• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congress should vote to Repeal Section 230 as requested by President Trump

They don’t seem to understand what happens if 230 goes away. Sites like this might be affected as they won’t want to be sued for every dumb thing one of us says. So they’ll either have to enforce an insanely strict moderation guidelines and gateways, or do away with the format entirely.

i.e. : this could essentially end: Parler, comments sections, forums, etc.

Why would the site that hosts DP, not just the owners of DP, take the risk of being sued? If I wanted to sue DP with no section 230 protections, there is nothing in the law preventing me from suing the hosting provider also and since the hosting provider has deeper pockets, they would be a better litigant.
 
Shit man, with stuff like AWS and Azure (which something like facebook wouldn't use due to costs, but smaller sites might), moving the site to another country is a matter of calling your customer rep and adjusting hosting costs.


The question would be where the site can be served. Imagine how many social media companies would move to other countries, taking their jobs and tech stack with them... International law would become a huge thing in US law schools...
 
The question would be where the site can be served. Imagine how many social media companies would move to other countries, taking their jobs and tech stack with them... International law would become a huge thing in US law schools...
You would be shocked at how much infrastructure actually exists in cities in pretty much every country, even places like Ethiopia

But to answer your question, just look up the IP of various torrent file hosting sites and plug that IP into a geoip database.
 
You would be shocked at how much infrastructure actually exists in cities in pretty much every country, even places like Ethiopia

But to answer your question, just look up the IP of various torrent file hosting sites and plug that IP into a geoip database.


I wouldn't be shocked at all... :cool: I'm pretty familiar with the internet... ;). I could tell you stories....
 
I wouldn't be shocked at all... :cool: I'm pretty familiar with the internet... ;). I could tell you stories....
If the angry mob gets what it wants for dear leader, perhaps we can all be plumbers and truck drivers. I have several old t-shirts I can cut the sleeves off of.
 
If the angry mob gets what it wants for dear leader, perhaps we can all be plumbers and truck drivers. I have several old t-shirts I can cut the sleeves off of.


Nawwww.... Don't you fret, the current congress ends in 8 days anyway... The runway is short for all these bills...
 
Why would the site that hosts DP, not just the owners of DP, take the risk of being sued? If I wanted to sue DP with no section 230 protections, there is nothing in the law preventing me from suing the hosting provider also and since the hosting provider has deeper pockets, they would be a better litigant.

Yeah, sure. Point is: these sites won’t find it worth it. At least the smaller ones. Anyting with deeper pockets will either reformat or impose the kind of moderation these right wing cats won’t stop screeching about.
 
Anyone still listen to or care what Lindsey Graham says? (He have any credibility left?)
 
Yeah, sure. Point is: these sites won’t find it worth it. At least the smaller ones. Anyting with deeper pockets will either reformat or impose the kind of moderation these right wing cats won’t stop screeching about.


It's always fun to go back and read some of the early cases for context...

In October 1994, an unknown user posted statements on Prodigy's "Money Talk" bulletin board indicating that Stratton Oakmont, Inc., a Long Island securities brokerage firm, and its president, Daniel Porush, had committed criminal and fraudulent acts in connection with the initial public offering of Solomon-Page, Ltd. As a result, Stratton and Porush sued Prodigy and anonymous defendants in New York state court for defamation.

The plaintiffs argued that Prodigy should be considered a "publisher" of the anonymous poster's statements. Under the common law of defamation, if Prodigy were considered a publisher, it could be held liable for the statements of the unknown user. Conversely, if it were found to be merely a "distributor," it could not be held liable unless it knew or had reason to know about the allegedly defamatory statements.

"Money Talk" was, at the time, a widely read forum covering stocks, investments, and other business matters. Prodigy contracted with Charles Epstein to act as "Board Leader," a position entailing, in part, participation in board discussions, board promotional efforts, and board supervision. In its argument that Prodigy was a publisher of the defamatory statements, the plaintiffs pointed to representations Prodigy had made in various newspaper articles representing itself as an organization that exercised editorial control over the content on its servers.

In making their case, the plaintiffs also pointed to Prodigy's "content guidelines," which stated rules that users were expected to abide by, a software screening program which filtered out offensive language, and the employment of moderators or "Board Leaders" who were responsible for enforcing the content guidelines.


In May 1995, on the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, the court held that these representations and policies were sufficient to treat Prodigy as a publisher. In so holding, the court distinguished the case from an earlier one involving CompuServe, which was found merely to be an "electronic for-profit library" or repository and thus a passive distributor. In particular, the court pointed to Prodigy's creation of an "editorial staff of Board Leaders who have the ability to continually monitor incoming transmissions." The court noted, however, that bulletin boards should normally be considered distributors when they do not exercise significant editorial control, as Prodigy had done.


Prodigy moved for reconsideration of the May 1995 decision, but the party's settled in October 1995, apparently before the motion was decided.

In passing the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which, among other things, established immunity for internet service providers for publishing "information provided by another information content provider," 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), the House explicitly stated its intent to overturn the result reached in the Prodigy case. See H.R. Conf. Rep. 104-58, at 194.


