• 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!

Justice Department Proposes Weakening Social Media's Legal Shield

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
28,359
Reaction score
15,451
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LMAO... You need to work in your google skills
I told you. I don't use google.
You realize you got all those hits because of "Section 230" and not "ICS", right?
Google "ICS" and let's see how far down the returns is interactive computer service.

Even the legal definition of interactive computer service doesn't use an acronym as identification.
After a Bing on "interactive computer service" we can get ...
Here's another ...

No ICS acronym on either one.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,304
Reaction score
5,052
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I told you. I don't use google.
You realize you got all those hits because of "Section 230" and not "ICS", right?
Google "ICS" and let's see how far down the returns is interactive computer service.

Even the legal definition of interactive computer service doesn't use an acronym as identification.
After a Bing on "interactive computer service" we can get ...
Here's another ...

No ICS acronym on either one.


 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
28,359
Reaction score
15,451
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
T
This is funny ... in a sardonic kind of way.
I looked at your links and they don't introduce your acronym without noting that it means "interactive computer service".
For a "commonly used" acronym, any idea why they would think they have to do that?
Nevermind, I'll tell you.
Because there are at least 243 possible uses of "ICS" ... many related to computers and communication.
And as I showed you, the legal definition doesn't use the acronym at all. To avoid confusion?

Now ... did you google "ICS" alone?
How many hits did you find?
If your 1st page of Google hits doesn't look the same as after the Bing search there must be a reason ... no?
So this wasn't a total waste. It demonstrated how Google is different than other search engines. The "why" is what's at issue.
 

Grizzly Adams

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,285
Reaction score
404
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian


Looks like Trump is getting upset that private companies were able to set rules and limits for what they allow to be posted on their apps. I don't think this is a good move, it's clearly just reactionary nonsense and Trump's desire to bring the hammer of government against the free exercise of rights.
Biden wants to revoke Section 230 as well. Where's your condemnation of him? Is Biden "getting upset that private companies were able to set rules and limits for what they allow to be posted on their apps?"
 

Northern Light

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
6,676
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't like Trump's heavily biased approach to this issue but I don't think the old adage that "they're private so they can do what they want" is going to fly for much longer. I just watched the Social Dilemma recently, as well as other related content, and it has confirmed what I have always feared: that social media platforms have way too much addictive thought control over the general populace.

It would be sad and also dangerous if a government seized control of social media, because then they really could become literal thought police through the addictive mechanisms of social media AI. However, I don't think the tech companies are showing enough social responsibility in how they refine their tech to maximize profits through collecting personalized user data.

We all have a choice in whether or not we use these platforms, it's true; but the cat's out of the bag now and it's not much different than telling people they have a choice in whether or not they use cell phones, or the internet. There is so much social currency in participating in these platforms that it's idiosyncratic to not somehow be connected to them, especially for the generation that is currently 25 and under.

We will eventually have to reckon with the power of these platforms. Trump's buffoonery may inadvertently open those discussions. I just hope it doesn't lead to some kind of government usurping of a powerful tool, much like how it occurs in Myanmar. (Every smart phone there comes pre-loaded with Facebook and it is used by government to spread anti-Rohingya sentiment.)
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,538
Reaction score
2,676
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't like Trump's heavily biased approach to this issue but I don't think the old adage that "they're private so they can do what they want" is going to fly for much longer. I just watched the Social Dilemma recently, as well as other related content, and it has confirmed what I have always feared: that social media platforms have way too much addictive thought control over the general populace.

It would be sad and also dangerous if a government seized control of social media, because then they really could become literal thought police through the addictive mechanisms of social media AI. However, I don't think the tech companies are showing enough social responsibility in how they refine their tech to maximize profits through collecting personalized user data.

We all have a choice in whether or not we use these platforms, it's true; but the cat's out of the bag now and it's not much different than telling people they have a choice in whether or not they use cell phones, or the internet. There is so much social currency in participating in these platforms that it's idiosyncratic to not somehow be connected to them, especially for the generation that is currently 25 and under.

