• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

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

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
28,388
Reaction score
15,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It would be a real help if you would please post using color that I can see/read without causing eye strain.

1. Not a single thing I have posted is untrue. In fact, I have repeatedly included a link to the referenced statute in my posts.

Interesting that you, who claims to be knowledgeable of the subject have repeatedly failed to do.

Anyway, if you think I’ve been anything but completely honest, please feel free to quote me and we can go from there.

2. The portion of Section 230 I referenced in my last post was in addition to my previous post, not a contradiction or change. If you actually knew what is in Section 230, and were honest, I wouldn’t need to explain to you.

Once again, here is a link to Section 230; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...2011-title47-chap5-subchapII-partI-sec230.pdf

The language is simple and unambiguous. Section 230 protects providers from legal actions resulting from content posted by users, and allows the provider the freedom to censor “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”.

Again, to be absolutely clear, there is nothing in Section 230 that states, or implies, that in exchange for protection against legal actions resulting from content posted by a user that any provider will not censor any users posted content.

Disagree? Prove it with verifiable facts, along with associated links.

Continuing to pull excuses/lies out of your ass will not suffice.
I read Section 230 weeks ago and went through arguments about it here at that time.
I know that what you said in one post as being explicitly permitted, i.e "label false/misleading content", is not explicitly permitted. (those quoted words are yours, not Section 230's)
But you didn't quote it.
Then you repeated the claim that it is explicitly permitted.
But you didn't quote it ... again.
If it was explicitly permitted you would have quoted it ... explicitly.
You didn't.
In any post.
You couldn't.
You can't.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
73,492
Reaction score
31,917
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You obviously are not keeping up on current events. Wallace has always been recognized as a Trump hater. Him on FOX next to Hannity and others is why that is such a good news channel. Wallace just effectively ended his career with that debate. No one except CNN and some other Leftist MSM are giving Wallace and Creepy Joe the win. Nice try, enjoy the "L".
Trump interrupted Biden more than Biden interrupted Trump. That's objective fact. Do you deny this objective fact?
 

ReubenSherr

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2020
Messages
7,573
Reaction score
1,339
Location
San Luis Obispo, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Trump interrupted Biden more than Biden interrupted Trump. That's objective fact. Do you deny this objective fact?
This is if you don't include Biden's incessant laughing while Trump was talking.
 

Logician Man

A Greater Awakening
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
20,182
Reaction score
6,242
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is if you don't include Biden's incessant laughing while Trump was talking.
Trump is 16 points down, as of this morning. Could very well have lost another 4 points today. That's 20 points minimal for Trump to make up in less than a month. And he's still too stupid to take COVID seriously, as his inner circle/staff who has become infected now includes Stephen Miller, Trump's main racist goon/speech writer. Looks like Trump will be spending most of his future in SDNY courts trying to avoid living out his days in a jail cell, Reuben.
 

ReubenSherr

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2020
Messages
7,573
Reaction score
1,339
Location
San Luis Obispo, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative

Logician Man

A Greater Awakening
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
20,182
Reaction score
6,242
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
???

Per the CNN poll?

All credible polls. Trump sealed the deal by leaving Walter Reed for a couple of silly photo-ops; both of which pissed Americans off even more than they already are. He probably lost 8-10 points due to his stubbornness and stupidity.
 

ReubenSherr

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2020
Messages
7,573
Reaction score
1,339
Location
San Luis Obispo, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
All credible polls. Trump sealed the deal by leaving Walter Reed for a couple of silly photo-ops; both of which pissed Americans off even more than they already are. He probably lost 8-10 points due to his stubbornness and stupidity.
What other poll has Biden 16 points ahead, beside the CNN poll, in which 84% of respondents had watched the presidential debate?

He's even in most swing states, up in Ohio. And his approval is up to 46% per Harris.
 

Surrealistik

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
6,923
Reaction score
3,156
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
With the Hope Hicks news, Trump shouldn't be allowed to get near anybody during this debate. He ought to be self-quarantining for the next two weeks.
Just stick him in a soundproofed plexiglass cage where he belongs; this has the added advantage of making sure he can't shout to be heard when his mic is cut.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
14,928
Reaction score
6,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I read Section 230 weeks ago and went through arguments about it here at that time.
I know that what you said in one post as being explicitly permitted, i.e "label false/misleading content", is not explicitly permitted. (those quoted words are yours, not Section 230's)
But you didn't quote it.
Then you repeated the claim that it is explicitly permitted.
But you didn't quote it ... again.
Taken, verbatim, from section 230;
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) 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, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable , whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;”

That’s pretty explicit.
43D2CD27-8328-48D6-BF05-8B9FCF8A1C80.jpeg
And this ^^ is what it looks like.(y)

You have repeatedly claimed that because providers are given protections under Section 230, they should not review/censor/flags users content.