How is what Prodigy was doing any different than the moderators on DP?
 
These two things are the same issue. So take this scenario, section 230 is repealed and facebook's business model is kaput or at least severely scaled back.

Some other country, like Ireland or the maldives host the next facebook (which will happen, because section 230 does nothing to repeal the social forces that make facebook successful and those forces will find a market), except there is nothing there protecting conservative point of views and on top of that the US cannot control it through any sort of regulation.

How do you fight that without altering the structure of the internet or data systems that make it run (such as DNS) when someone like me can easily get past any restriction you put in place (it would take me about 5 minutes) unless it was not possible to access that website, even by bouncing the VPN off another country? Also, people like me can easily make apps where anyone can do it. How do you get around people like me who understand how to use a basic VPN?

Anyone with basic IT security and networking knowledge knows what you are proposing would just create an even bigger opportunity for people who wish to take advantage of social media. Are you aware just how easily and cheaply a forum could be shifted to a data center in a country that does not have a treaty with the US?
What other countries do doesn't bother me at all. Hell, everyone is free to start up a "facebook" in Ireland or The Maldives right now. Why should I be trying to prevent anyone from accessing any site?

I don't think you really understand what's going on here.
 
What other countries do doesn't bother me at all. Hell, everyone is free to start up a "facebook" in Ireland or The Maldives right now. Why should I be trying to prevent anyone from accessing any site?

I don't think you really understand what's going on here.
I understand how these laws work better than you do given that I am employed in that sector of the economy.
 
Trump feels social media sites discriminate against conservatives because Twitter now alerts readers to Trump tweets containing disinformation.

Trump wants Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act removed so he can sue Twitter, Facebook, etc.

If Lindsey Graham got any farther up Trumps ass he could see what Trump had for lunch.

btw ... Trump and Graham golfed together today at Mar-a-Lago.
Does Graham wash Trump's balls?
 
What other countries do doesn't bother me at all. Hell, everyone is free to start up a "facebook" in Ireland or The Maldives right now. Why should I be trying to prevent anyone from accessing any site?

I don't think you really understand what's going on here.


How about a social media site based in China? We might call it TikTok for instance.... LMAO
 
I understand how these laws work better than you do given that I am employed in that sector of the economy.
yawn...

Maybe that's your problem. You have skin in the game.

Me? I don't and I don't care about your skin. You'll adapt or lose.
 
How about a social media site based in China? We might call it TikTok for instance.... LMAO
shrug...

Smart people will stay away. Idiots?...well, they'll do their idiot things.
 
Facebook helped promote a genocide in Burma, I am fine with them going out of business, even though I think American conservatives complaints against Facebook are disingenuous.

 
Trump feels social media sites discriminate against conservatives because Twitter now alerts readers to Trump tweets containing disinformation.

Trump wants Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act removed so he can sue Twitter, Facebook, etc.

If Lindsey Graham got any farther up Trumps ass he could see what Trump had for lunch.

btw ... Trump and Graham golfed together today at Mar-a-Lago.

i'm speculating, but it seems like he would have abandoned a lame duck by now. nope. they must be such good friends. i wonder what they got each other for Christmas?
 
yawn...

Maybe that's your problem. You have skin in the game.

Me? I don't and I don't care about your skin. You'll adapt or lose.
While I work in the sector (IT, cloud services, and big data), I actually work for a manufacturing company so there is no particular skin though. However, knowing which laws govern my job (which has to do with me knowing potential liability for choices and policies) is quite relevent.

Besides, even if I did, I would still be telling you how things actually work, if nothing else, its fun to watch you be outclassed by your betters.
 
Section 230 of the communications decency act protects websites from liability from what a poster posts on a site. Like for example on this site, someone could post something that someone doesn't like. Section 230 protects this site from liability based on what the person has posted.
 
Doesn't matter. Not even if GOP Elite Lindsey Graham supports Trump. Dems and Reps from both parties are too beholden to the social media giants to ever support repealing Sec. 230.
And who cares if they did. These are privately owned companies. Why couldn't they just shut down Trump accounts? Something that should have been done years ago for all the lying.
 
And who cares if they did. These are privately owned companies. Why couldn't they just shut down Trump accounts? Something that should have been done years ago for all the lying.

230 should not be repealed. However that doesn’t mean that having the public square and what can be said in it controlled by private interests is a good thing. I like the idea of Zuckerberf controlling what I can see and hear even less than I like the idea of the government doing so.
 
The first part of Congress overwhelmingly defied the repeal of Sec 230. Now, it's up to the zany Senate.


House overrides Trump veto, defying demand to repeal Section 230 | Ars Technica

The House of Representatives has voted to override Donald Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by a vote of 322 to 87 votes—easily exceeding the required two-thirds vote. The measure now goes to the Senate, where it must also pass by a two-to-one margin to overcome Trump's opposition.
 
image.png
 
Back
Top Bottom