Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 171

Thread: Trump to end liability protections for "social media outlets" with Executive Order

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    lol, sure, they wrote this EO in one night



    this has been in the works for quite some time now
    Since the last administration, at least, I would think..

    But then it would have been called socialism.

    Now it's not socialism, because the other party's in power.

    In a few years it'll be socialism again.

    And then in a decade both parties will unquestioningly endorse it, and anyone who opposes it will be a kook.

    ..like the deranged people who still think that Roosevelt guy wasn't so great.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    But then it would have been called socialism.
    Honestly I fail to see how asking everyone to play by the same rules is anything close to socialism. I just don't get it.

  4. #123
    Stefan makes a really strong free market based argument that these companies started with the idea that there would be open discussion and thought on their platforms and promoted themselves that way - users signed up and signed a terms of service with the expectation that it would continue.

    After the company profits and grows after many years from the hard work and dedication of their user base, suddenly they begin censoring content, terminating accounts and deleting years of creator content based on their political bias.

    They claim certain content is objectionable, while at the same time working with China to create a censored content portal that doesn't include information on human rights, or the fact that China has 2-3 million slaves, many are middle eastern.

    While we don't have jurisdiction over what Google does in China, it really puts into question their idea of what is "objectionable content" from a legal context.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  5. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    Honestly I fail to see how asking everyone to play by the same rules is anything close to socialism. I just don't get it.
    Socialism simply means state control of everything, all sectors of the economy.

    This effort by the state to control social media is a step in that direction, same as if they were regulating iron mining, farming, etc.

    I'm sure the fellows in D.C. know how media, or iron mining, farming, etc, ought to be run, in the best interest of the proletariat, or something.

    There's certainly no chance that this is all a cynical political move to win more votes in the short term.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-29-2020 at 12:10 AM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  6. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Socialism simply means state control of everything, all sectors of the economy.
    I guess I just don't see it the same way. In my mind, these actions create less state control and return control to customers of the product. No business should have an unfair advantage in the market place, especially at the expense of the rights of the individual.

    When there is damage, people should be able to bring liability cases to a court of law should they choose to try to recoup said damages.

  7. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    I guess I just don't see it the same way. In my mind, these actions create less state control and return control to customers of the product.
    The state regulating a business, telling them how to run their business, means less state control?

    No business should have an unfair advantage in the market place, especially at the expense of the rights of the individual.
    What unfair advantage? And which individual rights are being violated?

    AFAIK, there is no law requiring anyone to use any of these services.

    Don't like it? Don't use it. I don't.

    When there is damage, people should be able to bring liability cases to a court of law should they choose to try to recoup said damages.
    Sure, but the whole issue is whether a person who simply provides a venue for OTHERS to speak should be liable for what THEY say.

    Anyone harmed can always go after the actual SPEAKER.

    Why should they be able to go after the person who provided the venue, when that person in no way endorsed what was said?

    If a publishing company publishes a book that contains libel, okay, they consciously published that; they might be liable along with the author.

    If a TV station does this, same thing.

    Twitter etc are entirely different.

    Let me bring it home; should Bryan, or whoever currently owns RPF, be liable for everything said here?

    And then what if RPF had 500,000,000 members?
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  8. #127
    I am no fan of government intrusions into business, but the opposite side of the coin is that these Social Media Giants ARE flat out censoring conservatives or any expressed opinion they do not approve of.

    So, if we can have an FDA (also, again, not a fan) for Food and Drugs, and despite Twitter being a private business, since they have become a Public Platform, even if illegitimate, should Trump step in and do what he is doing? I fear this is not the proper solution, but if nothing is done, then NO ONE will have Free Speech anymore.

    Slippery slope...
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  9. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Yep, it was over a year ago when they started a website compiling grievances toward social media companies.
    What website? That should be an interesting read.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by jkob View Post
    I do think more has to be done to protect our rights online, we're in danger of a permanent technological dictatorship if this is allowed to continue.
    Anti monopoly perhaps. Is it right for any powerhouse to have so much control in various industries? Should the trillion dollar valuation companies be able to be in so many industries, many losing money? The Big 5 do define how the Internet works.
    “…let us teach them that all who draw breath are of equal worth, and that those who seek to press heel upon the throat of liberty, will fall to the cry of FREEDOM!!!” – Spartacus, War of the Damned

    BTC: 1AFbCLYU3G1dkbsSJnk3spWeEwpqYVC2Pq

  12. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by revgen View Post
    You conveniently failed to mention the part where it says "any action voluntarily taken in good faith". Trump is arguing that Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc are not acting in good faith at all, and therefore their actions cannot be protected.
    If their actions weren't taken in good faith then there's no need to change the law or issue an executive order.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  13. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    (2)Interactive computer service
    The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

    (3)Information content provider
    The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

    They have become content providers not interactive computer services.

    Definitions are important, always read the definitions.
    You need to understand the definitions as well as read them. Posting a link to a third-party site doesn't make one an "information content provider", because the linker doesn't create or develop the information contained on the linked site. The only information that was conceivably created by Twitter was the fact that information contradicting Trump could be found on a third-party site. But this fact was already out there, so it's a huge stretch to say that Twitter created or developed it.

