GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
Member

Please explain to me how to rewrite or repeal section 230 in a way that doesn't expose RonPaulForums.com to liability.

You mean like Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton? Oops...my bad. Wrong administration. :rolleyes:

Hmmmm...."Good faith." Here's where things get sticky. Back in 2016 Facebook was hauled in front of congressional committees to answer for there "misdeeds" of "not reigning in Russian bots" that were "hacking the election." And of course the pressure is ramping up to "reign in" the "Q-Anon terrorists" that caused the January 6th "insurrection." Before 2016 the issue was how to stop ISIS from "radicalizing using social media." And no. It doesn't come down to section 230. That's a red herring. This very forum would not survive section 230 repeal. Not even a redefinition of "good faith." I explain that over and over again and nobody seems to get it. The problem with big corporate tech is....it's big corporate tech. If Facebook had the size and scope of RonPaulForums.com nobody would give a rat's ass how arbitrarily they ran their website. But they aren't that size and scope. They are a huge mega-corporation. Corporate person-hood is the problem. And when you have multiple corporations operating as a trust, sharing data and conspiring to control as much of the sector as possible, that's a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. There is already a vehicle in place to deal with this situation that doesn't get into the impossibly vague question of WTH "good faith" means.

Right. Section 230 limited liability isn't the problem. If there was real competition this wouldn't even be an issue. Anti-trust laws are meant to keep real competition going. If corporations weren't getting a better deal than sole proprietorships then all businesses would be sole proprietorships or at the very least the largest businesses would be sole proprietorships. These people aren't stupid. LOL @ what the government "rakes in in taxes." How much tax did Donald Trump pay last year? Dividends are taxed at a lower rate than income. That's why Warren Buffet's secretary pays a hire tax rate than he does. And LOL at the "owners of a business are individuals as well that should have the identical protections as any other individual" argument. They have greater protections by the fact that they can shield themselves from liability from their bad corporate decisions. Really, I think you're dealing with cognitive dissonance. You can't wrap your mind around the obvious. Unbridled corporate power is a problem. The problem exists because corporate power is, by definition, an extension of government power. The lobbyists for the corporations help draft the laws and they are not drafting those laws to oppress themselves. They draft them to oppress you.

Is my solution to what? Facebook and Twitter? I'm not following you. What I know is this. We do not live in a free market and this country really never has been a true free market. There are aspects of the free market and there are aspects of government control. Trying to make everything fit into a free market lens is not practical. Look at HIPPA. That's government regulation that keeps healthcare providers from selling your private data. OMG! Regulation! Must be evil right? Well....no. No it's not. It is a GOOD thing that there at least some of my personal data that a corporation (or anybody else) collects from me is at least somewhat protected. Someone recently posted a thread about the military buying aggregated cell phone data that's available on the free market without a warrant. Totally constitutional. Maybe a federal law could be passed to keep the U.S. military from being allowed to buy that data, but that wouldn't keep the Chinese government from buying it. As for patents.....do you know why they exist? Hint, it's not to protect the patent holder. It's so the patent holder will make his invention available to the rest of the country so that when the patent runs out other people can make the invention. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes patents are abused. (Drug companies gouging people way past what they need to make a profit just because they have a patent on a life saving drug.) Here is the bottom line. Once one realizes that we don't really live in a free market, one can look at the broader issue of freedom! My freedom is not diminished if Facebook an, Google and Twitter get in trouble for secretly sharing data about who they are going to de-platform. Now repealing Section 230 of the CDA would affect my freedom because website, like this one, they I visit from time to time could get shut down without Section 230 CDA protection. That's it. It's simple freedom calculus. It's not hard to figure out.

Only a subset of those who voted for Trump believe the election was stolen and a smaller subset of that wanted to fight after the electoral college vote. That said the "always Trumpers" will be a formidable force in 2024.

:rolleyes: Matt, seriously? It's one thing to say "Well the vaccines out there so you can take it if you want." It's another thing to take taxpayer dollars and direct those dollars to purchasing the vaccine and direct those purchases to people who are most likely to die from taking that vaccine. This is even worse than the "bully pulpit" argument that acptulsa pointed out. Your argument is like saying "Well if the government doesn't pay for abortions and advocate for women having abortions than women are being denied abortions."

