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

#376
#376
zeppelin128 said:
So conservatives are angry that a private company might deny them service and want something done about it!!!
But also let folks deny cake baking for LGBTQ+ couples?
Bunch of ****ing hypocrites.
Click to expand...
Oh you were so close. The baker isn't under section 230.
 
#378
#378
Wafflestomper said:
Your right to free speech stops where someone else's (in this case, a company) begins; so it's entirely consistent. Twitter has the right to censor or amend your posts, although they would then be responsible for the content they provided.

What's inconsistent is claiming that you have the right to force a private company to host your "free speech" on their property, since you'd theoretically be taking their right to free speech away.
Click to expand...

That isn't my argument though. Twitter does not have to host my free speech. However, if they claim no liability for what I say on their site, it is definitionally MY free speech, not theirs, and they do not have the right to censor it... To use your words, because "their free speech stops where mine begins".

Now... If they want to censor my speech, fine. At that point, the website is an exercise in their free speech, not mine, and they are responsible for everything on their site.

You are proposing a system in which Twitter's freedom of speech always takes precedent over mine, but I still assume all the liability for what is posted. That is not in the spirit of the First amendment, and it is absolutely not in the spirit of Section 230.

Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.
Click to expand...

Platform, or Publisher?

If you want to keep saying that is an anti-conservative view, that's fine. But as with most issues involving these giant tech companies, if it was in any other domain, "Giant corporation rides favorable legislation to a cornered market, now attempts to implement anti-consumer policies" would have the lefties in a frenzy. Now all the sudden we are all 1st ammendment fanatics here.
 
#379
#379
Ten_Titans said:
That isn't my argument though. Twitter does not have to host my free speech. However, if they claim no liability for what I say on their site, it is definitionally MY free speech, not theirs, and they do not have the right to censor it... To use your words, because "their free speech stops where mine begins".

Now... If they want to censor my speech, fine. At that point, the website is an exercise in their free speech, not mine, and they are responsible for everything on their site.

You are proposing a system in which Twitter's freedom of speech always takes precedent over mine, but I still assume all the liability for what is posted. That is not in the spirit of the First amendment, and it is absolutely not in the spirit of Section 230.



Platform, or Publisher?

If you want to keep saying that is an anti-conservative view, that's fine. But as with most issues involving these giant tech companies, if it was in any other domain, "Giant corporation rides favorable legislation to a cornered market, now attempts to implement anti-consumer policies" would have the lefties in a frenzy. Now all the sudden we are all 1st ammendment fanatics here.
Click to expand...
What benefit is derived from twitter being liable for the speech of their users if they moderate content?

Why is that good policy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#380
#380
RockyTop85 said:
What benefit is derived from twitter being liable for the speech of their users if they moderate content?

Why is that good policy?
Click to expand...
Unlike Trump and sleepy Joe, I'm not for the abolishment of section 230. It is very simple for Twitter to moderate without censoring speech, and it is much easier than attempting to play thought police like they are doing now. All they have to do is follow the spirit of what is laid out in section 230.
 
#381
#381
Ten_Titans said:
Unlike Trump and sleepy Joe, I'm not for the abolishment of section 230. It is very simple for Twitter to moderate without censoring speech, and it is much easier than attempting to play thought police like they are doing now. All they have to do is follow the spirit of what is laid out in section 230.
Click to expand...

You just said “If they want to censor my speech, fine. At that point, the website is an exercise in their free speech, not mine, and they are responsible for everything on their site.”

That’s not what section 230 says. So you are asking for it to be modified. I just want to know what about that modification makes good policy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#382
#382
RockyTop85 said:
You just said “If they want to censor my speech, fine. At that point, the website is an exercise in their free speech, not mine, and they are responsible for everything on their site.”

That’s not what section 230 says. So you are asking for it to be modified. I just want to know what about that modification makes good policy?
Click to expand...
No no no...

What I'm saying there, is if they want to do political censoring, that is totally fine. But they shouldn't be afforded protections from section 230 as a platform if they do.

If they follow this guideline:

...platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”
Click to expand...

Then they should NOT be held liable as publishers.

What Twitter/Google and others have attempted to do is just expound the definition of "otherwise objectionable" in bad faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#383
#383
Ten_Titans said:
That isn't my argument though. Twitter does not have to host my free speech. However, if they claim no liability for what I say on their site, it is definitionally MY free speech, not theirs, and they do not have the right to censor it... To use your words, because "their free speech stops where mine begins".
Click to expand...

Your free speech ends when you use their property. They are free to restrict it so long as you are using their services. Don't like it? You're free to go somewhere else. You don't get absolute freedom of speech to do as you please because they allowed you in the door.

Ten_Titans said:
Now... If they want to censor my speech, fine. At that point, the website is an exercise in their free speech, not mine, and they are responsible for everything on their site.
Click to expand...

How does it follow that they're responsible for everything since they changed one thing? Why wouldn't they only be responsible for the content they produced (e.g., a fact check)?

Ten_Titans said:
You are proposing a system in which Twitter's freedom of speech always takes precedent over mine, but I still assume all the liability for what is posted. That is not in the spirit of the First amendment, and it is absolutely not in the spirit of Section 230.
Click to expand...

You are liable for the content you produce and they're liable for theirs--this is called personal responsibility. Have you read Section 230? The spirit of it is to only be liable for content you create, which seems to me to be common sense. There is nothing I've seen in the document which states that companies aren't allowed to be biased.

