Section 230 Gone!

[URedskin54]

The Biden information came from an abandoned laptop computer. Hacking was not necessary. On that end, a majority of political reporting these days come from “anonymous” sources and materials which are not handed to the reporter by its creator. Until the Biden story Twitter had not censored such stories. Twitter execs admitted as much when they testified their policies are “living” and change over time. Their censorship was solely political. Unfortunately, Twitter and FB censorship was not limited to the Biden story but extended to other conservative posts and tweets. None of this censorship was due to a fear of lawsuits btw...an important fact. Again....speech regarding public figures is largely exempt from slander actions. Such an excuse is flimsy at best.

Ok so what do you think should happen or should be allowed to happen to twitter if they block the ability to link to a website, in this case the NY Post's story?

And again I would agree that almost none of the content moderation that twitter currently does is due to worry about being sued. They’re largely protected after all. I just don’t see how removing those protections actually results in less content removal and works in the favor of conservative view points. Given their biases and comfort with giving phony justifications, why wouldn’t the threat of lawsuit give them a pretext to remove more tweets?

 

[lawpoke87]

Ok so what do you think should happen or should be allowed to happen to twitter if they block the ability to link to a website, in this case the NY Post's story?

And again I would agree that almost none of the content moderation that twitter currently does is due to worry about being sued. They’re largely protected after all. I just don’t see how removing those protections actually results in less content removal and works in the favor of conservative view points. Given their biases and comfort with giving phony justifications, why wouldn’t the threat of lawsuit give them a pretext to remove more tweets?

I would strive to have our social media platforms a place where all viewpoints can be shared and discussed. Basically the opposite of CNN or Fox . There are obviously limitations such as certain name calling, threats, etc.. We need to learn how to talk and listen to each other again. There is value in hearing opposing viewpoints. Talking exclusively to like minded people rarely expands one’s intellectual horizons but simply reinforces already established opinions. Social media should be used as a platform to share and discuss all viewpoints. We must get back to the time where civil discussions of political views are possible. Censorship of views we disagree with is the polar opposite of the direction we need to be headed imo.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

While many people may have that kind of bias, I don't think Anderson Cooper or Tucker Carlson are members of that group. There has been a lot of heat generated by this election and served with a side of fear of Covid 19. There are three groups of people (at least.) People who are biased for each of the two parties and the third is people who have tuned this whole thing out. The last group is the smartest or at least has the lowest blood pressure.

I think there are a large number of people who filter most facts through a will this help/hurt Trump/Biden. What is bizarre is today there was a big to do about Nevada. The only thing is that Nevada doesn't have enough electorial votes to change anything. And nothing anyone said was under oath.

It might start out unconscious, but I have a feeling a lot of what gets on and what gets off air, is analyzed in sixteen different ways before it is added or subtracted. At that point it becomes very conscious, no subconscious about it.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Now they seem to only defend speech with which they agree.

So does the GOP. No one is fault free.

 

[URedskin54]

I would strive to have our social media platforms a place where all viewpoints can be shared and discussed. Basically the opposite of CNN or Fox . There are obviously limitations such as certain name calling, threats, etc.. We need to learn how to talk and listen to each other again. There is value in hearing opposing viewpoints. Talking exclusively to like minded people rarely expands one’s intellectual horizons but simply reinforces already established opinions. Social media should be used as a platform to share and discuss all viewpoints. We must get back to the time where civil discussions of political views are possible. Censorship of views we disagree with is the polar opposite of the direction we need to be headed imo.

In a perfect world I would want that too. My position isn’t an endorsement of censorship. It’s just an endorsement of allowing people to run their websites as they wish.

 

[shon46]

In a perfect world I would want that too. My position isn’t an endorsement of censorship. It’s just an endorsement of allowing people to run their websites as they wish.

Bro, nobody is saying social media can’t censor when 230 is gone. Let Big tech censor the right away. Parlor and Rumble are growing by leaps and bounds everyday. The main point is getting rid of their federal protections that no other normal companies have.

 

[cmullinsTU]

Bro, nobody is saying social media can’t censor when 230 is gone. Let Big tech censor the right away. Parlor and Rumble are growing by leaps and bounds everyday. The main point is getting rid of their federal protections that no other normal companies have.

I'm honestly confused by your response, can you help me understand? Repealing 230 would make it harder for apps like Parler and Rumble to survive, not easier, as it requires them to heavily invest in monitoring what is posted to ensure it isn't content they can be sued over.

