Trump AKA Hitler just announced that he will end censorship of free speech!!

[joluoto]

Correct-- but when the platform is suppressing certain things that it does not like, why should they have libel protection?

They either have protection or they don't. If they don't they are not protected from anything. And then they can and will be sued for everything. Elon absolutely doesn't want this. Can you imagine X being sued for every terrible shitpost.

 

[LouC]

Again, JD Vance and John Kelly called him Hitler. How are they the left?

I never called him Hitler.

That would be insulting to Adolph.

 

[Mr Person]

Would you be surprised if Trump administration cites the Korematsu decision as a defense for rounding up and deporting immigrants?

Not in the least. Dead precedent can be ressurected with a snap of the fingers, after all. And they only finally got around to officially repudiating it in Trump v. Hawaii, in 2018...

 

[KingLeo]

LOL
And how is he going to force social media groups, i.e. private corporations, to abide by his demands?
That in itself looks a lot like censorship.

 

[eman623]

If he does that, this forum will be hit just as bad as the giants. If you can sue the social media platform (and this is a social media platform) for things their users do, then we will get MORE censorship, not less, because every platform will be in panic to remove things that can even theoretically hurt someone else to be sure not to get sued for it. Those protections exists to make social media platforms viable at all. If you are harassed online it's the person who harass you who is liable for it under the current model, the platform can become liable if they don't do anything about it, but they are not liable automatically. If those protections disappears, the platform is immediately liable for EVERYTHING their users does. Which also includes things like copyright violations.

This forum will enjoy protections against being "hit" since it conforms to Section 230 and does not attempt to moderate content based on alleged truthfulness or harm done to people.

If I call you and threaten you on the phone, you can't sue the phone company. Likewise if I threaten you on DP you can't sue the site owner or whoever hosts us.

 

[eman623]

Looking at the second part of you post, the first makes no sense.

I will clarify my position.

Section 230 is not being followed correctly. Some social media sites are moderating based on content and alleged "misinformation" and are not staying neutral. They in factr publishers, not providers. Thus they should not get 230 protections.

 

[Deuce]

The preamble to the law lays out why the platforms should be exempt from libel laws ie. They encourage debate and discussion.
Great.


But if the platform itself is stifling debate and discussion because it doesn't like certain opinions, then obviously they are not encouraging debate and discussion.

Incorrect. Just because we don't allow porn spam and hate speech here on DP doesn't mean we are against debate and discussion.

The law should be reformed to allow for a platform to choose: to permit only the type of discussion they want on it-- but with the codicil that they lose libel protection; or to keep such protection but must take all comers.

The result of this is more censorship.

Option 1: Lose libel protection.
DP becomes liable for every random ass thing any poster says. Elon Musk is a rapist. There, I just opened DP to a lawsuit. Some random poster uses a copyrighted image as an avatar? Lawsuit. The solution is DP engages in absolutely draconian moderation. Anything that could remotely be conceivable as a liability, they have to ban people for. Because DP is not the sort of forum that can weather lawsuits. The result is more censorship, the opposite of your alleged goal.

Option 2: Allow everything
There's history here. You know what happens to social platforms that are unmoderated? Porn spam. Scams. Asshole trolls spamming racial slurs and antisemitic screeds. Personal attacks. These people don't have a lot of places to go, because more-established platforms tend to weed them out. So they flock to the "free speech platform," and ruin it. And then that platform collapses, because all the normal people leave. This hasn't increased debate and discussion, it has reduced it. Your alleged goal has not been accomplished.

Also, you need to understand: Section 230 protection is not an exchange. It was not an offer of liability protection with conditions, it was just giving liability protection. Unconditionally. Because the protection is what encourages free speech. You have created a fake standard of allowing absolutely anything, including hate speech and scams.

 

[Deuce]

I will clarify my position.

Section 230 is not being followed correctly. Some social media sites are moderating based on content and alleged "misinformation" and are not staying neutral. They in factr publishers, not providers. Thus they should not get 230 protections.

Section 230 does not have conditions. There is no "incorrect" usage of its protection. A lack of moderation does not encourage discussion, it destroys it.

You are making that part up. It never existed.

You are trying to use the government to coerce private entities into allowing speech they disagree with. You are anti-free speech.

 

[Land Barge]

I dare you find a post where I have ever compared any of those people, except Trump, to Hitler.

Did I say “the left” or “ClaraD”? I’m confused.
lol

 

[joluoto]

I will clarify my position.

Section 230 is not being followed correctly. Some social media sites are moderating based on content and alleged "misinformation" and are not staying neutral. They in factr publishers, not providers. Thus they should not get 230 protections.

Section 230 does not say anything about this. And no, they are not publishers. X, Facebook, TikTok, 4chan, Reddit and Youtube etc. ain't publishing shit.

Also you have to consider this. These companies does not only have to follow US law, but the laws of every country/ market they do business in, and always will follow the harshest interpretation because then they automatically are also within the law of every other country.

 

[Land Barge]

Which one did a Republican vice president call Hitler?

