• 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

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
10,252
Reaction score
3,778
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Does Debate Politics want responsibility for every post made here?
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.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
21,065
Reaction score
18,588
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If social media wants the government to stay out, then they can surrender the government protections they begged for. That's fair.
Until you elaborate on what you are suggesting all of your posts are pure nonsense. What protections did they specifically beg for?
 

apdst

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
130,112
Reaction score
30,154
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
21,065
Reaction score
18,588
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
15,282
Reaction score
2,517
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LMAO... Will THIS forum be subjected to the same standard?
If the law is changed (with the Dems controlling the House, it wont- at least until they are burned by it) and if the owners of DP choose to control the content of what is posted, yes.
 

Casper

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
24,304
Reaction score
9,728
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent


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.
Twitter should reply by killing trumps account, now that would be fun, would we have midnight Presidential briefings so he could rant, would anyone care....
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
15,282
Reaction score
2,517
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Twitter should reply by killing trumps account, now that would be fun, would we have midnight Presidential briefings so he could rant, would anyone care....
That would prove the point...
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
23,050
Reaction score
11,871
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Our President is a literal baby.

His parents did an AWFUL job raising him.
 

Casper

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
24,304
Reaction score
9,728
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Got nothing to do with "private property". If it WERE private property the various sites would be responsible for all content, they don't want that; they don't want possible liability for every post made on their sites and the FCC code protects them as long as they don't alter, edit, or screen posts (with exceptions for porn, threats, etc.)
Their site means they can disallow what they want, those that disagree are free to go post elsewhere, same on every site such as Twitter, Facebook and Here, follow the rules of they can cancel your account.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
21,065
Reaction score
18,588
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Bottomline: social media can't be a publisher and a platform, too.
I’m still waiting on you to back your own assertion that social media “wants government protection,“ produce that or admit you made it up.
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
23,050
Reaction score
11,871
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I love that Sean Hannity has a message board and his mods ban libs and delete posts constantly.
 

Bullseye

Every job is essential
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
26,177
Reaction score
8,972
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Their site means they can disallow what they want, those that disagree are free to go post elsewhere, same on every site such as Twitter, Facebook and Here, follow the rules of they can cancel your account.
Uh, no. Not if the want protection under the FCC codes. As I said, they can block porno, calls for insurrection, threats and such.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,441
Reaction score
5,102
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
Oh, this will good.. cite the law differentiates between Debate Politics and social media..
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,441
Reaction score
5,102
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
If the law is changed (with the Dems controlling the House, it wont- at least until they are burned by it) and if the owners of DP choose to control the content of what is posted, yes.
Do they control the content today?
 

Casper

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
24,304
Reaction score
9,728
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Uh, no. Not if the want protection under the FCC codes. As I said, they can block porno, calls for insurrection, threats and such.
Are you now writing their site policies, didn't know you worked there, but I know it isn't in Legal.
 

Bullseye

Every job is essential
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
26,177
Reaction score
8,972
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Are you now writing their site policies, didn't know you worked there, but I know it isn't in Legal.
They make no secret of their policies.
 

Aunt Antifa

Hunter of my heart
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
8,616
Reaction score
3,341
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
The devil is in the details (i.e. how exactly the law is written) - but I think the keyword there is "knowingly". I suppose the law might cover a situation where something is reported and they have time to do something about it, but don't. It might also force companies to implement better protections against online predators, etc.
You do understand that these laws, if used the way Trump wants, effectively could shut down right wing media, correct?

Plus: do you enjoy posting to forums like this one? They will go away. No one will want the liability.

But you know all of this, because as a conservative you spend so much of your time gaming out unintended consequences vs punitive action against enemies at the moment you have power.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
10,252
Reaction score
3,778
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Oh, this will good.. cite the law differentiates between Debate Politics and social media..
The law says, “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.” Emphasis is mine.

All of the content on the Debate Politics platform is created/provided by another party, i.e. someone who isn’t Debate Politics. This differs from a social media platform such as Facebook which produces its own content in addition to hosting consumer content and algorithmically manipulates the presentation of all content as its operating model. Facebook is only free because it isn’t neutral and it makes money by creating advertising content and manipulating the content it’s users see.

There’s also another key difference. Debate Politics moderators do not alter user posts. They enforce TOS rules that may require removal of a post or punishment of a user for posting it in the first place. But the content was still wholly provided by another. This is a far cry from the practice of, for example, Twitter staff in editing posts. At what point does information cease to be considered as provided by another content provider if it is being altered by Twitter?
 
Last edited:

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
13,866
Reaction score
5,535
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You do understand that these laws, if used the way Trump wants, effectively could shut down right wing media, correct?

Plus: do you enjoy posting to forums like this one? They will go away. No one will want the liability.

But you know all of this, because as a conservative you spend so much of your time gaming out unintended consequences vs punitive action against enemies at the moment you have power.
What you describe sounds closer to what Biden wants to do. He doesn't just want to weaken Section 230, he wants to nuke it.

 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,441
Reaction score
5,102
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The law says, “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.” Emphasis is mine.

All of the content on the Debate Politics platform is created/provided by another party, i.e. someone who isn’t Debate Politics. This differs from a social media platform such as Facebook which produces its own content in addition to hosting consumer content and algorithmically manipulates the presentation of all content as its operating model. Facebook is only free because it isn’t neutral and it makes money by creating advertising content and manipulating the content it’s users see.

There’s also another key difference. Debate Politics moderators do not alter user posts. They enforce TOS rules that may require removal of a post or punishment of a user for posting it in the first place. But the content was still wholly provided by another. This is a far cry from the practice of, for example, Twitter staff in editing posts. At what point does information cease to be considered as provided by another content provider if it is being altered by Twitter?
LMAO... Do you think this has never been tested in court?
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
15,282
Reaction score
2,517
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It would be way past due, nothing trump could actually do about it and his days are numbered.
It would be an issue of justice. The print media can't say whatever it wishes-- they are subject to libel laws. People can seek redress if they think they have been maligned. Because print media have people whose job is to decide what is printed and what is not.

TWITTER and others are exempt from such laws. Because they didn't have such people making such decisions. But now they do. So why should still be exempt?
 

Aunt Antifa

Hunter of my heart
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
8,616
Reaction score
3,341
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
What you describe sounds closer to what Biden wants to do. He doesn't just want to weaken Section 230, he wants to nuke it.

If you think I give a good goddamn which old white guy is trying to tell us to get off their lawns, you are mistaken. THe difference is Trump has actively stated he thinks these platforms should be controlled by the government. He wants libel laws weakened. He wants as little power in the hands of citizens as possible on social media because it kills him he can’t just make it shut up.

Tik Tok happened cause the moron really thinks it killed one of his stupid rallies.
 
Top Bottom