Does Debate Politics want responsibility for every post made here?
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?
LMAO... Will THIS forum be subjected to the same standard?
And you should back your comments with more effort than what you just tried.
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....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.
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....
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.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.)
Bottomline: social media can't be a publisher and a platform, too.
It would be way past due, nothing trump could actually do about it and his days are numbered.That would prove the point...
Uh, no. Not if the want protection under the FCC codes. As I said, they can block porno, calls for insurrection, threats and such.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.
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.
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.
Are you now writing their site policies, didn't know you worked there, but I know it isn't in Legal.Uh, no. Not if the want protection under the FCC codes. As I said, they can block porno, calls for insurrection, threats and such.
They make no secret of their policies.Are you now writing their site policies, didn't know you worked there, but I know it isn't in Legal.
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.
Oh, this will good.. cite the law differentiates between Debate Politics and social media..
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.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.
LMAO... Do you think this has never been tested in court?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?
Then they are liableNope.
They can police the postings on their sites and they may ban or censor as they see fit. It's private.
It would be way past due, nothing trump could actually do about it and his days are numbered.
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.
Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230
The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know itwww.theverge.com
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?