• 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!

Is this ok with you?

Jason Warfield

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2019
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
"The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore."

This, ladies and gentleman, is how the right handles a response that they cannot answer to because they do not have an answer for it.

So, instead of admitting that, they decided that the statement they can no longer refute is no longer allowed to be discussed. Well...too bad. To paraphrase Dennis Leary, "Life's tough. Get a %^$*ing helmet."

In this case...the person wants to play the victim and say his rights are being infringed upon because of something he doesn't like. What he doesn't like isn't illegal. The Constitution is very clear that what the 1st Amendment covers is what the government can and cannot do. Not what a private company/entity can or cannot do. But he wants to argue that his legal rights are being violated but he can't because that is NOT how the law and the Constitution works.

Therefore, he tries to tell us that bringing those points up are invalid. Yet those points are germane to the discussion. They provide the framework on how the First Amendment works...but since he cannot argue against those points...he simply doesn't want to hear, wants to play the victim and wants to "win". Not understanding that while he disagrees with the actions that those companies are taking, he cannot "win" the argument by pretending that his opinion of the First Amendment is fact and we should just agree with him on that point.

Sorry, but that's like picking a fight with a guy twice your size, strength and ability...and then you getting upset because you think its unfair for him to use those advantages in a fight you started. As Trump would say, "Sad!"
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,590
Reaction score
2,707
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Having been in the military and from NC, I know a lot of conservatives. Hell I live with some, who are also on facebook. My facebook feed is full of conservative stories and nonsense they post. I have far more conservative posts and crap covering my feed than liberal (although I still have liberal posts and even some crap as well).
If they are using Facebook then they most certainly are not conservative, by any stretch of the imagination. No conservative in their right mind could support such a fanatically leftist organization as Facebook. It they are calling themselves conservative, they are actually leftist filth deliberately lying to you, as all leftist freaks do.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,095
Reaction score
4,737
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Censorship. Twitter. Facebook. Banning, removing, blocking posts exposing Bidens involvement in corruption, specific knowledge and involvement of his sons cash for access to Joe incidents, Bidens knowledge and involvement in illegal election tampering and spying, and more and more. Serious allegations. Seemingly with proof. And then blocking content, posts, that are pro Trump.
Look. Im not a Trump freak. I AM someone who VALUES MY FREEDOM AND YOURS!!!!
The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore. Social media has become too integrated into our lives. If the phone company cut you off if you were talking about something they didnt like, would you defend that? If we dont have access to ALL the information, ESPECIALLY at this level, we are in REAL trouble. And its only a matter of time to where it effects YOU!!! Not just those you may or may not support.
So.........
Do you support media...on line, in print, broadcast...blocking SERIOUS content harmful to one, but not the other.
Is this the America YOU want?
No, I'm not okay with it. Not because of the election or anything like that, the problem is more fundamental. Websites like Facebook and Twitter have become a huge part of how we communicate. At least as large as phone companies. And these companies have huge amounts of power to stifle free speech. That needs to change.
 

Rawley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
3,600
Reaction score
719
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
All it takes is one retweet by Trump and someone's comment goes to 100 million users, in about 10 minutes. How many see it? You tell me. Depends. And for it to inflict damage it doesn't matter how many but who in many cases. If the n=1 is your boss and you're fired, why does it matter?

And your made up stat is meaningless, even if true. What's the population, the n? If it's a million, that's 100 lawsuits filed in court, with significant damages on the line, and the huge cost of defending against them. How much will that hurt? Depends - it's your made up example, but it doesn't take more than one big win for thousands of websites.
LOL Like you tweet being seen by 100,000,000 isn't a made up example.
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
37,716
Reaction score
25,297
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I've not seen "political bias" proved as fact by Twitter or FB or anyone else. The bigger point is even if you could prove such a bias exists, it doesn't matter except to your feelings. Twitter is allowed to be as biased against or for a party or candidate as they want.
You have not "demonstrated" any bias on my part.

More importantly, it doesn't matter. The law will not change based on your interpretation of my biases.
I was referring to the bias of the social media platforms. This has been factually demonstrated:
11 Hacks, Leaks, And Hoaxes That Twitter And Facebook Didn’t Throttle — Because They Hurt Trump

On Wednesday, Twitter and Facebook banned their users from sharing a link to an explosive report from the New York Post containing emails indicating Hunter Biden had lucratively monetized his father’s vice presidency through international business dealings. A massive public relations disaster ensued, including fierce reactions from senators and members of Congress with tech oversight.

