- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Messages
- 27,199
- Reaction score
- 14,222
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
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?
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.
Nope, the people posting their shit are liable for what they say, at most. You can't control what people post, but you can try to police the crazies as best as possible. But it's not possible to get everyone posting insane nonsense immediately. So they cannot be liable for what their members post, but they can police the posts they allow to remain up.Then they are liable
Thats like me starting my own newspaper with thousands of reporters and claiming im not responsible for what is being published because there is too many reporters on my staff for me to police them so i only police the ones i dont like.Nope, the people posting their shit are liable for what they say, at most. You can't control what people post, but you can try to police the crazies as best as possible. But it's not possible to get everyone posting insane nonsense immediately. So they cannot be liable for what their members post, but they can police the posts they allow to remain up.
Don't like it...make your own damned app. Free Market.
WHat posts have twitter staff altered?
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.
Do they control the content today?
Social media sites do not create content like newspapers do. They merely provide a forum through which others can spew their garbage. It's a tough job moderating the amount of garbage people spew, and that grows exponentially as the user base increases.Thats like me starting my own newspaper with thousands of reporters and claiming im not responsible for what is being published because there is too many reporters on my staff for me to police them so i only police the ones i dont like.
At a high level, let’s look at some of Trump’s tweets. Twitter has edited some of them to add brief commentary of its own and link to information it believes is contrary to the content Trump posted. In doing so, they are modifying Trump’s content and inserting their own. So the question becomes - who is actually legally liable for the tweet once it’s been edited by Twitter to add its own content?
That is not editing a post. You are incorrect. Everything you said after that was pointless.
And Twitter is a private company. They are bound by their own ToS, and even then they have flexibility within the language to make the ToS applicable in whatever manner they see fit. It’s why Trump is allowed to openly foment violence and keep his account vs if you or I did that. See? They can make decisions based on context regardless of their own ToS because...AMERICA. This is the free market in action, bay bee.
actually, I will disagree here...we need to have them be liable for some of the things they allow on their forums...for instance Boogalo bois and Kenosha guard planning a mass violence event in KenoshaTrump 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.
So if a site was for men only and they could somehow identify the users gender that would be acceptable to you?Social media sites do not create content like newspapers do. They merely provide a forum through which others can spew their garbage. It's a tough job moderating the amount of garbage people spew, and that grows exponentially as the user base increases.
Debate Politics, for instance, doesn't create content. It's just a forum for us to express opinions and BS. But DP does have the right to police and censor the stuff that is posted on it. It's private.
It is legal to have men only sites in the cyber world.So if a site was for men only and they could somehow identify the users gender that would be acceptable to you?
And to build on it, the site allowed these men to promote slut shaming specific women, thats ok as well because the owner of the site does not object?
Then if the site grew in popularity and started buying up all its competitors and implimented that same policy, still no problem?
And they did it all with the governments help because the legislators wrote a law that provides them with a legal shield that protects them from compensating anyone who has ben damaged from their policies.
If your answer is yes, thats all fine, because these are private companies; I have to ask if its legal to set this type of policy in the cyber world, shouldnt it be ok for private businesses in the real world to do the same?
What if i want to have a bakery that only serves straight people. Im a private business shouldn't it be legal for me to discriminate?
They did not edit them. They simply added a label to them. The content was not changed. Just as when a network shows a movie and adds the label beforehand "The following content may be unsuitable for certain viewers. Viewer discretion is advised.". The label is added as a warning but doesn't change the actual content.At a high level, let’s look at some of Trump’s tweets. Twitter has edited some of them to add brief commentary of its own and link to information it believes is contrary to the content Trump posted. In doing so, they are modifying Trump’s content and inserting their own. So the question becomes - who is actually legally liable for the tweet once it’s been edited by Twitter to add its own content?
I dont agree. Those posting such things should be liable for it.actually, I will disagree here...we need to have them be liable for some of the things they allow on their forums...for instance Boogalo bois and Kenosha guard planning a mass violence event in Kenosha
That is not editing a post. You are incorrect. Everything you said after that was pointless.
And Twitter is a private company. They are bound by their own ToS, and even then they have flexibility within the language to make the ToS applicable in whatever manner they see fit. It’s why Trump is allowed to openly foment violence and keep his account vs if you or I did that. See? They can make decisions based on context regardless of their own ToS because...AMERICA. This is the free market in action, bay bee.
It’s their site. What part of that are you still struggling with? Private company. Change the channel. Go to Parlor.Yes-- they can set their policies as they see fit.
But how can they claim responsibility for only SOME of the activity on their board? They can't, no more than the city of Louisville can claim responsibility for only some of the acts of its employees.
If Twitter et al wants to be in the position of evaluating the content of what appears on its site, it is responsible for ALL of it, not just some.
That is what the DOJ seems to be saying.
It’s their site. What part of that are you still struggling with? Private company. Change the channel. Go to Parlor.
And they should be liable for what they permit on their site-- if they otherwise choose to judge the content of what is placed on their site.
It has been litigated and the points I’ve raised have been upheld. For example, MCW, Inc. v. badbusinessbureau.com. The court rejected the website’s immunity claim under 230 because the case involved content they had created rather than another provider.
Complete BS.... Twitter adds a warning to the content, they do not alter content at all..At a high level, let’s look at some of Trump’s tweets. Twitter has edited some of them to add brief commentary of its own and link to information it believes is contrary to the content Trump posted. In doing so, they are modifying Trump’s content and inserting their own. So the question becomes - who is actually legally liable for the tweet once it’s been edited by Twitter to add its own content?
Nope.
They can police the postings on their sites and they may ban or censor as they see fit. It's private.
when Facebook permits a group to promote violence and has been reported repeatedly to them...they are enabling the situation to happen. In the case of Kenoha...there were more than 400 reports in reference to the Kenosha Guard and Boogaloo Bois planning to shoot protesters and they did not take it down. There is a point when you have endorsed the content you permit on your server. This is how sex trafficking, child porn distributors, and terrorist groups are being allowed to flourish.I dont agree. Those posting such things should be liable for it.
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
"Liable" for what and to whom? A private company can do whatever the hell it wants, within the law. Muzzling the media is both unconstitutional and the province of authoritarian regimes; Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany; you name an authoritarian government and you'll find the government line is all you'll read or see in their media.Should such platforms pick and choose what they allow to onto their sites, then they become liable for what they choose to permit onto it.
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?