Section 230

[roguenuke]

If I haven't already told you this, if any forum, site provider or whatever that has protection under 230 has any rule whatsoever that restricts me from saying whatever I want to say, other than that which is against the law, than they are violating my protection as SHOULD also be under 230. Take your pick. Either the site providers satisfy policing of their own writers, or give the same rights they have, totally, to those writers, or 230 gets axed. Same thing with the LEO Bill of Rights. Fine. Give them the Police BOR. But let the common citizen have them too. Otherwise, F'm. If corps can be a person, than persons can be corps. I can deduct every F'n expense of mine from my income when I file. Do you want a list?

You mean like this site? There are plenty of things you are not allowed to say on this site.

The rest is a failure to actually recognize the differences that exist in different situations.

 

[roguenuke]

Progressives do

No, you can't. You can legally be asked to leave and charged with trespassing if you stand in someone else's yard, yelling pretty much anything. Doesn't matter political lean or affiliation.

 

[trouble13]

No, you can't. You can legally be asked to leave and charged with trespassing if you stand in someone else's yard, yelling pretty much anything. Doesn't matter political lean or affiliation.

Progressives hold protests on peoples private property a lot of the times. They feel entitled.to exercise their free speech.rights anywhere they damn well please.

 

[Deuce]

From enjoying the same rights as anybody else.

Your... right to use a computer system you have never owned, maintained, or paid for?

Can you show me where that was written in the constitution? Where does it say you have a right to use someone else's property?

 

[Deuce]

Progressives do

Nobody has ever stood on your lawn and yelled shit.

 

[Deuce]

Progressives hold protests on peoples private property a lot of the times. They feel entitled.to exercise their free speech.rights anywhere they damn well please.

And they can all be arrested for trespassing.

Just because someone does something, doesn't mean they have a constitutional right to do it.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

If I haven't already told you this, if any forum, site provider or whatever that has protection under 230 has any rule whatsoever that restricts me from saying whatever I want to say, other than that which is against the law, than they are violating my protection as SHOULD also be under 230. Take your pick. Either the site providers satisfy policing of their own writers, or give the same rights they have, totally, to those writers, or 230 gets axed. Same thing with the LEO Bill of Rights. Fine. Give them the Police BOR. But let the common citizen have them too. Otherwise, F'm. If corps can be a person, than persons can be corps. I can deduct every F'n expense of mine from my income when I file. Do you want a list?

You understand that what you think should be true is directly contrary to the purpose of Section 230?

The purpose of Section 230 is to allow for content moderation.

 

[bluesmoke]

How are you not protected in the same way? Do you have your own website? If so, are you allowed to control what others post on that website? You don't have any right to post whatever you want on other people's websites, nor to sue them for allowing others to post what may be considered wrong (not illegal).

Twitter, et al, can ban me for however long they wish for any reason they see fit, but are not responsible for anything of mine they allow. But banning me is them taking responsibility and obviously indicates they reviewed what I posted. So, a site can take whatever action they wish against someone, however minimal the gravity of the post may be, but knowingly let state sponsored propaganda from whatever country and however great the gravity go on without taking any action whatsoever. Facebook has knowingly allowed misinformation accounts to grow and peak prior to elections even in the US. The site owner is the one in care, custody and control of what is put on the site and should be responsible for what they allow. If not, then I should be just as free from any inhibition as are they for what I have them put on their site of mine.

 

[roguenuke]

Twitter, et al, can ban me for however long they wish for any reason they see fit, but are not responsible for anything of mine they allow. But banning me is them taking responsibility and obviously indicates they reviewed what I posted. So, a site can take whatever action they wish against someone, however minimal the gravity of the post may be, but knowingly let state sponsored propaganda from whatever country and however great the gravity go on without taking any action whatsoever. Facebook has knowingly allowed misinformation accounts to grow and peak prior to elections even in the US. The site owner is the one in care, custody and control of what is put on the site and should be responsible for what they allow. If not, then I should be just as free from any inhibition as are they for what I have them put on their site of mine.

It is not them taking responsibility for what you say. It is them saying they don't approve of what you have posted. There is a difference. You can disapprove of something people are posting, saying without having any responsibility for it. You can even ban/stop people from saying it (if your property) without having any sort of legal responsibility for it.

