Do People Understand Section 230?

#152
#152
utvols88 said:
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
Click to expand...
There is no "exemption." There is no "qualifying." It applies to any site where people other than the owners post content. It applies to VolNation or any other site like this.
 
#153
#153
Velo Vol said:
There is no "exemption." There is no "qualifying." It applies to any site where people other than the owners post content. It applies to VolNation or any other site like this.
Click to expand...
And any site such as fox News does not qualify for the exemption in liability. That's what it provides. A blanket exemption from being held liable. To not be held liable, through section 230, you have to match the definition. Not matching the definition, such as CNN, means you will be held liable. Therefore you qualify or you don't.
giphy - 2020-05-07T115659.991.gif
 
#155
#155
utvols88 said:
And any site such as fox News does not qualify for the exemption in liability. That's what it provides. A blanket exemption from being held liable. To not be held liable, through section 230, you have to match the definition. Not matching the definition, such as CNN, means you will be held liable. Therefore you qualify or you don't.
Click to expand...
What exemption? What definition?

Here is the entire 230. Tell me which provisions you are talking about.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
 
#156
#156
Velo Vol said:
What exemption? What definition?

Here is the entire 230. Tell me which provisions you are talking about.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
Click to expand...

(c) (1)Definition of being defined under this as not a publisher AS LONG AS (c) (2) qualifier: the restrictions are in good faith.
Screenshot_20210110-124827_DuckDuckGo.jpg

The argument is that they are not in good faith. As such, they are not considered under this section, therefore, held liable. Reform supporters want a less broad definition of "good faith". I think twitter and Facebook have shown they are not acting in good faith with the many examples that have been provided in every thread on this topic. They act as a publisher outside of the material that is considered obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable but rather by party line. As a private business they are free to do that but they should also be sued for any civil torts.
 
#157
#157
utvols88 said:
(c) (1)Definition of being defined under this as not a publisher AS LONG AS (c) (2) qualifier: the restrictions are in good faith.
View attachment 338044

The argument is that they are not in good faith. As such, they are not considered under this section, therefore, held liable. Reform supporters want a less broad definition of "good faith". I think twitter and Facebook have shown they are not acting in good faith with the many examples that have been provided in every thread on this topic. They act as a publisher outside of the material that is considered obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable but rather by party line. As a private business they are free to do that but they should also be sued for any civil torts.
Click to expand...

I think the catch all is "otherwise objectionable." Facebook, Twitter, and the like may all be acting in good faith by restricting what they see as objectionable content.
 
#158
#158
Grand Vol said:
Well, for ignorant people like you that don't understand nor study history, the comparison is very compelling.
Click to expand...

Not a direct comparison (I try to avoid the "he's a nazi" comparisons), but interesting: The suspension of many civil liberties in Germany was the direct result of an attack on the Reichstag, the seat of the German legislative body, which the Nazis are suspected to have organized in order to consolidate their power and give the Chancellor (Hitler) the authority to rule by emergency decree.
 
#159
#159
Wafflestomper said:
I think the catch all is "otherwise objectionable." Facebook, Twitter, and the like may all be acting in good faith by restricting what they see as objectionable content.
Click to expand...
Mass banning thousands of users in a day doesn’t seem like a common sense approach to act in good faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#160
#160
ajvol01 said:
Mass banning thousands of users in a day doesn’t seem like a common sense approach to act in good faith.
Click to expand...

I doubt they're mass banning the people promoting fiscal responsibility and small government. Probably the folks like Elizabeth from Knoxville who are discussing the revolution. Whaddya think?
 
#165
#165
ajvol01 said:
Where’s the exact quote that started it?

Or a link to the video clip?

Or tell me when you find it in the speech linked below?

Click to expand...


I guess it's where he said to march down Pennsylvania Avenue and tell Republicans to overturn the results of the election as they were in session certifying the election that he has claimed over and over again was fraudulent and stolen from them. If an unruly mob took that literally, what do you think would happen? Also, one of his guest speakers, Rudy Giuliani, described their efforts as being a "trial by combat."
 
#166
#166
utvols88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I recall, tik tok caused a ton of security red flags for the military. The were earlier concerns about some Chinese manufactured phones being used by members of the military. There's a real advantage if the enemy can use cellphones to track their opposition - even better if they could turn on mics and cameras. Most people never really stop to think about the security implications of cellphones - especially after they became smart phones with cameras. Voyeurism probably never had it so good now that it's more common to see a person with a phone than without.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#168
#168
utvols88 said:
(c) (1)Definition of being defined under this as not a publisher AS LONG AS (c) (2) qualifier: the restrictions are in good faith.
View attachment 338044

The argument is that they are not in good faith. As such, they are not considered under this section, therefore, held liable. Reform supporters want a less broad definition of "good faith". I think twitter and Facebook have shown they are not acting in good faith with the many examples that have been provided in every thread on this topic. They act as a publisher outside of the material that is considered obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable but rather by party line. As a private business they are free to do that but they should also be sued for any civil torts.
Click to expand...
So you want to more people to be able to sue Facebook if it deletes crude photos?
 
#169
#169
Velo Vol said:
So you want to more people to be able to sue Facebook if it deletes crude photos?
Click to expand...
Facebook is a publisher imo. So whatever torts happen to WSJ, can happen with Facebook. They can choose their product and moderation as they see fit as they do. As of now, don't think they've proven to do it in good faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#173
#173
AM64 said:
As I recall, tik tok caused a ton of security red flags for the military. The were earlier concerns about some Chinese manufactured phones being used by members of the military. There's a real advantage if the enemy can use cellphones to track their opposition - even better if they could turn on mics and cameras. Most people never really stop to think about the security implications of cellphones - especially after they became smart phones with cameras. Voyeurism probably never had it so good now that it's more common to see a person with a phone than without.
Click to expand...

There was an issue with gps watches that military intelligence people uses. They were warned they could be tracked while jogging.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#175
#175
Orangeburst said:
Thought police with no debate..the Dem way. One thing I have always noticed is how big MSM like CNN nver even allow comment sections.
Click to expand...

That wasn't always the case. I believe that section was removed in 2013 or 2014. Mostly full of conservatives calling CNN out on literally every article. Probably why it was closed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top