We will eventually have to reckon with the power of these platforms. Trump's buffoonery may inadvertently open those discussions. I just hope it doesn't lead to some kind of government usurping of a powerful tool, much like how it occurs in Myanmar. (Every smart phone there comes pre-loaded with Facebook and it is used by government to spread anti-Rohingya sentiment.)
In the US that difference between private and government means absolutely everything. The Bill of Rights were established to limit the powers of government, and only government. They were never intended to be applied to the private sector. If we are dissatisfied with the services, or lack thereof, provided by the private sector the American people "vote" with their feet and their wallets. For example, I do not have either a Facebook or Twitter account, nor do I use Google. Only leftist filth use those anti-American services. No pro-American conservative would be caught dead using any of those obviously leftist services. They would be helping the enemy.

Social media can do whatever it wants. That is one of the nice things about capitalism, the consumer does not have to support it.
 

Hypothetical

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
4,824
Reaction score
1,304
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Nope.

They can police the postings on their sites and they may ban or censor as they see fit. It's private.

thats fine, they can also not receive special privileges from our government
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
56,554
Reaction score
14,328
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Social media is quite a different kettle of fish than Debate Politics. By law, social media companies only have immunity IF they are nothing more than neutral platforms for consumer content. But, at their very core, that’s not how social media platforms are run. They aren’t neutral and they are both acting as editors and content creators.
unless the content being posted violates a federal or state law then you as yhe platform have to remain neutral. once you start censoring thing you don't like simply because you don't like them you are now creating content.

your legal protections have changed.
 

Northern Light

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
6,676
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In the US that difference between private and government means absolutely everything. The Bill of Rights were established to limit the powers of government, and only government. They were never intended to be applied to the private sector. If we are dissatisfied with the services, or lack thereof, provided by the private sector the American people "vote" with their feet and their wallets. For example, I do not have either a Facebook or Twitter account, nor do I use Google. Only leftist filth use those anti-American services. No pro-American conservative would be caught dead using any of those obviously leftist services. They would be helping the enemy.

Social media can do whatever it wants. That is one of the nice things about capitalism, the consumer does not have to support it.
It's naive to think that America works that way anymore, especially when corporations who own the wealth of corporations have bought the entire government.

The division between the private sector and government needs to be more codified into law.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,538
Reaction score
2,676
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's naive to think that America works that way anymore, especially when corporations who own the wealth of corporations have bought the entire government.

The division between the private sector and government needs to be more codified into law.
Unlike leftist freaks, I do not have a twisted obsession with who owns what. I'm only concerned with the limitation of power on government since they are the only ones that can use force to impose their will.

Facebook, Twitter, and Google can impose whatever restrictions and prohibitions they like. They can only enforce those rules on their own members/users, and nobody else. If I choose not to have a Facebook or Twitter account, or to use Google, what can any of those businesses do about it? That is why they will always be treated differently from government.
 

Northern Light

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
6,676
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unlike leftist freaks, I do not have a twisted obsession with who owns what. I'm only concerned with the limitation of power on government since they are the only ones that can use force to impose their will.

Facebook, Twitter, and Google can impose whatever restrictions and prohibitions they like. They can only enforce those rules on their own members/users, and nobody else. If I choose not to have a Facebook or Twitter account, or to use Google, what can any of those businesses do about it? That is why they will always be treated differently from government.
I already answered your bolded question in the previous post.

They can amass so much wealth that they can take over government, such that government and business are no longer separate, such that government functions in name only.

You can't simply gloss over how huge companies affect nations. They have billions and billions of dollars plus political influence to mess with an entire nation's politics, and nobody voted for them.

Non-state actors are real influencers. This is polisci 101.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,538
Reaction score
2,676
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
They can amass so much wealth that they can take over government, such that government and business are no longer separate, such that government functions in name only.
Really? How much wealth is that? Because there are businesses now that are worth tens of billions. While they are certainly free to contribute their money for political purposes, like everyone else, I have yet to see them influence the election like the anti-American media has. Facebook, Twitter, and Google are hardcore leftist Marxists, and yet there is a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Senate. What happened to all that political influence they purchased with their multiple billions?

I'll tell you what happened to it. It vanished in a puff of leftist smoke because you are just spewing sheer fantasy now.
 
Top Bottom