That is factually untrue.

Again, as a service to other members of this forum, Section 230 is provided review.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
28,388
Reaction score
15,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Taken, verbatim, from section 230;
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) 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, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable , whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;”

That’s pretty explicit.
View attachment 67298197
And this ^^ is what it looks like.(y)

You have repeatedly claimed that because providers are given protections under Section 230, they should not review/censor/flags users content.

That is factually untrue.

Again, as a service to other members of this forum, Section 230 is provided review.
You're very confused.
Very confused.
Or perhaps you're trying to convince readers you're not.
Or maybe you realized your mistake so you had to run for cover.

The issue has never been whether social media platforms are permitted to censor anything.
The issue is WHAT the social media platforms can censor.
The portion of the Law you keep quoting explicitly lists the kinds of things they're permitted to censor.
Do you see what's missing in that list?
Hmm ... do you?
We're talking about "label[ing] false/misleading content" which you said they are explicitly permitted to censor.
You just can't show where the Law explicitly permits censoring or labeling what you call "false/misleading content.".
And the reason why it doesn't explicitly permit such a thing should be obvious if you had thought about it just a little before launching your many diatribes built on the same flawed foundation.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
14,928
Reaction score
6,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The issue has never been whether social media platforms are permitted to censor anything.
The issue is WHAT the social media platforms can censor.
Not the issue, your issue.

The statute is very clear; “
2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) 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”
Twitter and Facebook can get away with censoring speech ...
It’s not getting away with, it’s following the law.
.... Keep in mind it's not only the political balance of what big Tech allows on their platforms that's the issue, it's also what they won't allow on their platforms that isn't represented in a simple count.

And, of course, it's also how they present what they DO allow. e.g. they do fact-checking - which, as a platform not a publisher, ain't their business.
Lots of nonsense in the above, but for purposes of this post I only highlighted yet another of your false assertions.
You don't realize that Twitter is supposed to be for opinion. (Not the opinion of Twitter administrators about Twitter users' opinions).
It's a Platform, not a Publisher.
That's why it got liability protection.
100% wrong, as proven by the language contained in the statute.

Your above assertions prove your failure/refusal to grasp and accept that you and the law do not agree, and the one who is wrong is you.

And although there is no intelligent, honest, or logical rebuttal to the indisputable facts, I’ve no doubt you’ll give it a try anyway. :rolleyes:

You're very confused.
Very confused.
Or perhaps you're trying to convince readers you're not.
Or maybe you realized your mistake so you had to run for cover.
The portion of the Law you keep quoting explicitly lists the kinds of things they're permitted to censor.
Do you see what's missing in that list?
Hmm ... do you?
We're talking about "label[ing] false/misleading content" which you said they are explicitly permitted to censor.
You just can't show where the Law explicitly permits censoring or labeling what you call "false/misleading content.".
And the reason why it doesn't explicitly permit such a thing should be obvious if you had thought about it just a little before launching your many diatribes built on the same flawed foundation.
Sorry, you’re the one who is confused.

Language of Section 230;
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) 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”

“Any action” is, by definition, explicit.
E36AD29A-0889-4372-BFED-336F1AE65EE6.jpeg
Example of a protected action by Twitter;
9B05886E-FCCB-4FDE-A808-B9071A3E5936.jpeg
If, after all the time and effort I’ve spent trying to educate, you remain lost on Section 230, that’s where I’m going to have to leave you.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
28,388
Reaction score
15,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
T
Not the issue, your issue.
Cool. Now I don't have to quote my past posts to you to show where you're wrong.
How can you read something and claim it means something else simply by burying it in long posts ? (so long they violate capacity limits when quoted)

"And, of course, it's also how they present what they DO allow. e.g. they do fact-checking - which, as a platform not a publisher, ain't their business. "
"You don't realize that Twitter is supposed to be for opinion. (Not the opinion of Twitter administrators about Twitter users' opinions).
Show everyone where the Law explicitly allows for political fact-checking.