    In any event, the matter is somewhat academic, given that under no circumstances could Twitter ever have any liability for pointing out that there is publicly-available information that contradicts Trump.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  14. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    This is a bit more in depth at 10:10, so you can have a better understanding of the law.


    The portion of the video I saw didn't address the situation I raised: a platform's refusal to allow a post it deems to be false and potentially defamatory, such as Jones's claim about Sandy Hook.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  15. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The state regulating a business, telling them how to run their business, means less state control?
    They are not telling anyone how to run their business. The EO simply attempts to move the interpretation of the existing law back to its original intent and purpose. You cannot be both a platform and a publisher. It's that simple. No where does it say you can't control the content on your own private property. You can certainly do this, but then you do not have the legal benefits and the unfair competitive advantage in the market place.

    All of us here would love to have some laws repealed, right? Well, repealing this law would have the same effect. So maybe we should just do that, and then we'd all be in agreement and not calling each other communists over the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    What unfair advantage?
    Social media acts as an arbiter of truth. They effectively function as news media. Twitter and Facebook adding of "fact checking" on content they disagree with illustrates this more than ever. There is no difference between a Facebook, Twitter, etc over [insert news media site] but for the volume of user generated content.

    There are many competitors who have had grievances with this law and who have attempted to file suit, but the suits are always dismissed on section 230.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    And which individual rights are being violated?
    Facebook, for instance, could choose to algorithmically rank and promote content about you that is defamation in nature and fact check it as true. In doing so you could lose your livelihood and would have no case to sue for damages due to the existing interpretation of section 230. A single "czar" at Facebook who has a personal vendetta against you could make this decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Sure, but the whole issue is whether a person who simply provides a venue for OTHERS to speak should be liable for what THEY say.
    I'm in full agreement here. Platforms should not be liable for what others say on the platform. That's the entire point.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Why should they be able to go after the person who provided the venue, when that person in no way endorsed what was said?
    What more do these venues need to do to illustrate their endorsement of the content? The very moment any UGC enters their system, it is classified, tagged, indexed, ranked, scored, and algorithmically promoted according to their specific intent & desire. Additionally, they can now slap a big fat label that says "this is true" or "this is not true". How is this not endorsement?
    Last edited by fcreature; 05-29-2020 at 08:07 AM.

  16. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    If their actions weren't taken in good faith then there's no need to change the law or issue an executive order.
    I disagree.

    The executive order clarifies how the DOJ interprets "good faith". This sets in stone what kind of legal action the DOJ will take against social media companies that don't adhere to it. This doesn't change how a judge or a jury may interpret the law.

    Further legislation will attempt to make the "good faith" provision less vague.

  17. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    lol, sure, they wrote this EO in one night



    this has been in the works for quite some time now

    Well, isn't that special.

    There is no spoon.

  18. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by revgen View Post
    The executive order clarifies how the DOJ interprets "good faith". This sets in stone what kind of legal action the DOJ will take against social media companies that don't adhere to it. This doesn't change how a judge or a jury may interpret the law.

    Further legislation will attempt to make the "good faith" provision less vague.
    That's only one of the things the EO addresses. Unfortunately, the EO misrepresents the policy reflected in the statute when it states "It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech." To the contrary, Section 260(c)(2) explicitly allows the restriction of objectional material "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

    What's especially ironic is the EO's championing of free expression, given Trump's well-documented desire to strengthen defamation laws.

    On Wednesday, in response to the publication of excerpts from “Fear: Trump in the White House,” author Bob Woodward’s new, critical book on his presidency, Trump called on “Washington politicians” to change our nation’s libel laws.

    Earlier this year Trump called libel laws “a sham and a disgrace,” shortly after his lawyers had threatened a possible libel suit in an unsuccessful attempt to block publication of another book — Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.” He then renewed his campaign promise to “open up” America’s libel laws, pledging “to take a strong look” at them. Los Angeles Times, 9-8-2018

    Donald Trump said on Friday he plans to change libel laws in the United States so that he can have an easier time suing news organizations.

    During a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, Trump began his usual tirade against newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, saying they're "losing money" and are "dishonest." The Republican presidential candidate then took a different turn, suggesting that when he's president they'll "have problems."

    "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump said. Politico, 2-26-2016
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    You need to understand the definitions as well as read them. Posting a link to a third-party site doesn't make one an "information content provider", because the linker doesn't create or develop the information contained on the linked site. The only information that was conceivably created by Twitter was the fact that information contradicting Trump could be found on a third-party site. But this fact was already out there, so it's a huge stretch to say that Twitter created or developed it.

    In any event, the matter is somewhat academic, given that under no circumstances could Twitter ever have any liability for pointing out that there is publicly-available information that contradicts Trump.
    Twitter and the others are making statements about the accuracy of things others post, that is adding content and so are other things they do.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by revgen View Post
    I disagree.

    The executive order clarifies how the DOJ interprets "good faith". This sets in stone what kind of legal action the DOJ will take against social media companies that don't adhere to it. This doesn't change how a judge or a jury may interpret the law.