IDK. Was it Dan Quayle?

 

[Questerr]

View attachment 67542694

IDK. Was it Dan Quayle?

No. It was some guy named Vance. I can't remember who he was VP to though.

 

[eman623]

Section 230 does not say anything about this. And no, they are not publishers. X, Facebook, TikTok, 4chan, Reddit and Youtube etc. ain't publishing shit.

If they moderate based on content, then yeah they are.

Also you have to consider this. These companies does not only have to follow US law, but the laws of every country/ market they do business in, and always will follow the harshest interpretation because then they automatically are also within the law of every other country.

They can and do moderate content according to the laws of each country they operate in. Here in the US we have a much more permissive interpretation if you want to be a provider.

 

[Athanasius68]

Incorrect. Just because we don't allow porn spam and hate speech here on DP doesn't mean we are against debate and discussion.

Never claimed otherwise.

The result of this is more censorship.

If the platform chooses to do moderate for content, then it is already happening.

Option 1: Lose libel protection.
DP becomes liable for every random ass thing any poster says. Elon Musk is a rapist. There, I just opened DP to a lawsuit. Some random poster uses a copyrighted image as an avatar? Lawsuit. The solution is DP engages in absolutely draconian moderation. Anything that could remotely be conceivable as a liability, they have to ban people for. Because DP is not the sort of forum that can weather lawsuits. The result is more censorship, the opposite of your alleged goal.

Sure-- if it chooses to censor for content.
If it doesn't, it can have the protection.

Option 2: Allow everything
There's history here. You know what happens to social platforms that are unmoderated? Porn spam. Scams. Asshole trolls spamming racial slurs and antisemitic screeds. Personal attacks. These people don't have a lot of places to go, because more-established platforms tend to weed them out. So they flock to the "free speech platform," and ruin it. And then that platform collapses, because all the normal people leave. This hasn't increased debate and discussion, it has reduced it. Your alleged goal has not been accomplished.

There is no reason why things can't be screened for personal attacks.
Harassment laws exist. Those wouldn't change.

Also, you need to understand: Section 230 protection is not an exchange. It was not an offer of liability protection with conditions, it was just giving liability protection.

The rationale behind why digital platforms should receive such protections, and not say, print media is because the nature of digital media.

But if the platform is going to censor for content, then obviously there is no free speech occurring there anyhow.
So why the libel protection?

Unconditionally. Because the protection is what encourages free speech.

Yes-- and the platform that ITSELF is censoring speech that it doesn't like, then free speech is not being encouraged.

You have created a fake standard of allowing absolutely anything, including hate speech and scams.

"Hate speech" is legal.
Scams are fraud and thus already illegal. No expectation that these such laws change.

 

[Deuce]

Never claimed otherwise.

You are attempting to establish an absolute standard of free speech, everything or nothing. So you have to own that part of the discussion, sorry.

If the platform chooses to do moderate for content, then it is already happening.

And your proposal causes more censorship.

Sure-- if it chooses to censor for content.
If it doesn't, it can have the protection.

Your request is denied. Section 230 does not come with conditions. You don't get to force a Jewish forum to suffer the presence of Nazis.

There is no reason why things can't be screened for personal attacks.
Harassment laws exist. Those wouldn't change.

That is moderation, and therefore the platform is liable for those personal attacks.

The rationale behind why digital platforms should receive such protections, and not say, print media is because the nature of digital media.

The rationale is that the protection encourages open discussion, which it does.

But if the platform is going to censor for content, then obviously there is no free speech occurring there anyhow.

False binary. We have free speech on Debate Politics, but we still ban hate speech.

If you don't like that, leave. Go find a hate speech friendly platform.

So why the protection?

Because it encourages discussion. Even if we ban people for posting swastikas.

Are you really telling me that you want a Jewish forum to be forced by law to allow Nazis to spam swastikas? That sounds antisemitic to me.

Yes-- and the platform that ITSELF is censoring speech that it doesn't like, then free speech is not being encouraged.

Yes it is, because a total lack of moderation results in a collapse of the platform and therefore no speech occurs at all.

"Hate speech" is legal.
Scams are fraud and thus already illegal. No expectation that these such laws change.

You can't ban someone for a scam they haven't committed yet, because they haven't committed a crime. You are not a court of law, you don't get to decide they are guilty of a crime.

 

[Athanasius68]

You are attempting to establish an absolute standard of free speech, everything or nothing. So you have to own that part of the discussion, sorry.

And your proposal causes more censorship.

Your request is denied. Section 230 does not come with conditions. You don't get to force a Jewish forum to suffer the presence of Nazis.

Never said they had to

That is moderation, and therefore the platform is liable for those personal attacks.

Sure-- if they moderate for content.

The rationale is that the protection encourages open discussion, which it does.

Yes-- as long as there open discussion.
But- if the platform closes discussion, then obviously its not encouraging speech.
Sec 230 is a legal privilege.

False binary. We have free speech on Debate Politics, but we still ban hate speech.

