motonoggin Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 6 minutes ago, Highmark said: Nope. This was put in place so websites don't have to verify information like news or other publishing organizations are supposed to follow. Section 230 is a piece of Internet legislation in the United States, passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), formally codified as Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. § 230.[a] Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users: Like I said, regurgitated talking point. You didn't answer the question at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchy Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 hour ago, motonoggin said: I really don't see how you can make a first amendment freedom of speech argument at all unless you are trying to say Big Tech is a defacto government. only stupid people who don't understand the first make that claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Just now, motonoggin said: And you fucking know they're going to censor anyone to the left of Hitler. And not one of the supposed free speech advocates will say a fucking word. Parler was censoring postings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 11, 2021 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, ActionfigureJoe said: Does this mean Momo could be sued over his virtual helicopter? Its the publisher who section 230 gives protection too. Don't think the author is exempt from certain legal standards such as liable and slander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Just now, ActionfigureJoe said: Parler was censoring postings. Of course they were. It's a corporation, not a government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Just now, Highmark said: Its the publisher who section 230 gives protection too. Don't think the author is exempt from certain legal standards such as liable and slander. Of course this would’ve meant 99% of trump’s bullshit on Twitter would’ve been deleted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Just now, ActionfigureJoe said: Of course this would’ve meant 99% of trump’s bullshit on Twitter would’ve been deleted. I’m going to send spin_dry over to donjr.com and see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, ActionfigureJoe said: I’m going to send spin_dry over to donjr.com and see what happens. Are you telling yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 11, 2021 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, motonoggin said: Like I said, regurgitated talking point. You didn't answer the question at all. No its not. Under section 230 the "publisher" has zero responsibility in verifying content is accurate. Basically they provide the chalkboard and anyone who wants can write on it. They can erase or control what goes on it but even that is suppose to have some limits. I admit it needs to be fine tuned but never will. How its written now really allows them to censor whatever they want. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 5 minutes ago, Dave said: Are you telling yourself? What the fuck are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 7 minutes ago, Highmark said: No its not. Under section 230 the "publisher" has zero responsibility in verifying content is accurate. Basically they provide the chalkboard and anyone who wants can write on it. They can erase or control what goes on it but even that is suppose to have some limits. I admit it needs to be fine tuned but never will. How its written now really allows them to censor whatever they want. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] So all of trump’s lies posted on Twitter should’ve been removed or Twitter could’ve been sued? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 11, 2021 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 11, 2021 6 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said: So all of trump’s lies posted on Twitter should’ve been removed or Twitter could’ve been sued? Jesus your dense. Section 230 protects them from being sued even if they didn't delete anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Jesus your dense. Section 230 protects them from being sued even if they didn't delete anything. Not if section 230 was overturned, dummy. Sounds like a watershed for lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 13 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said: What the fuck are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Sec 230 was written at a time when the silverhairs in congress only knew online meant screechy sounds on the phone line. It needs a broad revisit within the context of constitutional law and precedence governing ISP regulations. On the big tech, I think they need to somehow be forced to do away with the algorithms that are driving so much of the division. The algorithms have really really fucked with the national psyche and driven neighbors and friends into camps. I think 90% of the problem with socials would go away if they weren't constantly fucking with what you see to increase your clicks and engagement. It's a really evil business model. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Matt said: Sec 230 was written at a time when the silverhairs in congress only knew online meant screechy sounds on the phone line. It needs a broad revisit within the context of constitutional law and precedence governing ISP regulations. On the big tech, I think they need to somehow be forced to do away with the algorithms that are driving so much of the division. The algorithms have really really fucked with the national psyche and driven neighbors and friends into camps. I think 90% of the problem with socials would go away if they weren't constantly fucking with what you see to increase your clicks and engagement. It's a really evil business model. I don’t see how repealing 230 would do anything to address the algorithm issues. I agree it’s an huge problem. We’re being sold as product without our consent. Anti-trust? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 11, 2021 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 11, 2021 7 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said: Not if section 230 was overturned, dummy. Sounds like a watershed for lawyers. You didn't say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 BTW, if we can kill an entire social network that easily, why do we still have kiddie porn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 6 minutes ago, Dave said: You have that black filter thing turned on? I hate those things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Highmark said: You didn't say that. Well I did now. It’s a bad idea and one that would lead to a legal minefield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionfigureJoe Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Matt said: BTW, if we can kill an entire social network that easily, why do we still have kiddie porn? Because of pizzagate and the liberals. Edited January 11, 2021 by ActionfigureJoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 13 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said: You have that black filter thing turned on? I hate those things. Yup....less glare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchy Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 hour ago, Matt said: BTW, if we can kill an entire social network that easily, why do we still have kiddie porn? it still exists, as will the retard voice of Parler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 12, 2021 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 12, 2021 14 hours ago, ActionfigureJoe said: Well I did now. It’s a bad idea and one that would lead to a legal minefield. Completely agree however if the govt is going to give them certain legal protections then it needs to be re-worked. Social media is not the same as talk radio. Talk radio is not offered the same legal protections and is not in the same classification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 On 1/11/2021 at 7:02 AM, f7ben said: Just try and defend what they did to parlor in a coordinated attack. Fucking idiot #corporatefreespeech! Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.