In response, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey claimed Twitter had banned the link because it included private information obtained through hacking.

The company claims these statements aim to provide “clarity” about its policies. But they actually make the tech giant seem even more duplicitous. They are retreating behind technicalities of their policy while continuing to allow links to hacked information, classified information, illegally released information, fake news, and debunked conspiracy theories proliferate on the platform.

Due to the obvious selective bias employed in the major instances below, however, it is clear that Twitter’s technicality is a fig leaf to enable continued control of public discourse by an unelected private industry that is 9-to-1 in the tank for Democrats and can decide what Americans are allowed to know.

1. President Trump’s Call with the Ukrainian President
2. President Trump’s Tax Returns
3. Michael Flynn Phone Call
4. The Steele Dossier Used to Set Up Russiagate
5. Donald Trump Jr. WikiLeaks Emails
6. Atlantic Claims of Trump Badmouthing Military
7. The Atlantic Story About a Shooting that Never Happened
8. Secretly Recorded Audio of Trump
9. Secret Recordings of Melania Trump
10. Enabling Attacks on Public Officials and Right-Leaning News Figures
11. False Major Media Smears of Nicholas Sandmann
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
37,716
Reaction score
25,297
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No. The entire reason for the exception in the law is to make them not accountable for that which is posted on their site. Tabloid magazines are always being sued for what they post. But normal sites that allow such things to be posted by users on their sites are not held accountable for what their users post. So if that rule is removed, then those social media sites would be held accountable for what others post on their site. So they could be sued the same as tabloids for some user reposting a story from a tabloid on their site.
I have no problem with social media platforms not being held accountable for what people outside of their control post, their users.

Given that these social media platforms have such great influence on what the electorate can see, access, and distribute, and the obvious social media platform's manipulation of such, I would expect, however, that there be a minimum of politically biased driven editorial decisions, rather then what we have seen, as documented in my post above this one.

What sort of justification is there for unregistered and unrecorded 'donations in kind' to political campaigns, suppressing the distribution of opposing points of view? Suppressing the distribution of what could harm one candidate, and yet actually promoting the distribution which would harm the other candidate?

By doing such, the social media platforms are influencing the outcome of the election, and doing so in a politically biased manner.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,479
Reaction score
5,122
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I have no problem with social media platforms not being held accountable for what people outside of their control post, their users.

Given that these social media platforms have such great influence on what the electorate can see, access, and distribute, and the obvious social media platform's manipulation of such, I would expect, however, that there be a minimum of politically biased driven editorial decisions, rather then what we have seen, as documented in my post above this one.

You can "expect" all day long... Until the law is changed, they will continue to do as they please...
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
37,716
Reaction score
25,297
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You can "expect" all day long... Until the law is changed, they will continue to do as they please...
Maybe the adjustment needed is to reject the CDA 230 protection for these social media platforms?
Given what's been reported, this is being considered, apparently.

Was it not that CDA 230 was to hold the network carriers, Internet, telephone conversation, etc., i.e. the telco's, not responsible for the content they carried?
(i.e. 2 criminals plot a crime on the telephone, the telephone carrier is not responsible).

Now claiming that this applies to Social Media platforms, i.e. applications riding on the Internet - not the Internet itself, for biasing elections to the candidate they favor, seems to be a stretch for CDA 230.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,479
Reaction score
5,122
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Maybe the adjustment needed is to reject the CDA 230 protection for these social media platforms?
Given what's been reported, this is being considered, apparently.

Was it not that CDA 230 was to hold the network carriers, Internet, telephone conversation, etc., i.e. the telco's, not responsible for the content they carried?
(i.e. 2 criminals plot a crime on the telephone, the telephone carrier is not responsible).

Now claiming that this applies to Social Media platforms, i.e. applications riding on the Internet - not the Internet itself, for biasing elections to the candidate they favor, seems to be a stretch for CDA 230.
The CDA was not written to just protect carriers.. AOL, Compserv and others had already faced litigation as a result of postings by members.

Therr are lots of places to read about the history of section 230. Here is a decent one:
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
37,716
Reaction score
25,297
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The CDA was not written to just protect carriers.. AOL, Compserv and others had already faced litigation as a result of postings by members.

Therr are lots of places to read about the history of section 230. Here is a decent one:
Agreed to. The CDA protects 'carriers', including Internet public forums, from litigation as a result of postings by members. No argument. They should have, and need that, protection.