If you don't like that, leave. Go find a hate speech friendly platform.

Because it encourages discussion. Even if we ban people for posting swastikas.

Are you really telling me that you want a Jewish forum to be forced by law to allow Nazis to spam swastikas? That sounds antisemitic to me.

Of course not. Its not a question of forcing anyone to do anything.
Its a question of legal privilege.
Sec 230 is a law that exempts certain content

Yes it is, because a total lack of moderation results in a collapse of the platform and therefore no speech occurs at all.

You can't ban someone for a scam they haven't committed yet,

Of course one can.

because they haven't committed a crime. You are not a court of law, you don't get to decide they are guilty of a crime.

 

[Land Barge]

No. It was some guy named Vance. I can't remember who he was VP to though.

J.D.? He’s never been V.P.

 

[SCrider]

Trump just announced that he will end the horrible censorship that the rotten leftist filth have been doing to conservatives. He will sign executive orders punishing government officials and social media groups who censor free speech.

Funny that Hitler would actually push for free and open speech and vow that it is our most important right lol. Maybe just maybe you guys labeled the wrong politician lol.

For years conservatives have complained about being censored and silenced. In 2020 government officials loyal to Biden colluded with social media to silence the discussion of the damaging but factual Hunter Biden laptop and burisma stories. A move that later polls showed cost Trump a victory. In 2022 more of the same. A few months ago Harris vowed to censor and silence free speech. She said it would be speech deemed as dangerous which means Republican speech. Trump is going to fix censorship no matter which direction it goes.

Hardy something that a dictator or Fascist would ever consider doing.

Best yet is that any government official who took part in that censorship will be fired!!!!! Finally someone willing to fight for ALL Americans free speech.

Throw them out like that FEMA bitch that instructed her staff to skip tornado destroyed homes if they displayed any Trump advertising.

Why are you guys so obsessed with making sure RW lies don’t get exposed?

 

[Questerr]

J.D.? He’s never been V.P.

But he must be a Democrat, right?

 

[iguanaman]

Trump just announced that he will end the horrible censorship that the rotten leftist filth have been doing to conservatives. He will sign executive orders punishing government officials and social media groups who censor free speech.

Funny that Hitler would actually push for free and open speech and vow that it is our most important right lol. Maybe just maybe you guys labeled the wrong politician lol.

For years conservatives have complained about being censored and silenced. In 2020 government officials loyal to Biden colluded with social media to silence the discussion of the damaging but factual Hunter Biden laptop and burisma stories. A move that later polls showed cost Trump a victory. In 2022 more of the same. A few months ago Harris vowed to censor and silence free speech. She said it would be speech deemed as dangerous which means Republican speech. Trump is going to fix censorship no matter which direction it goes.

Hardy something that a dictator or Fascist would ever consider doing.

Best yet is that any government official who took part in that censorship will be fired!!!!! Finally someone willing to fight for ALL Americans free speech.

Throw them out like that FEMA bitch that instructed her staff to skip tornado destroyed homes if they displayed any Trump advertising.

So he has dropped his lawsuit against CBS and reversed his rhetoric about the enemy within and will no longer go after those that speak badly of him? I don't think that is true.

 

[Deuce]

Never said they had to

If they ban the nazis, they lose Section 230 protection. You're using government coercion to push them to accept hate.

But- if the platform closes discussion, then obviously its not encouraging speech.

Wrong. Moderation encourages speech by protecting the platform and those on it from abuse. Why do you even post on DP? This forum bans people for hate speech. You want that abuse to appear around here, do you?

Abuse ends free speech. You just want to be an abuser.

 

[Land Barge]

But he must be a Democrat, right?

Not necessarily. Now I’m curious . Who was that VP?

 

[Questerr]

Not necessarily. Now I’m curious . Who was that VP?

JD Vance. Trump’s VP.

 

[Land Barge]

JD Vance. Trump’s VP.

Godwin’s Law was invoked apparently.

 

[Airyaman]

Trump just announced that he will end the horrible censorship that the rotten leftist filth have been doing to conservatives. He will sign executive orders punishing government officials and social media groups who censor free speech.

Funny that Hitler would actually push for free and open speech and vow that it is our most important right lol. Maybe just maybe you guys labeled the wrong politician lol.

For years conservatives have complained about being censored and silenced. In 2020 government officials loyal to Biden colluded with social media to silence the discussion of the damaging but factual Hunter Biden laptop and burisma stories. A move that later polls showed cost Trump a victory. In 2022 more of the same. A few months ago Harris vowed to censor and silence free speech. She said it would be speech deemed as dangerous which means Republican speech. Trump is going to fix censorship no matter which direction it goes.

Hardy something that a dictator or Fascist would ever consider doing.

Best yet is that any government official who took part in that censorship will be fired!!!!! Finally someone willing to fight for ALL Americans free speech.

Throw them out like that FEMA bitch that instructed her staff to skip tornado destroyed homes if they displayed any Trump advertising.

The guy who constantly threatens media outlets for publishing negative content about him is not a champion of "freedom of speech".