I understand you and lawpoke do not like how Facebook and Twitter seem to censor specific political views, I agree with you both there, however, that doesn't have much to do with Section 230.

 

[shon46]

I'm honestly confused by your response, can you help me understand? Repealing 230 would make it harder for apps like Parler and Rumble to survive, not easier, as it requires them to heavily invest in monitoring what is posted to ensure it isn't content they can be sued over.

I understand you and lawpoke do not like how Facebook and Twitter seem to censor specific political views, I agree with you both there, however, that doesn't have much to do with Section 230.

The law was created to protect these companies because they perpetrated to be the digital town hall, allowing free speech for all Americans to take place. This is equivalent to AT&T censoring your phone calls. Everyone would agree that would be absolutely ridiculous, right! It’s not the phone companies job to monitor phone calls even though you use their services. They are a vehicle of free speech. If something illegal is done over the phone, it is the job for law enforcement to respond appropriately. It is not the phone companies job be our moral compass. Parlor understands this! Removing big techs protections for being a fraud should be priority number 1.

 

[URedskin54]

The law was created to protect these companies because they perpetrated to be the digital town hall, allowing free speech for all Americans to take place. This is equivalent to AT&T censoring your phone calls. Everyone would agree that would be absolutely ridiculous, right! It’s not the phone companies job to monitor phone calls even though you use their services. They are a vehicle of free speech. If something illegal is done over the phone, it is the job for law enforcement to respond appropriately. It is not the phone companies job be our moral compass. Parlor understands this! Removing big techs protections for being a fraud should be priority number 1.

No this is not like AT&T censoring your phone calls. AT&T provides access to make phone calls or use the internet. It's a utility. If AT&T were the ones censoring internet content that would be like AT&T censoring your phone calls. Your ability to make political speech on the internet is not restricted in general. Twitter is a company censoring your speech on the site it owns.

 

[shon46]

‘Shrouded In Obscurity’: AT&T Asks The FCC To Crack Down On Big Tech Companies Like Facebook, Google And Apple

AT&T wants the FCC to roll back some of legal protections afforded to big tech companies.

dailycaller.com

 

[URedskin54]

‘Shrouded In Obscurity’: AT&T Asks The FCC To Crack Down On Big Tech Companies Like Facebook, Google And Apple

AT&T wants the FCC to roll back some of legal protections afforded to big tech companies.

dailycaller.com

This again isn't a response to what I said.

 

[shon46]

This again isn't a response to what I said.

AT&T is already covered under section 230. That’s why I used them as an example.

 

[URedskin54]

AT&T is already covered under section 230. That’s why I used them as an example.

You just said that this is just like AT&T censoring phone calls. I replied with how it's not. Then you changed the subject by posting an article that does nothing to address what I said. That's the second time. There are things in the article I care about, they just don't address what I was disputing.

 

[shon46]

You just said that this is just like AT&T censoring phone calls. I replied with how it's not. Then you changed the subject by posting an article that does nothing to address what I said. That's the second time. There are things in the article I care about, they just don't address what I was disputing.

I said AT&T doesn’t censor calls like big tech. The article describes how they are asking to separate themselves from big tech

 

[URedskin54]

I said AT&T doesn’t censor calls like big tech. The article describes how they are asking to separate themselves from big tech

like I said, not a response to what I said. You're comparing two unlike things.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I'm honestly confused by your response, can you help me understand? Repealing 230 would make it harder for apps like Parler and Rumble to survive, not easier, as it requires them to heavily invest in monitoring what is posted to ensure it isn't content they can be sued over.

I understand you and lawpoke do not like how Facebook and Twitter seem to censor specific political views, I agree with you both there, however, that doesn't have much to do with Section 230.

This again isn't a response to what I said.

Gold, you are old enough to know how viscous DC politics is. I’m not exactly sure what your rebuttal is!

You just said that this is just like AT&T censoring phone calls. I replied with how it's not. Then you changed the subject by posting an article that does nothing to address what I said. That's the second time. There are things in the article I care about, they just don't address what I was disputing.

like I said, not a response to what I said. You're comparing two unlike things.

Thats not an argument. Do you know how logic works? That’s just not a coherent, cogent response.

Fool
Fool
Fool
Fool
Fool
Fool
Stop while you are behind.

Nobody buys what you are selling here. aTUfan doesn't count.