Is this ok with you?

[Rawley]

By this chain of logic, if stores select which content of magazines they allow, which to censor, then they too are publishers. Before the Internet, stores were where you found magazines, newspapers, print news in the same way we go to various social media sites now. Which means you would have to use the same logic for those stores selling those magazines that you do for social media sites.

Third time, retail stores are not publishers.

 

[roguenuke]

Third time, retail stores are not publishers.

Then neither are Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube when it comes to being a platform for those who are publishers. It is the same concept. Either neither are or both are.

 

[Rawley]

Then neither are Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube when it comes to being a platform for those who are publishers. It is the same concept. Either neither are or both are.

Yes they are publishers. I bring them content and they publish it. A retail store, Walmart, Ralphs, are not publishers.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Yes they are publishers. I bring them content and they publish it. A retail store, Walmart, Ralphs, are not publishers.

Not according to the law.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

WE do pay for it. They have been given exemptions from our antitrust laws. THey just ****ed themselves.

No, they have not.

 

[roguenuke]

Yes they are publishers. I bring them content and they publish it. A retail store, Walmart, Ralphs, are not publishers.

No you don't bring them content to publish. They allow you to use their platform to "sell" your content, distribute it to others. They are not publishing it, you are. Publishers own a portion of that content if they publish it for you. The New York Post still completely owns their stories if they put them out, even if Twitter or Facebook allows them to use their platform to get it out, even if WalMart allows them to use their platform to get it out to the public. But either entity can choose not to allow certain or all New York Post stories to be put out within their business. That does not make any of them publishers.

WalMart and other retailers can only limit the whole publication, whereas Internet platforms can limit piecemeal because of the difference in distribution when it comes to digital vs print. But that does not change that neither is actually publishing anything for anyone. They are merely putting it out to the public, for the public to buy.

 

[JasperL]

We are not asking for the Gvt. to reglulate them. WE are asking the Gvt. tp remove the legal shields that protect them. The NYTimes runs an OpEd that calls "JasperL a whore and here's his address to go harrass him at home." The NYTimes is liable for publishing that. Under Section 230, Internet publishers are not liable. 20 years ago that made sense - we wanted open and free platforms. Now, the argument goes that Twitter and Facebook, by going down the road of censoring content they have violated the entire rationale for the protection that Congress gave them 20 years ago. And no matter what you say, yes, it is an issue of censorship.

That's a misreading of the law. The NYT is liable because the NYT produced and published that content. 230 simply acknowledges that the entity responsible for that article is the outlet that wrote, produced and published that article, and it's not Twitter. If Twitter starts hiring writers and publishing unique content, they are liable for what their people write and publish.

What you're demanding is if DP allows you to link to that article calling me a whore, that the owners of DebatePolitics should be civilly liable for the harm it caused me. So DP owners need to scan every comment by you and me, and check every link, so they can immediately take down all content or links to it that might harm me or you. And if they fail, let some link or comment through, then I should be able to sue them into bankruptcy.

Now you're also suggesting Twitter and DP not only be liable for publishing defamatory content, but also for banning/not-publishing or distributing content you want them to publish, or that are somehow unfair in how they apply their own rules, with "fair" meaning in this context that they treat the two parties equal, for president and presumably all other elected offices.

 

[Rawley]

Not according to the law.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider

They are publishers, but they are not treated as publishers. Given their actions, that is the exemption that needs to be repealed.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

They are publishers, but they are not treated as publishers. Given their actions, that is the exemption that needs to be repealed.

I'm not sure you've thought through the implications of repealing Section 230.

This website wouldn't exist.

Do you know why Section 230 was passed?

 

[Rawley]

That's a misreading of the law. The NYT is liable because the NYT produced and published that content.

No it was an Op-Ed. Someone else produced the content, they published it.

230 simply acknowledges that the entity responsible for that article is the outlet that wrote, produced and published that article, and it's not Twitter. If Twitter starts hiring writers and publishing unique content, they are liable for what their people write and publish.

But once they start down the road of censorship, the entire rationale for exempting them is eroded.

What you're demanding is if DP allows you to link to that article calling me a whore, that the owners of DebatePolitics should be civilly liable for the harm it caused me. So DP owners need to scan every comment by you and me, and check every link, so they can immediately take down all content or links to it that might harm me or you. And if they fail, let some link or comment through, then I should be able to sue them into bankruptcy.

Yep, that is the risk they take by going down the road of censorship. Are you catching on yet?

Now you're also suggesting Twitter and DP not only be liable for publishing defamatory content, but also for banning/not-publishing or distributing content you want them to publish, or that are somehow unfair in how they apply their own rules, with "fair" meaning in this context that they treat the two parties equal, for president and presumably all other elected offices.

They are either an open platform or they are not. Yes they can have rules, the rules cannot be enforced arbitrarily. For example, this latest debacle. They banned the NYPost article allegedly becasue it contained "hacked" material. The NYTimes story about Trump's taxes, by definition, contained hacked material, but they did not censor it.

 

[roguenuke]

They are publishers, but they are not treated as publishers. Given their actions, that is the exemption that needs to be repealed.

You cannot show what exactly makes them publishers. Publishers traditionally own part of what they put out. They get input beforehand on what can use their name, be put out in their name, not after the fact.

 

[Rawley]

I'm not sure you've thought through the implications of repealing Section 230.

This website wouldn't exist.

Do you know why Section 230 was passed?

Yep.

 

[roguenuke]

No it was an Op-Ed. Someone else produced the content, they published it.



But once they start down the road of censorship, the entire rationale for exempting them is eroded.



Yep, that is the risk they take by going down the road of censorship. Are you catching on yet?



