Debates commission plans to cut off mics if Trump or Biden break rules

[RaleBulgarian]

Quoting YOU doesn't make ME the liar.

Of course not. Your pile of lies does.

If "label[ling] false/misleading content" is explicitly permitted in the statute you should be able to quote the language from the statute.
Produce that language or admit you can't.

“any action”

I told you you should have taken the graceful ways out I offered but noooooo.........
Now you've chosen to make it worse.

Yep, you’ve posted a lot of stupid shit and even more lies.

 

[bubbabgone]

Of course not. Your pile of lies does.


“any action”

Yep, you’ve posted a lot of stupid shit and even more lies.

"any action" ... to do what? under what circumstances? what conditions?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

"any action" ... to do what? under what circumstances? what conditions?

Seriously, if at this point in the discussion you don’t know the answers to your own questions, you shouldn’t be posting. You should be reading Section 230.

Then again, there’s more than enough reason to question your veracity.

 

[bubbabgone]

Seriously, if at this point in the discussion you don’t know the answers to your own questions, you shouldn’t be posting. You should be reading Section 230.

Then again, there’s more than enough reason to question your veracity.

heh heh. Seriously.
God almighty you're pathetic.

Where in the words of Section 230 do you think it's indicated that Twitter, for example, is free to censor political speech. Quote the words.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

heh heh. Seriously.
God almighty you're pathetic.

Where in the words of Section 230 do you think it's indicated that Twitter, for example, is free to censor political speech. Quote the words.

You’re a funny, very dishonest, guy.

 

[bubbabgone]

You’re a funny, very dishonest, guy.

And you're a fraud who got called on your bullshitting. But it's a different character flaw that won't let you admit it.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

And you're a fraud who got called on your bullshitting. But it's a different character flaw that won't let you admit it.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to maintain the illusion of integrity in your mind.

 

[bubbabgone]

Whatever you need to tell yourself to maintain the illusion of integrity in your mind.

There's that character flaw again. You need to work on that. It's very apparent.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

There's that character flaw again. You need to work on that. It's very apparent.

Tell ya what, when you stop lying (or at least, try to curb in this forum) then feel free to offer advice.

 

[bubbabgone]

Tell ya what, when you stop lying (or at least, try to curb in this forum) then feel free to offer advice.

I take no blame for your inability to support your claims. That's all on you, my friend.

Where in the words of Section 230 do you think it's indicated that Twitter, for example, is free to censor political speech. Quote the words.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I take no blame for your inability to support your claims. That's all on you, my friend.

Where in the words of Section 230 do you think it's indicated that Twitter, for example, is free to censor political speech. Quote the words.

You’re beginning to remind me of one of those Japanese soldiers that climbed out of their cave 20 years after WW2 ended, thinking that the war was still going.

Your continuous and repeated lies lost

you the debate a week ago.

Show some maturity and smarts and stop embarrassing yourself with ridiculous denials.

 

[bubbabgone]

You’re beginning to remind me of one of those Japanese soldiers that climbed out of their cave 20 years after WW2 ended, thinking that the war was still going.

Your continuous and repeated lies lost

you the debate a week ago.

Show some maturity and smarts and stop embarrassing yourself with ridiculous denials.

"However, as Twitter's staff begin to act like editors more than technological facillitators, they run the risk of losing the legal protection of neutrality. They face the same risks that newspapers and traditional media companies take when they publish reader-submitted material."
"Twitter has every right to design its own rules. Congress certainly should not regulate social media platforms as utilities. But if it becomes an ideologically motivated curator rather than a neutral arbiter of content, it endangers the legal protections it currently enjoys."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/twitter-needs-to-decide-if-its-a-platform-or-a-publisher

"... Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion."
"... But rather than facilitate free speech, Silicon Valley now uses Section 230 to justify censorship, leading to a legal and policy muddle. For instance, in response to a lawsuit challenging its speech policies, Google claimed that restricting its right to censor would “impose liability on YouTube as a publisher.” In the same motion, Google argues that its right to restrict political content also derives from its “First Amendment protection for a publisher’s editorial judgments,” which “encompasses the choice of how to present, or even whether to present, particular content.”
" The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter. "

Platform, or Publisher?

