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

#102
#102
Ten_Titans said:
"Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content."

The question posed is whether or not they are a platform if they do political censorship.
Click to expand...
Why would any business be held responsible for what the end user does with their product?

This sounds like LG wanting to make gun manufacturers liable for shootings. At least he has the excuse of being a lawyer who needs the business. What's yours?
 
#103
#103
LouderVol said:
which cutoff?

and it also depends on if you actually mean "convserative" when you say "republican"; or if you mean "Party first".

because if you actually mean "conserative" and not "party", its over the line whenever the government steps in on private businesses.
if you mean "party" that line is somewhere very far left, in the shadow of the Democrats and liberals begging for more government.
Click to expand...

Private businesses and corporations have to operate within nondiscrimination guidelines so why should social media platforms be able to operate differently?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tennesseefan2019 and NEO
#104
#104
MontyPython said:
Cool story bro. So you're good with the elimination of Volnation moderators?
Click to expand...

I believe the mods here work for free.

They would still be here as all post I believe so we arent losing them.

The only difference would be they can't ban or remove post I guess.....I think.....

But honestly things like slander, threats, etc are already against the law so there really isn't a need for them outside of people's feels.


Why? Do you feel better protected knowing there are Mods here? Do you feel they are necessary?
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#109
#109
LouderVol said:
i guess I don't know what legal protection they are offered that others aren't.

political party isnt a protected class.
Click to expand...

In my understanding, a platform can’t be sued for defamation, libel, etc because they are operating as a neutral “public square” that is used by people to create and share content and ideas.

If Twitter starts editing specific groups and/or ideas they’re no longer operating as a platform and would be considered a publisher.

A publisher can be sued because they are responsible for the content they publish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, NEO and Rickyvol77
#110
#110
MontyPython said:
THIS. If Trump doesn't like Twitter, by all means - start something else. "Trumpster". Whatever. Trump and his merry band of merry morons can create the greatest echo chamber of pure, unadulterated lies and stupidity ever! Would LOVE to see this for amusement purposes only, naturally.
Click to expand...
Q-anon? Or whatever the hell that thing is called
 
#112
#112
ajvol01 said:
In my understanding, a platform can’t be sued for defamation, libel, etc because they are operating as a neutral “public square” that is used by people to create and share content and ideas.

If Twitter starts editing specific groups and/or ideas they’re no longer operating as a platform and would be considered a publisher.

A publisher can be sued because they are responsible for the content they publish.
Click to expand...
Twitter and FB have been editing and blocking conservatives for a long time. They can’t be considered neutral platforms
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tennesseefan2019
#114
#114
NEOCON said:
Peanut butter Jelly time

Peanut butter Jelly time
Click to expand...
volfanjustin said:
Yes. At least one of them for sure
Click to expand...


maxresdefault.jpg
 
#118
#118
ajvol01 said:
In my understanding, a platform can’t be sued for defamation, libel, etc because they are operating as a neutral “public square” that is used by people to create and share content and ideas.

If Twitter starts editing specific groups and/or ideas they’re no longer operating as a platform and would be considered a publisher.

A publisher can be sued because they are responsible for the content they publish.
Click to expand...

Have they been "editing" people? That would imply changing their message, which I don't think that they do (and would be really problematic). They have been banning certain types of speech on their platform and fact-checking people. Making them responsible for the words of others because they fact check and ban certain types of speech is ludicrous.

Before you try to find a way to justify it, look at the principle of what we're talking about here. Should you be held liable for what somebody says on your property? You say "No taking the Lord's name in vain in my concert hall" and then somebody says "gay people should be beheaded." Are you responsible for what that person said? Of course not. Trump is trying to say the concert hall owner shouldn't be protected.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: roosterjbh
#121
#121
n_huffhines said:
Have they been "editing" people? That would imply changing their message, which I don't think that they do (and would be really problematic). They have been banning certain types of speech on their platform and fact-checking people. Making them responsible for the words of others because they fact check and ban certain types of speech is ludicrous.

Before you try to find a way to justify it, look at the principle of what we're talking about here. Should you be held liable for what somebody says on your property? You say "No taking the Lord's name in vain in my concert hall" and then somebody says "gay people should be beheaded." Are you responsible for what that person said? Of course not. Trump is trying to say the concert hall owner shouldn't be protected.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. Is this where you say “nice straw man”?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top