"In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. found that as Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and legally responsible for libel committed by customers.[11][a]"

"United States Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) [one of the framers of Section 230] had read an article about the two cases and felt the decisions were backwards. 'It struck me that if that rule was going to take hold then the internet would become the Wild West and nobody would have any incentive to keep the internet civil,' Cox stated.[12]"

Ten_Titans said:
Platform, or Publisher?

If you want to keep saying that is an anti-conservative view, that's fine. But as with most issues involving these giant tech companies, if it was in any other domain, "Giant corporation rides favorable legislation to a cornered market, now attempts to implement anti-consumer policies" would have the lefties in a frenzy. Now all the sudden we are all 1st ammendment fanatics here.
Click to expand...

Being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong. Tu quoque.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#385
#385
Ten_Titans said:
No no no...

What I'm saying there, is if they want to do political censoring, that is totally fine. But they shouldn't be afforded protections from section 230 as a platform.

If they follow this guideline:



Then they should NOT be held liable as publishers.

What Twitter/Google and others have attempted to do is just expound the definition of "otherwise objectionable" in bad faith.
Click to expand...
Ok. That’s literally verbatim what you said. I copied and pasted it from your post. And this interpretation of “otherwise objectionable” is contrary to how that language has been interpreted, so you’re at least arguing for a revision in how that language is interpreted.

However, setting all that aside:
I just want to know what benefit you see accruing from the government getting involved in telling these businesses how to moderate user created content on their privately owned “property?“

There are a lot of negative consequences that will take place. I just want to know the perceived positive outcomes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#388
#388
zeppelin128 said:
So conservatives are angry that a private company might deny them service and want something done about it!!!
But also let folks deny cake baking for LGBTQ+ couples?
Bunch of ****ing hypocrites.
Click to expand...
Is this a serious post?

You’re honestly comparing a small Christian owned business (bakery) to a global tech giant (Twitter) that has legal protection due to its designation as a neutral platform?

What legal protections does the baker have?
 
#389
#389
zeppelin128 said:
It isn't a straw man. You are pissed at a private company for saying something. And you want the Feds to be able to give you special privilege. Hypocrites, the whole lot of you. This board is completely fine with denying services to LGBTQ+ patrons. But oh don't you dare **** with your social media posts, when it is the same damn thing.
Click to expand...
If Twitter wants to relinquish legal protections afforded by its status as a neutral platform they can edit/censor/fact-check to their heart’s content.

Otherwise they can not.
 
#391
#391
Wafflestomper said:
Twitter is still responsible for the content that they publish, so it's not clear how your gripe is any different than saying they ought to also be held responsible for what other people say--and that it would be a special privilege for that to not be the case.



The alternative is that private companies don't actually have the right to free speech, which seems to me to be much worse than you having to use another service to host your thoughts. The GOP has really come a long way from the self-proclaimed moral majority and party of personal responsibility. JFC.
Click to expand...
This sums it up
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, Rickyvol77 and allvol123
#392
#392
USAFgolferVol said:
The true support for Trump runs around 35%

That the Donald doesn't want anyone fact checking is fairly predictable. He's both a pathological and professional liar
Click to expand...
They’ve been predicting the Trump re-election landslide for years now, despite the fact he always tops out at about 47 percent.
 
#393
#393
Wafflestomper said:
Your right to free speech stops where someone else's (in this case, a company) begins; so it's entirely consistent. Twitter has the right to censor or amend your posts, although they would then be responsible for the content they provided.

What's inconsistent is claiming that you have the right to force a private company to host your "free speech" on their property, since you'd theoretically be taking their right to free speech away.
Click to expand...
When do their legal protections as a neutral platform end if they engage in non-neutral editing and censorship?
 
#394
#394
Why does censoring = publisher?

The only places I can think about anything being censored is various media. And I dont know if the group censoring is held liable as the publisher. Maybe they are always the same thing, but it seems like those could be two separate entities.

I am thinking of movies or music that gets reproduced. Like a radio version of a song that bleeps curse words. Does the station or who ever edits the song always share that liability? I was thinking the studio was still the "publisher" and any use of that media was just distribution, so the distributor (radio station or twitter) wasnt not liable for the content.

Or movies where nudity is edited out, or they change curse words, or even just edit length. Does that make them liable for the content of the movie?

At least my assumptions are based on those "publishers" not being liable for the edited media. Could be a false premise, or there could some extra layer of complexity I dont know about (third party assumes liability as the editor).
 
#395
#395
hlu8q54t5n151.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, volfanhill and Purple Tiger
#397
#397
ajvol01 said:
When do their legal protections as a neutral platform end if they engage in non-neutral editing and censorship?
Click to expand...

You're assuming they are required to be neutral. Where in Section 230 does it say its provisions only apply to wholly neutral entities?
 
#398
#398
ajvol01 said:
Is this a serious post?

You’re honestly comparing a small Christian owned business (bakery) to a global tech giant (Twitter) that has legal protection due to its designation as a neutral platform?

What legal protections does the baker have?
Click to expand...
It is an apt comparison when you look at it from this angle: what's good for the goose is good for the gander,
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#400
#400
LouderVol said:
So the media should be calling out Twitter for being bigoted?

It would be great if either side demonstrated some type of consistency, ever.
Click to expand...

You can't see the forest for the trees. If a baker can refuse service to someone, then Twitter can attach warnings to or delete posts that they don't want on their site. The owner of a business can refuse to do business with someone if they in some way violate the owner's rules or principles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top