Example: I throw a party. I invite about 50 people. Two of those people start having a discussion about religion that makes others uncomfortable. No one at that party could sue me or even them for having such a discussion (not successfully), but that doesn't mean I can't ask them to leave and then call the cops, essentially ban those two people from my party and future parties. It doesn't matter if I allowed others to talk about religion or other things, nor that I had no responsibility affiliated with their discussion, only that I did not approve of their conversation, what they were saying. It could be a single person, two people, or several people.

 

[bluesmoke]

You have it if you setup your own site.

And the sites have zero responsibility for those people who were doing that plotting, just as phone companies shouldn't have that responsibility, nor cafes or bars, had they used those places to do such planning.

I shouldn't have to set up my own site. Just like I talk on a phone, I should be as free from interference of my speech when on any kind of site under 230. The site should not hold me to any more rules of speech than to what they are held.

 

[roguenuke]

I shouldn't have to set up my own site. Just like I talk on a phone, I should be as free from interference of my speech when on any kind of site under 230. The site should not hold me to any more rules of speech than to what they are held.

Why shouldn't you have to setup your own site? If it's your party, you get to control what may or may not be said there, but if it is someone else's party, they have that control.

Your phone conversations are not open to the public, what you post on someone else's privately owned platform is.

 

[Felis Leo]

I am a Republican, and I believe we should keep 230. But I also believe that we should break up and decentralize communication platform monopolies like Google and Facebook.

 

[bluesmoke]

What would be the problem there? That could happen too. If the owner of a bar or cafe walked by while you were talking to someone and telling them lies that they felt were lies, that these lies were part of something they wanted nothing to do with, they could ban you from their bar or cafe.

They felt were lies? Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

As far as what a bar or café could do, they have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as the reason for doing so is not illegal. Bars and cafes, though, do not serve as mass communication like online sites do. Nothing has ever before come anywhere near that level of communication.

 

[roguenuke]

I am a Republican, and I believe we should keep 230. But I also believe that we should break up and decentralize communication platform monopolies like Google and Facebook.

How would you breakup Facebook or Google? How would that logistically work? Keep in mind that people are not likely going to want to give up their ability to easily communicate with others on Facebook or to use Google (since other search engines have not been nearly as successful at getting people to use them).

 

[roguenuke]

They felt were lies? Yeah, like that's gonna happen.



They felt were lies? Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

As far as what a bar or café could do, they have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as the reason for doing so is not illegal. Bars and cafes, though, do not serve as mass communication like online sites do. Nothing has ever before come anywhere near that level of communication.

They used to serve as places of larger communication, some still very much do. Trying to make this about numbers of people communicating is never going to work because that is always going to change. Small sites should not be treated differently than larger sites.

 

[BlueTex]

Twitter, et al, can ban me for however long they wish for any reason they see fit, but are not responsible for anything of mine they allow. But banning me is them taking responsibility and obviously indicates they reviewed what I posted. So, a site can take whatever action they wish against someone, however minimal the gravity of the post may be, but knowingly let state sponsored propaganda from whatever country and however great the gravity go on without taking any action whatsoever. Facebook has knowingly allowed misinformation accounts to grow and peak prior to elections even in the US. The site owner is the one in care, custody and control of what is put on the site and should be responsible for what they allow. If not, then I should be just as free from any inhibition as are they for what I have them put on their site of mine.

Are you familiar with the first amendment of the US constitution?

 

[bluesmoke]

Actually they exist to collect user information for more effective marketing to those users. That's where their billions of dollars come from.

That's why they exist for their own profit purposes. "those users" aren't there for that reason, though they are taken advantage of for that "marketing" information to sell whatever, but also direct what kind of info/news you get and access and in what order.

 

[Visbek]

In recent years, section 230 has come under criticism for supposedly facilitating human trafficking, hate content, child porn, general harassment, and terrorism.

No, actually, it just became a partisan talking point for the right wing, which is infuriated that Big Tech is bouncing right-wing loons who are too separated from reality to follow the rules, and have extended there identitarian "War On the Media" to also be a "War On Social Media."

I'm sure it has been mentioned, but if the goal is to pressure social media to be more lenient to the right wing (i.e. turn every social media site into 4chan), then taking away 230 will massively backfire. It will force social media sites to ramp up moderation by multiple orders of magnitude, because they will have less protection from lawsuits. Even a site like this one would need to prune the crap out of what people are writing (or move offshore) because if a user posts "Ted Cruz is a liar," technically DP could be held liable for defamation.

 

[bluesmoke]

Swords and shields come in different sizes.