How does this then apply to 'carriers', including Internet public forums, when those carriers make politically biased censorship decisions on postings by members? That's as if the telephone company cuts off your phone call, and bans you from making any more phone calls, because you support a candidate or policy they don't like.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,479
Reaction score
5,122
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Agreed to. The CDA protects 'carriers', including Internet public forums, from litigation as a result of postings by members. No argument. They should have, and need that, protection.

How does this then apply to 'carriers', including Internet public forums, when those carriers make politically biased censorship decisions on postings by members? That's as if the telephone company cuts off your phone call, and bans you from making any more phone calls, because you support a candidate or policy they don't like.

Here is the actual statute... Read the definition of interactive computer service...

 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
47,051
Reaction score
18,935
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I seriously doubt you know more than two conservatives. Your propensity for deliberately lying has already been well established.
I don't give a damn what you think. I know many of them, my family are almost all conservatives, and I'm not a liar on here because I don't care enough about people like you to make up lies. You don't matter enough for me to wreck my integrity to argue with. More importantly to me, being honest works BETTER in these arguments.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
47,051
Reaction score
18,935
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LOL Like you tweet being seen by 100,000,000 isn't a made up example.
Trump has 87 million followers. His tweets get 20k retweets, etc...

And of course the point wasn't the 100 million, or that the mean or median follower count is 19. None of those facts matter. What does are the lawsuits, and just one of those for a site like this can end the site. If every moderating decision is potentially a lawsuit, sites won't have comments or won't moderate.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
47,051
Reaction score
18,935
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I was referring to the bias of the social media platforms. This has been factually demonstrated:
OK, and you might not like it, but it's not a problem in any way legally. That's what the topic is. Start you own platform and you can be as biased as you want politically, socially, etc. The government doesn't have a bunch of bureaucrats checking up to see if you're being 'fair' to your readers or those who join you site for free.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
47,051
Reaction score
18,935
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have no problem with social media platforms not being held accountable for what people outside of their control post, their users.

Given that these social media platforms have such great influence on what the electorate can see, access, and distribute, and the obvious social media platform's manipulation of such, I would expect, however, that there be a minimum of politically biased driven editorial decisions, rather then what we have seen, as documented in my post above this one.

What sort of justification is there for unregistered and unrecorded 'donations in kind' to political campaigns, suppressing the distribution of opposing points of view? Suppressing the distribution of what could harm one candidate, and yet actually promoting the distribution which would harm the other candidate?

By doing such, the social media platforms are influencing the outcome of the election, and doing so in a politically biased manner.
Now do Fox News. Or Rush Limbaugh. Mark Levin. What are their in-kind contributions worth? We have a major news outlet "influencing the outcome of the election and doing so in a politically biased manner." And it's fine!

Point is pretty obvious - private actors are allowed to be biased. It's part of being actually FREE, having free speech, without government dictating what you can say and the political viewpoint you're allowed to express through your private property. You can not like it and that's great. I would pull a tooth before sitting down for an evening of Fox News. But their bias isn't a political contribution.
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
37,716
Reaction score
25,297
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Here is the actual statute... Read the definition of interactive computer service...

"47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material"​
So in your mind a differing political opinion falls into 'offensive material'?

"(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 is to promote 'a true diversity of political discourse'. Is this enhanced or thwarted by the censorship of opposing political views and information?

"(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;"​

User's control over what information, not Social Media platform's control over what information.

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material​
Again, in your mind a differing political opinion falls into 'offensive material'?

If the left wishes to deem non-left political opinion and non-left political information as 'offensive' and to use the CDA to silence those voices and that information, we are in a serious world of hurt. The 1st amendment will have effectively become meaningless, at least in the digital realm.
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
37,716
Reaction score
25,297
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
OK, and you might not like it, but it's not a problem in any way legally. That's what the topic is. Start you own platform and you can be as biased as you want politically, socially, etc. The government doesn't have a bunch of bureaucrats checking up to see if you're being 'fair' to your readers or those who join you site for free.
See post above. It's far more important than the 'feelings' you've characterized it as.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,479
Reaction score
5,122
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
"47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material"​
So in your mind a differing political opinion falls into 'offensive material'?

"(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 is to promote 'a true diversity of political discourse'. Is this enhanced or thwarted by the censorship of opposing political views and information?

"(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;"​

User's control over what information, not Social Media platform's control over what information.

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material​
Again, in your mind a differing political opinion falls into 'offensive material'?

