Do People Understand Section 230?

[Weezy]

I don't think the baker argument holds. There's two companies that are gatekeepers to what goes on your phone, which is the most valuable tool anybody has, particularly for information.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I was referring to the table turning moment with WS on his comments.

The paradigm changes when someone says "use another baker" and then goes and shuts down that other baker for whatever reason. Competition in the market is what we allude to. But when the competition gets removed, that argument no longer stands.

No one shut down parler. If other businesses, say ones that provide flour to the bakery, decided to not do business with the bakery anymore that's their right as a private business.

 

[Grand Vol]

No one shut down parler. If other businesses, say ones that provide flour to the bakery, decided to not do business with the bakery anymore that's their right as a private business.

"No one shut down that Jewish business. We just labeled it as Juden filth and closed off the streets going to it."

Berlin, 1933

 

[Wafflestomper]

"No one shut down that Jewish business. We just labeled it as Juden filth and closed off the streets going to it."

Berlin, 1933

Are you saying that private companies deciding to not do business with a company they disagree with is tantamount to nazi Germany? Most of you would have called that free enterprise a few years ago. Don't be so dramatic.

 

[Grand Vol]

Are you saying that private companies deciding to not do business with a company they disagree with is tantamount to nazi Germany? Most of you would have called that free enterprise a few years ago. Don't be so dramatic.

Well, for ignorant people like you that don't understand nor study history, the comparison is very compelling.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Well, for ignorant people like you that don't understand nor study history, the comparison is very compelling.

I think you mean it sounds very compelling to a butthurt minority who want the government to step in and force businesses to cater to their qanon social media website. Because that's what's going on here.

 

[Grand Vol]

I think you mean it sounds very compelling to a butthurt minority who want the government to step in and force businesses to cater to their qanon social media website. Because that's what's going on here.

Now see, why do you invoke the who Q thing with me?

Can you please go to that thread and show me exactly where I've posted anything Q related. Or mentioned in ever in the past.

This is what your side does. You can't stand to be called out on your fascist leanings and respond with insults. It's petty, childish and frankly, not even surprising.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Now see, why do you invoke the who Q thing with me?

Can you please go to that thread and show me exactly where I've posted anything Q related. Or mentioned in ever in the past.

This is what your side does. You can't stand to be called out on your fascist leanings and respond with insults. It's petty, childish and frankly, not even surprising.

Oh, so you're entitled to use ridiculous hyperbole but I can't mention the qanon nuts on Parler (and I didn't say you're one of them either) without being called petty and childish? If you recall, you compared a business's right to free association with the holocaust. Come the **** on.

 

[1972 Grad]

Are you saying that private companies deciding to not do business with a company they disagree with is tantamount to nazi Germany? Most of you would have called that free enterprise a few years ago. Don't be so dramatic.

How does this square with your views on baking gay cakes? You know, 2 male cakes that licke each other's icing.

 

[AM64]

How does this square with your views on baking gay cakes? You know, 2 male cakes that like each other's icing.

Remember for libs ... it's complicated and at the same time it's flexible (maybe ... sometimes)

 

[Wafflestomper]

How does this square with your views on baking gay cakes? You know, 2 male cakes that licke each other's icing.

I'm for businesses turning away anyone they want. I'm also for not patronizing businesses who do that in ways that I disagree with.

 

[ajvol01]

I'm for businesses turning away anyone they want. I'm also for not patronizing businesses who do that in ways that I disagree with.

So if Verizon or AT&T doesn’t like who you support politically you’re ok with them turning people away?

What about banks / credit cards?

PayPal?

Google?

What about public utilities?

Where do the lines get drawn and who draws the lines?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

In odd news Parler censored conservative attorney Lin Wood. So, Parler...... the "place of free speech"...... isn't always going to allow free speech?

Parler reportedly removed posts by Trump affiliate Lin Wood calling for execution of VP Mike Pence

 

[RikidyBones]

I agree they’ve become too powerful, I also think that the government shouldn’t meddle in other businesses either. A free market should be able to correct itself. If enough people get upset, Twitter and Facebook will lose a ton of revenue. If they don’t, then not enough people care how terribly they run their business.

This is my beef with big tech and I think antitrust is the question. Tech has strategized to get rid of twitters competition, Parler. I don't have a Parler but removing it from the two main stores is ridiculous. That kind of thing cannot happen if we are to rely on the free market.

