- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Messages
- 27,199
- Reaction score
- 14,222
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
‘They are connected notions. Rights bring, and require, accountability.
So yes, they have a right to censor as they choose, but with it comes responsibility for what appears because ownership has taken an active part in its appearing on thei site. Signing off on and condoning it, as it were.
Choose not to censor and you get to say, ‘Hey, free access site. We don’t censor and we condone none of what appears on our pages”
They can do that if they want. It’s a private company. Private company doesn’t mean *you*, as a consumer of their service, define for them what they can and cannot place on their site.
And I’ve said this before: if you support this, then prepare yourself for having sites like this go away, and all your fav right wing shithole rabbit holes closing up shop. NO one will want the liability. It’s not worth the headache when some yenta decides to cause trouble because their feelings were hurt over Ben Shapiro being called a midget.
Why are you folks struggling so hard with the free market?
"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.
Wrong, those posting are not their employees. And yes, just like this site they can and do have control over what is acceptable on their site, don't like their rules move on to another site that allows you to post anything you like and God knows there are sites like that out there.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.
Complete BS.... Twitter adds a warning to the content, they do not alter content at all..
I dont agree. There is far too much potential for abuse. When there is some evidence for illegal or harmful activity taking place, they generally police themselves, as they should.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.
Muzzeling the media yes, but allowing them to not censor terrorism activities and criminal activities with zero liability is wrong."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.
Do they? They allowed the Kenosha guard to continue unchecked even as they were planning to murder protesters.I dont agree. There is far too much potential for abuse. When there is some evidence for illegal or harmful activity taking place, they generally police themselves, as they should.
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
And under the law, as it presently exists, they are not LIABLE for what is posted on their site
If they are going to judge and evaluate what goes on their sites, which they can certainly do, why should they be exempt from any legal consequences for what they allow on it? Do you really think a private company should be exempt from having to defend in court the consequences of its decisions?
THere is no law you are referencing with your argument. This is all made up philosophical non-relevance.
They are making a judgement as to content on its site. Why should they be exempt from the possible consequences of bad judgement?
Agreed.Muzzeling the media yes, but allowing them to not censor terrorism activities and criminal activities with zero liability is wrong.
It’s standard civil case law precedent.
DP makes judgements every day with their obscenity filter... Should they face possible consequences for bad judgement?
The problem is not what they've allowed. The problem is what they make sure you don't see.
Editing or removal of content for reasons other than "obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith." is the problem.
They've turned themselves into, or have been allowed to become, political operations.
That's the problem.
They won’t accept this. They just dont’ care. They want Twitter to stop being mean to racist garbage conservatives. Wait till Breitbart is forced to publish Noam Chomsky or shut down.
LOL... Who cares? The house is not going to pass any bill removing 230 protection...
so, if someone creates a site that allows the trafficking and sell of children...should they be censored or not? If say Facebook allows it to continue you do not think they should be liable? I agree that if they did not know said content was there, that no they are not liable...but if they knew, it was reported to them and they just laughed it off and say continue on?Why is that a problem? Do the owners of sites have a right to allow or not allow their preference of content? Will we require conservative forums to allow posts from socialists?
Wonderful. HOw is it applicable here?
Umm, let’s see...
The OP commented on DOJ was creating new standards of accountability for user content on public forums.
My reply had directly to do with established standards of accountability for user content on public forums.
You really can’t see the obvious direct connection or are you just trolling?
Sigh... There are plenty of federal laws that would apply to a site that allows trafficking and selling of children... Good lord..so, if someone creates a site that allows the trafficking and sell of children...should they be censored or not? If say Facebook allows it to continue you do not think they should be liable? I agree that if they did not know said content was there, that no they are not liable...but if they knew, it was reported to them and they just laughed it off and say continue on?
Umm, let’s see...
The OP commented on DOJ was creating new standards of accountability for user content on public forums.
My reply had directly to do with established standards of accountability for user content on public forums.
You really can’t see the obvious direct connection or are you just trolling?
really? What are those? The 230 clause leaves them not liable for allowing this stuff...its how 8chan has got away with so much.Sigh... There are plenty of federal laws that would apply to a site that allows trafficking and selling of children... Good lord..
Missing a group who they may not have identified as "threatening" then does not mean they arent doing what they can.Do they? They allowed the Kenosha guard to continue unchecked even as they were planning to murder protesters.
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?