok with me

 

[colfax_m]

wrong again,, its doesnt apply if they dont have a comments section,, which is most of the sites on the internet,,,

It only applies to comment sections (as you so simplistically put it) so yeah you’re right but totally missing the point.

It’s not a special protection given it applies to the comment section of anyone that has a comment section.

if you cant understand it in its simplest form you will never understand the big picture,,,

its a special protect because it only applies to sites with a comment section,, thats what speacial means,, its specific to who it applies, not every site,, hence special,,

It’s not special because it applies to that circumstance. Any website with that circumstance is covered. A website that had no comment section has no need for such protection. The protection literally couldn’t apply to websites without comment sections.

This is a mind-boggling strange criticism.

It would be a special protection if it applied to Twitter but not Parler, for example.