Banning of Conservatives on Social Media (Page 5/13)
theBDub JAN 11, 03:35 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


Ignoring this whole part because I don't think you have read what I said and are making assumptions. If you re-read, I state several times that companies can do what they want as private entities. 230 granted companies and people the right to freedom of speech. Meaning that companies (and people) can say things and companies cannot get fined for it. Freedom of Speech. Companies are treated as persons. 230 grants companies freedom of speech. I was saying it was ironic because they are using 230 as a cover to regulate other's speech. But if you read everything I've said above... I've already made it clear that all of us acknowledge that companies can do what they want.




I'm not sure if you're just wording it strangely, or what, but Section 230 means forums are not necessarily publishers/editors, so they should not be held to the content their users post. Getting rid of 230 would open the door for any company with a component of their site that allows for user-submitted text to be sued for the content their users submitted. So if I said something like "Todd has a big butt" and this wasn't true (and materially harmed you enough for a libel suit), then not only could you sue me, you could also sue Cliff (if he was based in the US). Maybe a bad example given all of the parentheses, but what Synthesis is saying in regards to changing the internet as we know it is true, because all of the companies with websites based in the U.S. would have to moderate all of their content or be subject to suits. In the end, Trump would have barely been able to tweet at all, because Twitter themselves would have been held liable for the content of his tweets.

I think that is the craziest thing to me about the whole 230 push from Trump. 230 has basically provided him with his platform. Without 230, he wouldn't have had nearly the reach to accomplish what he did.

Maybe we could replace it with something, I don't know if there is a better solution, but I certainly wouldn't want to just get rid of it. Maybe all of the websites would just transfer hosts to another country and all would be fine, but that seems like putting a nail on a coffin for American dominance in Tech.
Jake_Dragon JAN 11, 05:05 PM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:


I'm not sure if you're just wording it strangely, or what, but Section 230 means forums are not necessarily publishers/editors, so they should not be held to the content their users post. Getting rid of 230 would open the door for any company with a component of their site that allows for user-submitted text to be sued for the content their users submitted. So if I said something like "Todd has a big butt" and this wasn't true (and materially harmed you enough for a libel suit), then not only could you sue me, you could also sue Cliff (if he was based in the US). Maybe a bad example given all of the parentheses, but what Synthesis is saying in regards to changing the internet as we know it is true, because all of the companies with websites based in the U.S. would have to moderate all of their content or be subject to suits. In the end, Trump would have barely been able to tweet at all, because Twitter themselves would have been held liable for the content of his tweets.

I think that is the craziest thing to me about the whole 230 push from Trump. 230 has basically provided him with his platform. Without 230, he wouldn't have had nearly the reach to accomplish what he did.

Maybe we could replace it with something, I don't know if there is a better solution, but I certainly wouldn't want to just get rid of it. Maybe all of the websites would just transfer hosts to another country and all would be fine, but that seems like putting a nail on a coffin for American dominance in Tech.



I remember years ago one of the hot or not sites suddenly went off line. It was the one where you select one of two cars.
Later it came out that the host didn't bother screening who they sold space to and were shut down due to adult files. Now they didn't just shut them down they took all of the servers and hardware that had data on it.
I have no issues with that, there should be some liability. Its funny they shut Trump down but what he has been doing is mild compared to some of the **** I have seen.
The first place I saw someone get their head cut off was on face book. I had to click to show but damn, if it was a nipple the account would have been shut down.
maryjane JAN 11, 05:13 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
A lot of things were conspiracy until they weren't, MJ. We are all entitled to our opinion... but a lot of conspiracy is rooted in some reality.

There are some things that are total nonsense... but other things that are not. It's a very dangerous position for you to take that you believe the Government has some kind of role in determining what conspiracies are legitimate and which ones are not.



Not really.
The govt, thru their constitutional mandate to provide for the general welfare and common defense of it's citizens would have to assume almost all are legit until proven otherwise via investigation. The investigation would take various forms but govt has to assume a role in that process if they are to find out which are "rooted in reality" and which are 'total nonsense'.
maryjane JAN 11, 07:30 PM
While I certainly believe in the idiom that states "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. " I also don't believe we are yet at that point, tho the writer of those 2 lines (Jefferson) said much more about it in his letter and pretty much stated he disdained the prospect that even 20 years should pass without it (a citizen's insurrection) happening.

He also pointed out the citizen's ability (and conversely, the lack thereof) to be truthfully informed, something we should keep in mind.
An excerpt:

"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves.

Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.1 The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."

The Massachusetts insurrection he was speaking of was what we know today as Shay's Rebellion which took place in 1786/1787. He was warning that kneejerk measures should NOT be legislated to the extreme because of a singular event. (A kite is a type of hawk and he was referring to having a govt overlord constantly circling around the new nation looking for 'trouble', when the overlord itself has the distinct possibility of being the real problem. A hawk will eat a chicken as quickly as it will a fur bearing predator)

We have seen this 'kite' numerous times in our lives, even within internet discussion boards, as well as in corporate America, our education systems, and now, from social media's big guns.

Parts of the internet, the news, and even congress has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Washington DC: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order.

https://www.monticello.org/...ee-liberty-quotation

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-11-2021).]

randye JAN 11, 07:55 PM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:


Not really.
The govt, thru their constitutional mandate to provide for the general welfare and common defense of it's citizens would have to assume almost all are legit until proven otherwise via investigation. The investigation would take various forms but govt has to assume a role in that process if they are to find out which are "rooted in reality" and which are 'total nonsense'.



You're going to LOVE Pee Pad's new government agency kite....

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-11-2021).]

MidEngineManiac JAN 11, 11:29 PM
I keep hearing around here they are a private company, they can do whatever they want...

How did that workout for the Christian baker from Colorado??

Seems L:EFTIST private companies can do what they want. Conservatives ones better to the liberal line or else.

Kind of like the abortion rhetoric. "My body my choice" doesnt seem to apply to forced vaccinations or co-erced now, does it ?
rinselberg JAN 12, 11:33 AM

quote
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:

I keep hearing around here they are a private company, they can do whatever they want...

How did that workout for the Christian baker from Colorado??

Seems L:EFTIST private companies can do what they want. Conservatives ones better to the liberal line or else.

Kind of like the abortion rhetoric. "My body my choice" doesnt seem to apply to forced vaccinations or co-erced now, does it ?


"Let them eat cake."

What "them" gets up to, even if it's some kind of LGBT (or WXYZ) kind of thing... well, they still have to be able to purchase their cake, Mr Christian Baker. Just like your other customers.

Providing (or not providing) a cake is one thing; incitement of insurrection (or seditious conspiracy) another thing entirely.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-12-2021).]

maryjane JAN 12, 11:46 AM
I'm not a supporter of abortions except in the case of rape and incest but comparing that issue to a contagious disease is a few miles past a stretch.
2.5 JAN 12, 01:59 PM




No question it is being done.
82-T/A [At Work] JAN 12, 05:20 PM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

I'm not a supporter of abortions except in the case of rape and incest but comparing that issue to a contagious disease is a few miles past a stretch.




THE AUTHORITY ON WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE AND WHAT ISN'T HAS SPOKEN!!!