"It's a Platform, not a Publisher.
That's why it got liability protection."
" Congress passed section 230 with two main provisions, each with a different purpose. First online platforms cannot “be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another.”

" Second, a “Good Samaritan” provision immunizes platforms for restricting content that they believe in good faith “to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” This provision aims to remove disincentives from filtering out obscene and violent content."
(Is fact-checking or labeling or political content mentioned anywhere in there?)
"... they have gradually gone after more and more mainstream conservative voices, and even some liberals and moderates who offend their sensibilities. In this, they eviscerate their public promises to be free platforms open to all ideas. And, they often use section 230 to defend themselves against suits challenging their failure to live up to their promises."
" Big Tech’s reliance on section 230 to defend their own censorship is ironic. Congress passed section 230 with the express purpose of encouraging online platforms to offer a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”

In short, the material in question that they censor is not "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable".
It's political speech and opinion and not subject to fact-
checking and labeling due to the political vagaries of site administrators for that reason.

Understand yet?
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
14,928
Reaction score
6,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"And, of course, it's also how they present what they DO allow. e.g. they do fact-checking - which, as a platform not a publisher, ain't their business. "
Your unsupported opinion only. Not in Section 230.

"You don't realize that Twitter is supposed to be for opinion. (Not the opinion of Twitter administrators about Twitter users' opinions).
Your unsupported opinion only. Not in Section 230.

"It's a Platform, not a Publisher.
That's why it got liability protection."
Which has nothing to do with their expressed legal right to censor customer content utilizing “any action“ they choose. Nothing in Section 230 says or implies otherwise.


Above are your three most glaring false assertions, along with a link to Section 230, irrefutably proving your wrongheaded thinking.
 
Last edited:

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
28,388
Reaction score
15,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Your unsupported opinion only. Not in Section 230.


Your unsupported opinion only. Not in Section 230.


Which has nothing to do with their expressed legal right to censor customer content utilizing “any action“ they choose. Nothing in Section 230 says or implies otherwise.


Above are your three most glaring false assertions, along with a link to Section 230, irrefutably proving your wrongheaded thinking.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
Again, quote the part that says Congress anticipated sites would censor content based on the political opinion expressed.

From Forbes in what you responded to - "Big Tech’s reliance on section 230 to defend their own censorship is ironic. Congress passed section 230 with the express purpose of encouraging online platforms to offer a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”

Looks like you just will never admit that you're mistaken. You dug yourself a hole, my misguided friend.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
14,928
Reaction score
6,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Again, quote the part that says Congress anticipated sites would censor content based on the political opinion expressed.
^^ More of your purely biased and irrelevant attempts at misdirection.

Factually, the only thing that matters is what the statute says.

“(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer
services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer serv- ices, unfettered by Federal or State regula-
tion;
(3) to encourage the development of tech-
nologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the develop- ment and utilization of blocking and filtering
technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or in- appropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Fed- eral criminal laws to deter and punish traf- ficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c) Protection for ‘‘Good Samaritan’’ blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive com- puter service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by an- other information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive com- puter service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) 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”[/QUOTE]

From Forbes in what you responded to - "Big Tech’s reliance on section 230 to defend their own censorship is ironic. Congress passed section 230 with the express purpose of encouraging online platforms to offer a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”
Quoting (without link to reference) the opinion of one IT legal expert means precisely nothing.

Still, it is worth knowing a bit about the expert who authored the piece, IMO, because he is far from unbiased/objective.

The OP’s author, Adam Candeub, is the Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information in the Trump administration (you know, the orange idiot who currently occupies the Oval Office, and routinely posts idiotic inflammatory shit as well as potentially harmful false information), has ties to White Nationalist groups, and has unsuccessfully attempted to represent well known White Nationalist, Jared Taylor, in a lawsuit after being banned by Twitter for
“specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people, hateful imagery and display names.”


Link to Forbes article you cited; https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...m-section-230-dont-put-it-into-the-usmca/amp/

Link to Axios article on Candeub (note link to Mother Jones supporting article;

The only one “digging a hole” here is you, and at the rate you’re going, you’re going to need a Mandarin pocket translator and passport.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
28,388
Reaction score
15,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
^^ More of your purely biased and irrelevant attempts at misdirection.

Factually, the only thing that matters is what the statute says.