If the left wishes to deem non-left political opinion and non-left political information as 'offensive' and to use the CDA to silence those voices and that information, we are in a serious world of hurt. The 1st amendment will have effectively become meaningless, at least in the digital realm.

The law leaves it entirely up to the interactive computer service to determine what they find objectionable.. There are over two decades of law that rely on this principle... Go start your own site and allow whatever content you wish... A first amendment argument is even weaker. The owners of these sites have a first amendment right to only allow what they want on their sites. They have no first amendment responsibilities...
 

Bullseye

Every job is essential
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
26,232
Reaction score
8,996
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
um, yeah they could. If the NYT publishes a false story that defames someone, they can be sued.
The NYT is not an internet provider.
Sure it does. The only thing they would be responsible for is their addition, not the shared material.
EXACTLY THE POINT. And if they're responsible from some of the content they have liability not covered under FCC Section 230
 

Jredbaron96

Finite and Precious
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
16,915
Reaction score
9,814
Location
With you.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If they are using Facebook then they most certainly are not conservative, by any stretch of the imagination. No conservative in their right mind could support such a fanatically leftist organization as Facebook. It they are calling themselves conservative, they are actually leftist filth deliberately lying to you, as all leftist freaks do.
lol what

I know plenty of conservatives on facebook.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
47,051
Reaction score
18,935
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If the left wishes to deem non-left political opinion and non-left political information as 'offensive' and to use the CDA to silence those voices and that information, we are in a serious world of hurt. The 1st amendment will have effectively become meaningless, at least in the digital realm.
The 1A doesn't require you to advance something like 'balanced' viewpoints on your own website or platform or in your kitchen. You are 'free' to advance any damn opinion you want. If you host a platform like DP, you can kick anyone off for any reason or no reason, delete posts for any reason or no reason, and gear the entire effort to advance any cause you want. That is what 'freedom' looks like. It's not the government, or lawyers, using a threat of lawsuits or jail or other penalties to promote some balanced view of politics or abortion or fishing or dog training.

What about the left or the CDA prevents you or anyone else starting a digital platform that is friendly to conservatives? Ever heard of Parler? How is the left preventing Fox News from advancing a pro-Trump agenda every night? Should Fox be required to insert a "liberal" host, as deemed by some bureaucrat, into their prime time lineup, or else someone goes to jail or is fined? Can I sue Fox News if they don't agree to put me on air to counter Hannity's bullshit? They are suppressing my freedoms!!
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
40,139
Reaction score
12,973
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If they are using Facebook then they most certainly are not conservative, by any stretch of the imagination. No conservative in their right mind could support such a fanatically leftist organization as Facebook. It they are calling themselves conservative, they are actually leftist filth deliberately lying to you, as all leftist freaks do.
And this is a bunch of garbage post.

They are conservatives. Most are military. But thank you for showing your partisanship to the entire board.
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
40,139
Reaction score
12,973
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The NYT is not an internet provider.

EXACTLY THE POINT. And if they're responsible from some of the content they have liability not covered under FCC Section 230
Do you know what an "internet provider" is? What about a publisher? No one is talking about internet providers.
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
40,139
Reaction score
12,973
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I have no problem with social media platforms not being held accountable for what people outside of their control post, their users.

Given that these social media platforms have such great influence on what the electorate can see, access, and distribute, and the obvious social media platform's manipulation of such, I would expect, however, that there be a minimum of politically biased driven editorial decisions, rather then what we have seen, as documented in my post above this one.

What sort of justification is there for unregistered and unrecorded 'donations in kind' to political campaigns, suppressing the distribution of opposing points of view? Suppressing the distribution of what could harm one candidate, and yet actually promoting the distribution which would harm the other candidate?

By doing such, the social media platforms are influencing the outcome of the election, and doing so in a politically biased manner.
If you remove the Section 230 protection, they will be held accountable for what others post, spread.

Doesn't matter what you expect. They are a private business. They should be able to limit posts as they see fit, not based on your "expectations".

Are you saying Rupert Murdoch doesn't donate to the Trump campaign? Seems like "donations in kind" applies very much to those who printed the story about Biden that others now expect to get free pass around, views anywhere simply because it may help their candidate.

 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
40,139
Reaction score
12,973
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The NYT is not an internet provider.

EXACTLY THE POINT. And if they're responsible from some of the content they have liability not covered under FCC Section 230
Only for that content, not everything, and only if it can be shown to be false. But the conversation, the issue is about removing being covered for liability completely.
 
Top Bottom