They are either an open platform or they are not. Yes they can have rules, the rules cannot be enforced arbitrarily. For example, this latest debacle. They banned the NYPost article allegedly becasue it contained "hacked" material. The NYTimes story about Trump's taxes, by definition, contained hacked material, but they did not censor it.

Where did you get that the NYT article contained hacked material?

 

[Rawley]

You cannot show what exactly makes them publishers. Publishers traditionally own part of what they put out. They get input beforehand on what can use their name, be put out in their name, not after the fact.

People bring them content, or they create their own content and they publish it - a publisher. This really is not rocket science.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Yep.

I'm not sure that you do. It wasn't because "they" promised to be fair.

 

[Rawley]

Where did you get that the NYT article contained hacked material?

Trump did not give them his taxes or authorized anyone to give them his taxes.

 

[roguenuke]

Trump did not give them his taxes or authorized anyone to give them his taxes.

Other people could both legally, ethically and unethically give that info to the NYT. That does not require hacking. Whether ethical for them to use is another story. They also did not publish any of the documents themselves. The NYPost did publish those documents in their stories, as well as personal information purported to be Hunter Biden's, like phone number and email address.

 

[roguenuke]

People bring them content, or they create their own content and they publish it - a publisher. This really is not rocket science.

For their own content, yes they are a publisher. But not for other people's content. They are a platform, just like this site.

 

[JasperL]

No it was an Op-Ed. Someone else produced the content, they published it.

You are splitting hairs. NYT is responsible for what they put in print, written by staff or others.

But once they start down the road of censorship, the entire rationale for exempting them is eroded.

First of all, it's not 'censorship.' But if you insist on calling it that, DP censors content, as does every outlet on the planet that moderates their comment sites and deletes porn, scams, trolls, bad words like the f word, bot armies, and more. If you don't moderate (i.e. censor) then your site will turn into a rat infested shithole. That's the advantage of "censorship" in this era.

And the rationale is Twitter isn't responsible for what someone else puts up on their site. They have millions or billions of comments a day, and holding them financially responsible for all billion of them is of course unreasonable. We don't even want to hold DP responsible for what our benevolent dictators decide to ban/delete or not, because they're just doing their job as best they can. It's their site, their rules, and we agree to them when we sign up. That's private property in a nutshell.

Yep, that is the risk they take by going down the road of censorship. Are you catching on yet?

OK, so if DP doesn't want to be responsible for "censorship" then the government should require them to allow porn, trolls, obvious racists, those who spend all day personally insulting other members - in short unless they want to be on the financial hook the owners need to agree to let this place turn into a shithole of trolls and cranks and scams!

I don't agree! It's their playground and we play by their rules, and they can be fair or unfair, as much as they decide. If we don't like how they run this place, we can leave and they'll instruct us not to let the door hit us on the ass as we exit THEIR PLAYGROUND. Seems fair to me. What I suspect is some of us like this place BECAUSE THEY CENSOR CONTENT.

They are either an open platform or they are not. Yes they can have rules, the rules cannot be enforced arbitrarily. For example, this latest debacle. They banned the NYPost article allegedly becasue it contained "hacked" material. The NYTimes story about Trump's taxes, by definition, contained hacked material, but they did not censor it.

They can be enforced arbitrarily if the owners decide to do that. You have no right to be treated "fairly" by DP. If they ban you for any reason, you have no right to sue them.

FWIW, I just checked and Twitter changed their rules on 'hacked' material. So the proper response to an action the public doesn't like is public pressure on a private company. For some reason you want to turn to Big Government to force policies on private businesses that you PREFER.

 

[JasperL]

Yep.

What you're suggesting is a two part obligation:

1) Twitter and DP are responsible for what they allow to be said/linked, etc, on here and must delete/ban/remove any defamatory or similar material that harms you or me, or else we can sue them into bankruptcy.

2) The are also responsible for NOT publishing/banning the wrong things. So if they prohibit some article from being linked, we can sue them for that if the linking of it arguably helps us, or if it's unfair in some way.

So every decision, every post, requires them to make a decision, leave it or delete it, and no matter what they do, if you think they did it wrong, they should be financially on the hook for that. For Twitter that's millions or billions of potentially financial ruinous decisions per day......

 

[Torus34]

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?

Hi!

Last I knew, unless the present administration has socialized these on-line sites by government take-over, they're privately owned. They are nothing more than a business, run by entrepreneurs. Once government steps in and starts telling businessmen how they can or cannot run their businesses, we're on a slippery slope which can lead to all manner of socialist/communist take-overs and the destruction of citizen's rights.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

 

[Rawley]

I'm not sure that you do. It wasn't because "they" promised to be fair.

No. The argued that because they were providing peer to peer platforms they were not traditional publishers and could not be responsible for moderating the content they publish and should not be treated like traditional publishers. Congress bought it.

 

[CharloTexan]

The Wizard of Oz wants us to "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" Does he have that right? No. He does not have the right to force all of Oz to believe that he is more than just a mortal man. He does not have the right to spread potentially harmful information that mostly benefits only himself to the whole of society. Especially since he is presumably using the public's platform. AND ESPECIALLY if he were using my platform.

 

[skeptic llc]

HUH? Who tried to censor Murphy Brown?

Dan Quayle made criticism of Murphy Brown a major campaign issue back when.

 

[skeptic llc]

When asked if he knows who QAon is, he just knows that they're against child abuse and that's ok with him. He seems to be having a bit of delusional behavior.

Definitely needs the old man's test I think.

He knows QAnon folks are his friends and by refusing to shoot them down he communicates that to them. When pressed with a question he doesn't want to answer, rather than acknowledging he won't answer it (as Biden did), Trump just lies instead.