If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then they need to get out of the censorship business.

www.city-journal.org

Now it's your turn ... again ...
Where in the words of Section 230 do you think it's indicated that Twitter, for example, is free to censor political speech. Quote the words.
Show some maturity and smarts and stop embarrassing yourself with ridiculous deflection

 

[RaleBulgarian]

"However, as Twitter's staff begin to act like editors more than technological facillitators, they run the risk of losing the legal protection of neutrality. They face the same risks that newspapers and traditional media companies take when they publish reader-submitted material."
"Twitter has every right to design its own rules. Congress certainly should not regulate social media platforms as utilities. But if it becomes an ideologically motivated curator rather than a neutral arbiter of content, it endangers the legal protections it currently enjoys."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/twitter-needs-to-decide-if-its-a-platform-or-a-publisher

"... Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion."
"... But rather than facilitate free speech, Silicon Valley now uses Section 230 to justify censorship, leading to a legal and policy muddle. For instance, in response to a lawsuit challenging its speech policies, Google claimed that restricting its right to censor would “impose liability on YouTube as a publisher.” In the same motion, Google argues that its right to restrict political content also derives from its “First Amendment protection for a publisher’s editorial judgments,” which “encompasses the choice of how to present, or even whether to present, particular content.”
" The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter. "

Platform, or Publisher?

If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then they need to get out of the censorship business.

www.city-journal.org

Now it's your turn ... again ...
Where in the words of Section 230 do you think it's indicated that Twitter, for example, is free to censor political speech. Quote the words.
Show some maturity and smarts and stop embarrassing yourself with ridiculous deflection

Man, you really are desperate to dig yourself out.

Quoting the opinions of others not involved in the creation/enactment of Section 230 means absolutely nothing.

What is in the statute is all that matters in debating what platforms legally can and can’t do, and the language of the statute is explicitly clear.

“any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, exces- sively violent, harassing, or otherwise objec- tionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title47/pdf/USCODE-2011-title47-chap5-subchapII-partI-sec230.pdf

For once in this debate, show some maturity and smarts and stop embarrassing yourself with ridiculous deflections and lies. Try arguing based on provable (w/links) facts instead of your own and others worthless opinions.

 

[bubbabgone]

Man, you really are desperate to dig yourself out.

Quoting the opinions of others not involved in the creation/enactment of Section 230 means absolutely nothing.

What is in the statute is all that matters in debating what platforms legally can and can’t do, and the language of the statute is explicitly clear.

“any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, exces- sively violent, harassing, or otherwise objec- tionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title47/pdf/USCODE-2011-title47-chap5-subchapII-partI-sec230.pdf

For once in this debate, show some maturity and smarts and stop embarrassing yourself with ridiculous deflections and lies. Try arguing based on provable (w/links) facts instead of your own and others worthless opinions.

heh heh. I see you're in too deep to fold now. Very immature of you but totally expected.

“any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, exces- sively violent, harassing, or otherwise objec- tionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”.

So how is the political speech in question considered "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, exces- sively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable"?
Oh wait ... that's right ... you must believe the word "objectionable" was written into the statute in anticipation of Twitter administrators or algorithm programmers being a bit peeved about or disagree with the speech so they get censor it like it was never written.

Holy cow you are one pathetic creature.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

So how is the political speech in question considered "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, exces- sively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable"?

What political speech “in question” are you referring to? So far, you haven’t specified any particular instance where you think political speech was improperly censored/flagged.

Although it is firmly established by Section 230, that platforms have the authority to do so, we can’t even begin to debate our opinions of instances where political speech was possibly improperly censored/flagged without the alleged language that was censored/flagged.

 

[bubbabgone]

What political speech “in question” are you referring to? So far, you haven’t specified any particular instance where you think political speech was improperly censored/flagged.

That means you should have never begun this "discussion" without the proper foundation of knowledge. You're looking pretty bad here.

Although it is firmly established by Section 230, that platforms have the authority to do so, we can’t even begin to debate our opinions of instances where political speech was possibly improperly censored/flagged without the alleged language that was censored/flagged.

I see you're sliding away from your original untenable silly position and that's good enough to end this sad chapter.
The RaleBulgarian legal theory - On an allegedly neutral social media platform political speech can be censored because the owner's sensibilities may see it as "objectionable" ... but the site's still entitled to legal immunity.
Amazing how you thought that would fly.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

That means you should have never begun this "discussion" without the proper foundation of knowledge. You're looking pretty bad here.

First, you began this discussion. Second, you never specified any “political speech in question”.

I see you're sliding away from your original untenable silly position and that's good enough to end this sad chapter.
The RaleBulgarian legal theory - On an allegedly neutral social media platform political speech can be censored because the owner's sensibilities may see it as "objectionable" ... but the site's still entitled to legal immunity.
Amazing how you thought that would fly.

Your poor reading comprehension (and/or need to lie) has caused you to completely misinterpret my statement.

I’m fully willing and ready to debate the “political speech in question” if you can ever come up with proof (link to source a must, as you have less than zero credibility) of any instance of political speech being censored/flagged.

The ball’s in your court, bubba.