An LLC is a corporation. And there are limits to individual bankruptcy. If your LLC or corporation goes bankrupt, typically your personal assets aren't touched. A corporation you 100% own can go bankrupt and it not affect your credit. That's not at all true for personal bankruptcy. When the business model is dependent upon the largess of government. For example, a patent is, by definition, anti free market. So is copyright. It's got nothing to do with the size of the business per se, but government largess allows business to grow larger than they otherwise would. Free market depends in part on risk. The more owners are shielded from risk the less accountable they become. That's the problem Consider an actual case involving Section 230 of the CDA. Prodigy, an online service from the 1990s, was sued over a libelous message that one of their users posted. The state court found them libel because Prodigy had deleted some messages which, according to the state court's logic, made them an "editor" because they were exercising "editorial control." Prodigy countered that they had 60,000 messages a day and couldn't monitor all of them. They still lost. That's what prompted the passage of Section 230 in the CDA. Congress wanted online services to have a freehand to take down "offensive material" without being opened up to liability. Really Prodigy had a better defense than would RonPaulForums.com if Section 230 was repealed. RPF can't claim there is such a volume of messages that they couldn't all be moderated.

The precedent for what happened to Parler already happened to Gab. For the life of me I don't understand why people didn't see that coming. Parler is (was?) a centralized application / platform. It was just owned by conservatives. True decentralized applications aren't owned by anyone. In contrast to Parler, there are different Mastodon servers. Taking down Mastodon would be like trying to get rid of email.

Actually the ACLU has been talking about the threat coming from big data for some time now. As for needing a warrant? Well....technically it's not needed from what you've described. If your data is already publicly available, the government doesn't need a warrant to get it. Case in point, the government can't force you to give a DNA sample without a warrant, but if a government agent sees you spit your gum into the trash he can dumpster dive and get it without a warrant. (I know of a case where that happened). What needs to change? I hate to say it, but this is a case where more regulation is needed. Thanks to HIPPA, your healthcare provider isn't allowed to sell a database with "user identifiable information" in it. Technology companies should not be able to sell user identifiable location information either. Just because I want to know what the weather is where I live or I want turn by turn directions to a particular location doesn't mean that I should have to allow that information to be sold. It's not just the government that should not be able to buy that. Say private investigators started selling "enhanced background checks" where individuals could buy a map of where I had been for the past week or month or year? Why should that be okay just because the entity buying the information isn't the government? Imagine a stalker buying that information? Of course that begs the question if the information the DIA is buying is "user identifiable." If all they are able to find out is "There are a lot of people that congregate downtown between these hours on these particular days of the week" I'm not bothered by that.

Yes. That is sort of how people with a family making about 50k complaining about where their tax dollars are going. They pay no tax. That may change soon.

Corporations are anti free market by definition. Corporations are government licenses to be able to have unlimited growth with limited liability. In your OP you said: "I think the idea of government granted liability protections seems like a bad idea to begin with." Well...that's exactly what a corporation is. The "platform liability" that people usually complain about here also applies to this forum. The owners have the right to edit user posts, remove user posts, and "de-platform" users. That still doesn't mean the forum owners should be sued if a user posts something that is libel. Allowing, in general, websites to be sued for libel just because they moderate content is not a good idea. However Facebook, Twitter and Google have gone beyond that. They have conspired with each other (now proven) to coordinate their efforts to de-platform. That is not free market. Not even kind of. Parler tried to get around this by creating their own platform as Gab had done before. Predictably Parler has suffered the same fate as Gab. The "platform" being "de-platformed." If evidence comes forward that Apple, Google and Amazon conspired to de-platform the Parler platform that is also anti free market and a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Now, let's take a closer look at your solution. I would think in a free market, no web site would ever be automatically immune from liability, but the web site could require their members to sign a waiver saying something like "I understand Facebook is not responsible for the postings of it's members and I waive my right to sue."

