Trump set to announce an executive order against Volnation and other social media platforms.

#226
#226
Did Trump clarify yet that in Minnesota, some of the rioters are "very fine people"?

Oh, wait. No. He threatened to have them shot.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Donald J. Trump *might* be a racist.
 
#227
#227
#228
#228
Septic said:
Lol, as a business owner I can assure you that it's not my belief at all.

@Tennesseefan2019 made the statement and implied its what he believed to be true, to be clear.

Since when do you get to tell me what my beliefs are? Do I get to decide what you believe as well? This should be fun.
Click to expand...

So you’re fine with the dissolution of protected classes and allowing private entities to truly determine with whom they do business? Just want to make sure we’re on the same page regarding the extent to which you’re in favor of unbridled free enterprise.
 
#230
#230
MontyPython said:
Like I said, your thinking is bass ackwards.

"Section 230 says that internet platforms that host third-party content — think of tweets on Twitter, posts on Facebook, photos on Instagram, reviews on Yelp, or a news outlet’s reader comments — are not liable for what those third parties post (with a few exceptions). "

Section 230, the internet free speech law Trump wants to change, explained
Click to expand...

From your link.

Two terms used in this statute are critical to understanding its scope.Section 230 distinguishesbetween (1)serviceproviders and (2) contentproviders (although, as discussed below, any given person or business can be both, depending on the activity).Section 230 defines an “interactive computer service”as “any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server.”Courts have considered platforms such as Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, and Craigslistto be “interactive computer service” providers.By contrast, an “information content provider” is “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
Click to expand...

If he is deciding what is posted on his platform he is content provider not an interactive service.
 
#232
#232
Septic said:
Of course there are, but when one person has more bankruptcies than you can count on one hand - it may be time to start asking the tough questions. He's defaulted and left creditors hanging so many times, it's reported that few lenders will even return his calls.
Click to expand...
I’d be interested to see what types of businesses they were and the details of the bankruptcies. .... but not enough to go Google if myself 😎
 
#233
#233
hog88 said:
From your link.



If he is deciding what is posted on his platform he is content provider not an interactive service.
Click to expand...

Again, Trump's alleging companies like Twitter are crossing the line too far, BUT they certainly are *already* allowed to moderate posts (just like here at VN). They are protected from frivolous lawsuits related to such moderating.

"Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section 230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service provides that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action."

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
 
#235
#235
MontyPython said:
Again, Trump's alleging companies like Twitter are crossing the line too far, BUT they certainly are *already* allowed to moderate posts (just like here at VN). They are protected from frivolous lawsuits related to such moderating.

"Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section 230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service provides that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action."

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Click to expand...

Trump is wrong with his EO. Do I think the law needs to be clarified, changed through legislation? Absolutely
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#238
#238
TrumpedUpVol said:
So you’re fine with the dissolution of protected classes and allowing private entities to truly determine with whom they do business? Just want to make sure we’re on the same page regarding the extent to which you’re in favor of unbridled free enterprise.
Click to expand...

Are you asking or telling? I believe that businesses should be able to pick and choose who they want to engage in commerce with freely. It would appear that you're trying to shoehorn an argument about protected classes as a broader conversation to what's being discussed here.

Stop assuming you know what I believe or trying to frame my arguments; I assure you I'm far more libertarian than liberal and your points are going to fall flat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol
#239
#239
Purple Tiger said:
If I own a social media platform, why should I allow anyone to post something with which I disagree? Would you allow that?
Click to expand...
To keep the legal protections of a platform instead of being held to the same laws that publishers are required to follow.
 
#241
#241
golfballs said:
Remember when Trump was sued for blocking people on Twitter and the judge said that people can’t be prevented from seeing his tweets
Click to expand...

Remember when this wasn't relevant to the conversation at all.

Twitter can and should drop him like an empty beer can in a couple of months, I'd pay cash to be a fly on the wall and see his reaction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#243
#243

read Purples post about what his platform would look like and tell us where it would fall. That is what got this conversation started.
 
#244
#244
Septic said:
Are you asking or telling? I believe that businesses should be able to pick and choose who they want to engage in commerce with freely. It would appear that you're trying to shoehorn an argument about protected classes as a broader conversation to what's being discussed here.

Stop assuming you know what I believe or trying to frame my arguments; I assure you I'm far more libertarian than liberal and your points are going to fall flat.
Click to expand...

My assumption was incorrect then, as I was under the mistaken impression you were interested in selectively applying these restrictions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top