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

I don't think so. What would be the straw man here?
Your analogy. In your analogy is the property/owner a publisher or a platform? How many people are influenced in your analogy?

These companies have multi-millions of users on their “platforms” every day.

If a “platform” disallows/censors all content regarding a subject/idea then I’d call that editing.

If I remember correctly any discussion of HCQ as a potential treatment for Coronavirus was banned by YouTube and the “offending” accounts were suspended.

It’s not in any way obscene or dangerous to discuss potential medical treatments - at least not in my view.

When you decide what ideas can and can’t be shared you’re editing. So seems to make sense that you’d also be held to the same legal responsibilities/requirements as all publishers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
Your analogy. In your analogy is the property/owner a publisher or a platform? How many people are influenced in your analogy?

These companies have multi-millions of users on their “platforms” every day.

If a “platform” disallows/censors all content regarding a subject/idea then I’d call that editing.

If I remember correctly any discussion of HCQ as a potential treatment for Coronavirus was banned by YouTube and the “offending” accounts were suspended.

It’s not in any way obscene or dangerous to discuss potential medical treatments - at least not in my view.

When you decide what ideas can and can’t be shared you’re editing. So seems to make sense that you’d also be held to the same legal responsibilities/requirements as all publishers.

Here is an excerpt from the wikipedia page on the CDA Sect. 230:

"Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) wrote the bill's section 509, titled the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, designed to override the decision from Stratton Oakmont, so that services providers could moderate content as necessary and did not have to act as a wholly neutral conduit."

The case law section provides examples which further support this interpretation, ruling that only companies which have actually provided (i.e., authored) content can subsequently be liable for it. If Twitter can be sued for providing a fact check of the President then sue them.
 
Your analogy.

My analogy was not a straw man. The straw man fallacy is when somebody takes your argument and makes it into something it's not and then argues against that. I did not make up an argument for you. You may not like my analogy, but that doesn't make it a strawman.

In your analogy is the property/owner a publisher or a platform? How many people are influenced in your analogy?

The principle doesn't change no matter the number.

These companies have multi-millions of users on their “platforms” every day.

The principle doesn't change no matter how much money.

If a “platform” disallows/censors all content regarding a subject/idea then I’d call that editing.

You'd be misleading.

If I remember correctly any discussion of HCQ as a potential treatment for Coronavirus was banned by YouTube and the “offending” accounts were suspended.

So? It's their platform.

It’s not in any way obscene or dangerous to discuss potential medical treatments - at least not in my view.

Obscenity and danger have nothing to do with it. It's their platform and they should be able to censor whatever they want.

When you decide what ideas can and can’t be shared you’re editing. So seems to make sense that you’d also be held to the same legal responsibilities/requirements as all publishers.

Semantically, you may be correct. Legally speaking, the law doesn't just look at things semantically. Speaking as a matter of principle, the semantics don't matter at all. Either you think person A should be held responsible for what person B says on Person A's property, or you don't. It's that simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
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.
Does twitter or FB or anyone actively review a post before it goes out?
 
Political party or leaning is not a protected class. It's an idea.
It should be the routine on social media to treat Democrats,Republicans,Liberals and Conservatives equally but Facebook,Twitter and YouTube side heavily with Democrats and Liberals and discipline them far less than they do Republicans and Conservatives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol
It should be the routine on social media to treat Democrats,Republicans,Liberals and Conservatives equally but Facebook,Twitter and YouTube side heavily with Democrats and Liberals and discipline them far less than they do Republicans and Conservatives.
Why should it be that way?
 
I agree President Trump on this because Conservatives aren't being treated fairly by Facebook,Twitter and Youtube. This should be taken to the Supreme Court.

If the Republigoons don't like FB, Twitter and YouTube then go create conservative alternatives. Oh wait, they did. They all devolved into white supremacist/neo-nazi cesspools. Weird how that happens. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the underlying conservative ideologies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenGrimm and Septic
Political party or leaning is not a protected class. It's an idea.

I know of no business or corporation that hires or refuses service to someone based on political beliefs....well maybe except in Silicon Valley. When offering a free public service it should be equality for all. If you want to discriminate charge a fee. Let’s see how that works out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tennesseefan2019
The draft order targets a law known as the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of the legislation provides broad immunity to websites that curate and moderate their own platforms, and has been described by legal experts as "the 26 words that created the internet."

It argues that the protections hinge mainly on tech platforms operating in "good faith," and that social media companies have not.

"In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick the speech that Americans may access and convey online," the draft order says. "This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power."

# # #

Translation: While Trump's actual target is Twitter and other media portals, as it concerns Volnation, it would appear that if Trump were successful in gutting the Communications Decency Act. Section 230, it could effectively prevent Moderators, Freak and/or Volnation (as an entity) from censoring posters here. Under the order, the Commerce Department would ask the Federal Communications Commission for new regulations clarifying when a company's conduct might violate the good faith provisions of Section 230 -- potentially making it easier for tech companies (e.g. Volnation) to be sued.

A draft of the order also reportedly includes a directive for the White House Office of Digital Strategy to recreate a tool that gives Americans the opportunity to report alleged instances of censorship online. The so-called White House Tech Bias Reporting Tool would receive those complaints and submit them to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC would then be required to consider taking action and examine whether the complaints violated the law. The attorney general would also be directed to create a working group that assesses content moderation practices from social media companies.

What this could mean: As an example, while I'm not advocating it, it is not against the law to swear in public. If Trump has his way, I and other users would have our FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS to swear on here as we see fit. If Volnation and its moderators were to remove or change our posts, we could file a complaint with the FCC that Volnation is committing a crime by violating our First Amendment right to free speech. Volnation would NOT have any legal shield preventing such action. Further, Volnation would likely (eventually) be FORCED to allow people to post any damn thing they want here as long as said post didn't violate the letter of the law.

Is this really the future of social platforms that we want here folks? Make no mistake, Trump's target is Twitter because it recently tagged two of his tweets as containing inaccuracies, but changing the CDA laws would most certainly affect you and me personally here on VN.

Saying that the VOLNATION message board forums are now in serious jeopardy are you?
 
If the Republigoons don't like FB, Twitter and YouTube then go create conservative alternatives. Oh wait, they did. They all devolved into white supremacist/neo-nazi cesspools. Weird how that happens. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the underlying conservative ideologies.

Care to give an example?
 
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?
It's been outlined clearly in the thread. If Twitter is a product, like you said, then I can use it basically however I want. If I'm censored, then Twitter isn't a product, it's a publisher. Publishers are responsible for what they publish.

I'm torn on this one for a number of reasons. But that is the argument. And it is solid as far as I'm concerned. Twitter rode a wave of government exemptions to a massive user base, and now wants to play by different rules.
 
Care to give an example?
No idea what he's talking about, but it's funny to read stuff like that and still hear people get baffled at how the two sides of this country can't get along.

"All conservatives are Nazis". Quick and easy way to guarantee there is never a conversation about anything.
 

VN Store



Back
Top