“(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer
services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer serv- ices, unfettered by Federal or State regula-
tion;
(3) to encourage the development of tech-
nologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the develop- ment and utilization of blocking and filtering
technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or in- appropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Fed- eral criminal laws to deter and punish traf- ficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c) Protection for ‘‘Good Samaritan’’ blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive com- puter service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by an- other information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive com- puter service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) 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”
Yet again ... please quote the part of the Statute that indicates Congress anticipates that sites would censor content based on the political opinion expressed and that it would be allowed.
iow ... Quote the from the Law the part that says sites are permitted to censor political speech.
Given that the Law specifically says "(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity." it would be impossible for them to then specifically allow censorship of political speech.
Pretty simple concept for most people to grasp. Why not you?

Quoting (without link to reference) the opinion of one IT legal expert means precisely nothing.
...
I had already quoted and linked to the Forbes article. You should have read it the first time.
And the relevant part of the article quoted from the Law and so did I.
You can't produce a quote from the statute that carves out political speech as a justifiable reason for censorship by social media platforms.

If you have the cubes to reply on point it should be a very short comment that admits there is no such exception in the Law.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
14,928
Reaction score
6,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yet again ... please quote the part of the Statute that indicates Congress anticipates that sites would censor content based on the political opinion expressed and that it would be allowed.
iow ... Quote the from the Law the part that says sites are permitted to censor political speech.
Given that the Law specifically says "(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity." it would be impossible for them to then specifically allow censorship of political speech.
Pretty simple concept for most people to grasp. Why not you?


I had already quoted and linked to the Forbes article. You should have read it the first time.
And the relevant part of the article quoted from the Law and so did I.
You can't produce a quote from the statute that carves out political speech as a justifiable reason for censorship by social media platforms.

If you have the cubes to reply on point it should be a very short comment that admits there is no such exception in the Law.
The facts I’ve posted speak for themselves, as do your unsupported opinions and lies.

Succinct enough for you?
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
28,388
Reaction score
15,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The facts I’ve posted speak for themselves, as do your unsupported opinions and lies.

Succinct enough for you?
Yet again ... please quote the part of the Statute that indicates Congress anticipates that sites would censor content based on the political opinion expressed and that it would be allowed.
If you can't do that don't bother replying.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
14,928
Reaction score
6,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yet again ... please quote the part of the Statute that indicates Congress anticipates that sites would censor content based on the political opinion expressed and that it would be allowed.
If you can't do that don't bother replying.
You’re living in an alternate reality of alternate “facts”, rejecting reality and truth.

That Section 230 doesn’t say/do what you wish it to is a you problem.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
28,388
Reaction score
15,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You claim it's written in the Statute ... please quote the part of the Statute that indicates Congress anticipates that sites would censor content based on the political opinion expressed and that it would be allowed.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
14,928
Reaction score
6,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You claim it's written in the Statute ... please quote the part of the Statute that indicates Congress anticipates that sites would censor content based on the political opinion expressed and that it would be allowed.
No, I didn’t.

I said that the language of the statute is explicit, and it is.

“A) 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, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”

The above is an example of explicitness.
32285534-DE45-4765-A895-DAB7D366DD32.jpeg

In your haste/desire to draw attention away from the fact that all of your assertions regarding Section 230 are wrong, you are trying (and failing) to split a hair over the definition of a single word.

Too bad for you that you’re wrong about that too.

Now, if I had said “specifically”, you would have a point (a petty point).
5CEAAF60-1000-4B66-B746-098848931895.jpeg
But you didn’t, so you don’t.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
28,388
Reaction score
15,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, I didn’t.

I said that the language of the statute is explicit, and it is.

“A) 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, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”

The above is an example of explicitness.

In your haste/desire to draw attention away from the fact that all of your assertions regarding Section 230 are wrong, you are trying (and failing) to split a hair over the definition of a single word.

Too bad for you that you’re wrong about that too.

Now, if I had said “specifically”, you would have a point (a petty point).

But you didn’t, so you don’t.
Please quote the part of the Statute that indicates Congress anticipates that sites would censor content based on the political opinion expressed and that it would be allowed.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
14,928
Reaction score
6,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Please quote the part of the Statute that indicates Congress anticipates that sites would censor content based on the political opinion expressed and that it would be allowed.
Your sour grapes over censoring/labeling that you disagree with is a “you” problem.

Whine to your elected representatives to change the language of the statute, but until that happens, suck it up.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
28,388
Reaction score
15,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Can you quote the part of the Statute that indicates Congress anticipates that sites would censor content based on the political opinion expressed and that it would be allowed or can't you.
 
Top Bottom