• 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

ouch

ouch

Air Muscle
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
10,100
Reaction score
8,794
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I suspect that Trump and his goon operatives will now twist arms to slip an anti 230 measure into either another attempt with a Defense Spending Bill or COVID Relief Bill.





Lindsey Graham

@LindseyGrahamSC
·
Dec 23

Congress should vote to Repeal Section 230 as requested by President
@realDonaldTrump
. I will not vote to override presidential veto unless effort is made to wind down Section 230.
 
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.
 
ouch said:
I suspect that Trump and his goon operatives will now twist arms to slip an anti 230 measure into either another attempt with a Defense Spending Bill or COVID Relief Bill.

Lindsey Graham
@LindseyGrahamSC
·
Dec 23

Congress should vote to Repeal Section 230 as requested by President
@realDonaldTrump
. I will not vote to override presidential veto unless effort is made to wind down Section 230.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rogue Valley said:
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.
Click to expand...
51B08132-60DF-44D1-8F5E-68B2D0FCA86C.jpeg

Add your own caption.....
 
Mycroft said:
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.
Click to expand...

If Section 203 is repealed, Trump will lose all of his social media accounts.
 
Mycroft said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because he routinely lies about people and attacks people and companies. And if Twitter and Facebook can now be sued for providing a forum for his dishonest and hateful attacks, they will instead just ban him. Especially since he will become a private citizen on January 20 and lose all his leadership priviliges.
 
I wonder if anyone saw what i wrote in this thread?

fosta/sesta violates our first amendment rights.

Under Fosta/sesta section 230 of the communcations decency act is ignored which states that sites are not liable for what people post on a site. This law was passed by congress and violates our 1st amendment rights and was written when trump was in office. He may not have written the law, but...
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com
 
Sietske22 said:
Because he routinely lies about people and attacks people and companies. And if Twitter and Facebook can now be sued for providing a forum for his dishonest and hateful attacks, they will instead just ban him. Especially since he will become a private citizen on January 20 and lose all his leadership priviliges.
Click to expand...
And what happens when Twitter gets sued by everyone...including a slew of conservatives?

(Hint: There won't be anymore Twitter.)
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Because without Section 230, Trump's tweets become a liability.
Click to expand...
To Twitter.

And the same thing will happen regarding a slew of others. Twitter gets sued left and right.
 
Mycroft said:
To Twitter.
Click to expand...

Yes. That is why they will delete his account - because his posts will be a legal liability.

And the same thing will happen regarding a slew of others. Twitter gets sued left and right.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But a repeal of Section 230 will make Twitter censor more, not less. You understand that, right?
 
Mycroft said:
And what happens when Twitter gets sued by everyone...including a slew of conservatives?

(Hint: There won't be anymore Twitter.)
Click to expand...

Twitter won't be sued, they will simply ban all problematic Conservatives who refuse to follow the rules.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Yes. That is why they will delete his account - because his posts will be a legal liability.



Perhaps. But a repeal of Section 230 will make Twitter censor more, not less. You understand that, right?
Click to expand...
And the more they censor, the more customers they lose. The more customers they lose, the more money they lose.
 
Sietske22 said:
Twitter won't be sued, they will simply ban all problematic Conservatives who refuse to follow the rules.
Click to expand...
Will they also ban all problematic liberals who refuse to follow the rules? If they don't...more lawsuits.
 
Mycroft said:
Will they also ban all problematic liberals who refuse to follow the rules? If they don't...more lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Twitter is a private company and they can ban anyone they like. If they wish to ban all loudmouth asshole Conservatives, its their right to do so.
 
While I think most would agree that something should be done to revamp the Communications Act in view ov the explosion of social media but it is not as simple as just repealing this section. The matter requires serious deliberation and debate and a Bill all of it' s own. It's a complicated matter which of course precludes Trump from grasping it. As usual it's a personal vendetta of his rather than a well thought out solution to a well understood problem.
 
Mycroft said:
And the more they censor, the more customers they lose. The more customers they lose, the more money they lose.
Click to expand...

Twitter's users aren't the customers. They're the product.

Where will their users go? Parler can't exist without Section 230.
 
Sietske22 said:
Twitter is a private company and they can ban anyone they like. If they wish to ban all loudmouth asshole Conservatives, its their right to do so.
Click to expand...
And without Sec. 230 protections, they will get sued.
 
Just tell em that if you want these safeguards, you cannot manipulate traffic. Should clear up all these algorithm based users and pipelines to extremism.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Twitter's users aren't the customers. They're the product.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Then Twitter will lose their product.

Where will their users go? Parler can't exist without Section 230.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's best if there is NO social media, don't you think?

In any case, the industry will figure out how to keep it going...but Twitter might not be a part of the industry anymore. We'll just have to see how it goes.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Yes. That is why they will delete his account - because his posts will be a legal liability.



Perhaps. But a repeal of Section 230 will make Twitter censor more, not less. You understand that, right?
Click to expand...

I doubt that, currently twitter is censoring at levels that would make the soviet union blush and they had state controlled media, twitter is banning or censoring people over anything they deem misinformation. The problem is what is misinformation, who decides? But how it seems now their anti misinformation campaign seems to be entirely directed at a single ideology, ie conservatism, while ignoring other misinformation.

That there is exactly where they are no longer social media but a content provider, they are demanding all the privilege of social media but none of restrictions, they can run their sites like news media controlling who and what is allowed to be seen but not be liable for for lawsuits like real media.
 
beerftw said:
I doubt that, currently twitter is censoring at levels that would make the soviet union blush and they had state controlled media, twitter is banning or censoring people over anything they deem misinformation. The problem is what is misinformation, who decides? But how it seems now their anti misinformation campaign seems to be entirely directed at a single ideology, ie conservatism, while ignoring other misinformation.

That there is exactly where they are no longer social media but a content provider, they are demanding all the privilege of social media but none of restrictions, they can run their sites like news media controlling who and what is allowed to be seen but not be liable for for lawsuits like real media.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. I've heard all the talking points already.

But I don't know if you really understand what happens without Section 230. This site relies on Section 230, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom