- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 37,046
- Reaction score
- 17,950
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I told you. I don't use google.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 ...Interactive Computer Service Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
An interactive computer service is defined as “any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, includingdefinitions.uslegal.com
No ICS acronym on either one.
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?"Trump Warns Social Media As Justice Department Aims To Weaken Tech's Legal Shield
The Justice Department's proposal would hold Facebook and Twitter more accountable for users' posts. One critic says the Trump administration is "trying to work the refs ahead of the election."www.npr.org
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.
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.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.)
Nope.
They can police the postings on their sites and they may ban or censor as they see fit. It's private.
They don't have "special privileges."thats fine, they can also not receive special privileges from our government
They don't have "special privileges."
"Impartiality" has nothing to do with Section 230.care to explain section 230 to me then? if they cannot remain impartial, they should not escape liability.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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?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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?