Again, most of this is simply your opinion on what it should be without any justification for limiting the private platform's rights to maintain control over their site. And that even clashes with how others, who in fact want the same result as you do, see the situation.

In reality, if we got the result you and others are pushing for here, making platforms liable for content posted by others, the Internet will basically die as a social networking and free speech medium. There is just no way that any site would be able to meet those conditions that you or others want to implement without so greatly restricting free speech on the internet that it becomes too hard for most people to put up with.

Right now, they have a huge shield and have chosen a pen knife of a sword.
I only want to make those who control these sites liable because they won't control the content to the extent I believe should be their responsibility. If they did a better job of it, there would be no, or little, need to change 230. Providers have practically complete immunity from liability, the shield, but IMO, are not taking reasonable steps to delete or prevent access to content from bad actors, the sword. That was the deal. The internet is no longer upstart. They are a really big deal now. It's time for them to hold up their end of the deal.

 

[roguenuke]

Right now, they have a huge shield and have chosen a pen knife of a sword.
I only want to make those who control these sites liable because they won't control the content to the extent I believe should be their responsibility. If they did a better job of it, there would be no, or little, need to change 230. Providers have practically complete immunity from liability, the shield, but IMO, are not taking reasonable steps to delete or prevent access to content from bad actors, the sword. That was the deal. The internet is no longer upstart. They are a really big deal now. It's time for them to hold up their end of the deal.

This is your claim, but that is also just your opinion. Others do not agree.

You "believe should be their responsibility" shows the subjectivity there. It also does not account for the very likely result of such actions, causing many such sites to shut down, which in turn would radically change the Internet and how we communicate. Even this site would likely not make it through such a change.

 

[bluesmoke]

Donald Trump was given special treatment by Twitter. Twitter was biased towards Trump, not against Trump. They openly admitted this.

Trump violated Twitter rules several times, given those chances, before being kicked-out. An example that Twitter won't use the sword in a timely manner. They know what goes on.

 

[bluesmoke]

LOL.. You have no right to a free account..

Correct. I believe if the govt is going to give an entity complete protection from what I post on that site, then I should be given the same protection from that site that I, the public, gave them. Same with other things. If LEO have more rights than citizens, as in the LEO Bill of Rights, then I should have the same rights or they should have those rights taken away. If corps are "persons" whose free speech rights extend to practically unlimited campaign contribution, then I should have the right to right of my expense of doing my personal business of existence as does a corp. That's the liberal interpretation of rights. If the other can have it, then so should as reasonably can be. I also believe in the advancement of rights. The progressive interpretation of rights. Voting rights should be made easier, not more difficult, as reasonably can be made. If the govt allows the site to post whatever I say, then they must allow it to the extent the govt allows.

 

[bluesmoke]

So dispense with these companies first amendment rights?

What about my 1A rights? I'm saying if I can't have the same rights as they have for what speech is put on the same platform, then neither can they. If they have protection for whatever I say on their platform, but they refuse on their platform what I want to say that would be protected under 230A, then either give me the protection or take it away from them or require them to take responsibility for what is put on the platform.

 

[bluesmoke]

You mean like this site? There are plenty of things you are not allowed to say on this site.

The rest is a failure to actually recognize the differences that exist in different situations.

There are plenty of things I am not allowed to say on this site that may differ from other sites. By 230, there is no diff what is allowed on any site.

"The rest is a failure to actually recognize the differences that exist in different situations."

I don't know what you mean. Please clarify.

 

[roguenuke]

There are plenty of things I am not allowed to say on this site that may differ from other sites. By 230, there is no diff what is allowed on any site.

"The rest is a failure to actually recognize the differences that exist in different situations."

I don't know what you mean. Please clarify.

The sites are private sites. The only thing that 230 requires of them is for them to show they have a method to try to "police" their site when it comes to illegal content. Nothing else is required. You stated above, to the post of yours that my quoted post here was in response to, that any site should not be able to control or restrict what you post on that site. This site does, as does pretty much every site in existence because there is nothing about Sect 230 that restricts any site from controlling content and even users on their sites.

As for what I mean, you cannot compare LEO protections and any sort of reciprocated protections to the public (which should not be the case because the circumstances between the public and law enforcement are the same) with online protections given to either sites or people using those sites. The situations are not the same at all. You don't opt in, sign up for law enforcement protection in the US, for good reason. You do opt in, sign up to use other people's websites to post your own comments. They allow you to use their space, so they get to control it.