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to belian78 again.

Worse. They are now an embarrassment. In blue states the democrats are the government from the local all the way up to the federal including the both houses of Congress. So anyone in a blue state being "anti government" is not being anti-Democrat. Everybody was bracing for right wing violence on January 20th and instead there was left wing violence. Kamala Harris as a prosecutor put a lot of black men in prison and kept many of them there longer than they legally should have been. You can't be pro police state the way the far left is and really be "anti-cop."

The vaccine of course. You can protect someone from getting the virus by making sure he/she is not exposed. That's the whole point of herd immunity. Individual members of the herd don't need to have immunity to be protected from the virus. He is making it available to the group that's at the highest risk from dying from the vaccine itself. I'm not sure why that isn't sinking in.

Did you see this? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?552192-CNN-Norway-reviewing-deaths-of-frail-and-elderly-patients-vaccinated-against-Covid-19

About the only English TV channel in my hotel room in Frankfurt. I don't have TV/cable at home, so it is always amazing how bias MSM TV is.

It seems like a complex game is being played and society are the pieces being manipulated by the players.

Whatever the person making the decision thinks it is.

Oh wow! :( I noticed that there was no cause of death listed. If he had had COVID that would have been the headline even if he had died from falling off a ladder or even being killed in a motorcycle crash. Edit: And I should point out I am old enough to remember when Hank Aaron was still playing. He was a childhood hero of mine even though I was never into baseball.

Yeah. The fact that Facebook, Twitter and Google were sharing information about who to deplatform makes there actions ripe for a Sherman antitrust lawsuit regardless of the liability shield.

The free market answer is for people to move away from Facebook and Twitter. But simply going to another platform isn't the answer either. The Parler platform itself is getting de-platformed. People need to move to de-centralized social networking protocols instead of some new platform. Take Mastodon for example. (https://mastodon.social/) Mastodon is immune to being "de-platformed." If one Mastodon client is taken off Google or Apple, someone else can just write another one and submit it. Or you can get to Mastodon through a web based client so there's no app. Anyone can host a Mastodon server, so the problem Parler is having with being kicked off of AWS goes away. Bitchute and Lbry.tv are also decentralized though they are done through a blockchain. It's going to take more than free market snake oil to fix the issue. It requires truly free (as in nobody owns it) technology. So many in the liberty movement are so focused on "property rights" that they fail to see that doesn't fix everything. Our communications needs to be based on something that no one person or group of people or corporation or government can actually own and control. You can't easily shut down CB radio because nobody owns it. Social networking needs to be the same.

Yes. There is a simple principle in law that even a lying witness can be believed if he testifies against his own agenda. Dr. Fauci's agenda is to get as many people to take the vaccine as possible. If you would risk your elderly mother's health on an untested vaccine that early results show may be killing old people then you are not very bright. I'm pretty sure you are smarter than that though. The "details" are this fvcking vaccine is untested. The priority, if anything, should be healthy people taking it to build up herd immunity.

AND ACCORDING TO DR. FAUCI THEY ARE THE MOST LIKELY TO DIE FROM A REACTION TO THE VACCINE! IN WHAT PERVERTED UNIVERSE DOES THAT MAKE SENSE! Vaccinate the healthcare workers taking care of the seniors first? Yeah, that makes sense. Edit: Sorry (not sorry) for the all caps. I have a dad in his 80s and a mom in her 90s. It pisses me off that even though we now have evidence that it might not be safe for seniors to take the vaccine, DeSantis is "prioritizing" it for them. And I don't give a flying fig that he isn't "mandating it." Recommending and prioritizing people take something that might kill them is just not okay in my book.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Brian4Liberty again.

CNN is still posting it, even when they are carrying other stories.

I don't recall anyone ever claiming that she died. :confused:

Biden isn't either. What's your point? False choice fallacy. Unless that transwoman's name is put into the ring for the GOP 2024 nomination, you don't really have a point.

100% Hell no to "vax the seniors first" DeSantis! https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-desantis-covid-19-vaccine-rollout-seniors-first