 

[Velo Vol]

Well, for ignorant people like you that don't understand nor study history, the comparison is very compelling.

Person who makes silly Godwin argument says other person doesn't study history. Rich.

Do we have the government telling us where we must download apps, or nah?

 

[Velo Vol]

"No one shut down that Jewish business. We just labeled it as Juden filth and closed off the streets going to it."

Berlin, 1933

By the way, do you compare the government's actual threat to ban TikTok to Nazism?

 

[RikidyBones]

By the way, do you compare the government's actual threat to ban TikTok to Nazism?

The apps purpose was to collect information for a foreign enemy. National security comes into play and they were given the opportunity to sell so those data mining commands can be removed. A little different from the issues we see with Google, Twitter, Facebook

 

[TheDeeble]

I don't think the baker argument holds. There's two companies that are gatekeepers to what goes on your phone, which is the most valuable tool anybody has, particularly for information.

I don't either and I haven't worked out completely how I feel. Outside of that one baker, there's likely numerous places that will make the cake of your choice and in a very convenient and accessible location close to you. We're talking one business, 2-3 employees maybe, and no significant sums of money or influence involved.

None of that is true when it comes to the big tech companies. These are billion dollar companies that control the flow of information and use their money to lobby politicians and curry favor with them. Several people have said if you don't like the rules of twitter then go somewhere else. People did. And the tech companies Apple, Google, and Amazon used their power and influence to make parler irrelevant because of that.

 

[RikidyBones]

I don't either and I haven't worked out completely how I feel. Outside of that one baker, there's likely numerous places that will make the cake of your choice and in a very convenient and accessible location close to you. We're talking one business, 2-3 employees maybe, and no significant sums of money or influence involved.

None of that is true when it comes to the big tech companies. These are billion dollar companies that control the flow of information and use their money to lobby politicians and curry favor with them. Several people have said if you don't like the rules of twitter then go somewhere else. People did. And the tech companies Apple, Google, and Amazon used their power and influence to make parler irrelevant because of that.

Which is where antitrust comes in.

Google, Facebook and Twitter already admitted to working together on censorship during their last hearing together. Squashing competition and the potential for free market brings on antitrust.

We talk about the baker. If the baker colluded with the county to restrict any other bakers getting permits/licenses unless they prohibit gay wedding cakes, I'd take the same issue. Or colluded with the banks to not loan out for new bakeries, we'd have the same issue.

 

[Grand Vol]

By the way, do you compare the government's actual threat to ban TikTok to Nazism?

Why would I? Seems like the left has the market cornered on comparing anything Trump suggested to Hitler.

 

[deezvols]

This is my beef with big tech and I think antitrust is the question. Tech has strategized to get rid of twitters competition, Parler. I don't have a Parler but removing it from the two main stores is ridiculous. That kind of thing cannot happen if we are to rely on the free market.

Well it’s amazing how few companies control our lives. You almost can’t use a computer without directly supporting Microsoft or Apple. And you can hardly use a phone without supporting Samsung, Apple, or google.

 

[Velo Vol]

The apps purpose was to collect information for a foreign enemy. National security comes into play and they were given the opportunity to sell so those data mining commands can be removed. A little different from the issues we see with Google, Twitter, Facebook

So it would be completely justified for the government to tell people who work with national secrets that they can't use TikTok, but what about the 13-year-old girl next door?

 

[Velo Vol]

Getting back to 230, we're seeing exactly what it does. Had Congress flat-out repealed it a couple weeks ago, Parler would probably be gone today--unless they completely changed it.

 

[RikidyBones]

So it would be completely justified for the government to tell people who work with national secrets that they can't use TikTok, but what about the 13-year-old girl next door?

I don't think there was much kick back on the tik tok issues from democrats. I may be wrong on that but I didn't see the usual outrage. I don't think it was national secrets they were collecting so calm your balls on that. It was personal and private information, access to malware opportunities, etc using that information the app has access to.

 

[RikidyBones]

Getting back to 230, we're seeing exactly what it does. Had Congress flat-out repealed it a couple weeks ago, Parler would probably be gone today--unless they completely changed it.

I understand section 230 existing. But the exemption for Twitter and Facebook should be stripped. Other companies can emerge and qualify but they have to moderate in good faith like Twitter and Facebook were supposed. I also think section 230 needs a review to define and redefine so it matches the technology presently