    Further legislation will attempt to make the "good faith" provision less vague.
    Yes, this EO instructs the executive branch on how to enforce current law.
    Without it the law was not being enforced.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  22. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, this EO instructs the executive branch on how to enforce current law.
    Without it the law was not being enforced.
    There's nothing for the administration to enforce under Section 230. If a platform goes too far and loses its liability protection a private party who claims he's been defamed by something posted on the platform can sue it and seek damages. Oh sure, Trump wants the FCC to issue regulations to limit the liability protection the statute grants, but any such regulations won't necessarily be binding on the courts.

    The EO does want to get the FTC involved where a platform doesn't follow its terms of service and does so in a politically-biased manner.

    The EO is nothing more than political posturing by Trump.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  23. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    There's nothing for the administration to enforce under Section 230. If a platform goes too far and loses its liability protection a private party who claims he's been defamed by something posted on the platform can sue it and seek damages. Oh sure, Trump wants the FCC to issue regulations to limit the liability protection the statute grants, but any such regulations won't necessarily be binding on the courts.

    The EO does want to get the FTC involved where a platform doesn't follow its terms of service and does so in a politically-biased manner.

    The EO is nothing more than political posturing by Trump.
    The DoJ can bring suits or prosecute depending on what is on the site if it loses immunity by behaving as a publisher.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The DoJ can bring suits or prosecute depending on what is on the site if it loses immunity by behaving as a publisher.
    Prosecute on what grounds? Can you give an example of a type of posted content that would subject a platform to a civil or criminal suit by the federal government if the platform didn't have the Section 230 immunity AND that isn't already excluded from the immunity under Section 230(e)?
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  25. #142
    I just don’t know with all of this 3D-chess.
    I am certainly NOT saying that there is no intention to make the internet even more censored (believe it or not but European sites are even more censored than in the “land of the free”).

    It could also be that this is just another quick BS tweet by President Donald to cover-up another story that involves “legal immunity”: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...es-costs-lives
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page3

    Donald Trump, another puppet controlled by the international elite: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...=1038&start=60

  26. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Section 230 protects them from being sued because they claim they are not exercising speech they are merely a microphone.
    I don't see why people are all pissed off about this.

    Twitter Facebook Youtube all are getting their cake and eating it too.

    They want to be seen as both 1) and 2)

    1) just like Ma Bell, allowing you to say your thing - not having editorial control.

    and

    2) They're censoring viewpoints that they don't like.

    I guess that they could be 1) or they could be 2) but they can't be both.

    Trump's EO says that the social networks are publishers. That means that they can be sued as Publishers.

    The lawsuits that you're going to see will be DEFAMATION lawsuits.

    When Facebook Twitter and Youtube start deleting stuff they don't like, they voluntarily put themselves in the editing business, the Publishing business. If they wanted to go back to the way they used to do things - not banning conservatives, no shadow banning, no declaring something is true or not true and simply let it fly, they would not be called Publishers.

    When these Publishers start telling people what is true or what is not true, it places the responsibility of making sure that things are true on the Publishers. And there are a lot of people DEFAMING other people and businesses on those social networks.

    What is pretty common today is some person has a beef with a business for some real or imagined reason, and they use the social network to spread DEFAMATORY statements against that business, and that business gets hurt badly, losing business, going out of business.

    And they all are using Facebook and/or Twitter and/or Youtube to do this.

    I can think of a specific case where a music venue had $Millions in damages based initially on an allegation on Facebook that the music venue was involved in some way with a sexual assault. And then a firestorm, mostly on Facebook. 2 years later, that venue is still hurting. And that venue is in the middle of a defamation lawsuit. Suing the original liar. Suing a bunch of other people who made other lies, suing newspapers for repeating the lie, etc. And now, they can sue Facebook. The amount of possible damages is quite huge. But no one on the list of defendants really have the deep pockets. Well, Facebook DOES have deep pockets. Every defamation suit going forward where the defendants used Facebook to spread their message will have Facebook added as defendants.

    This all seems pretty good to me.

  27. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    There's nothing for the administration to enforce under Section 230. If a platform goes too far and loses its liability protection a private party who claims he's been defamed by something posted on the platform can sue it and seek damages. Oh sure, Trump wants the FCC to issue regulations to limit the liability protection the statute grants, but any such regulations won't necessarily be binding on the courts.

    The EO does want to get the FTC involved where a platform doesn't follow its terms of service and does so in a politically-biased manner.

    The EO is nothing more than political posturing by Trump.
    "The EO is nothing more than political posturing by Trump."

    Nah, it's huge. The ramifications are huge.

    DEFAMATION CASES.

    Some local bozo says, on Facebook, a business sucks because (a made up lie reason). Ordinary local business says "I'm pissed about that". But they notice that the tort feasor is not a Billion Dollar Company, and if the Defamed local business wanted to pay lawyers a ton of money, have a lengthy court case, they won't get a big pile of money at the end of it. But, The Defamed local business would now be suing local bozo who has no money, and Facebook, who has Billions.

    There will be a lot more defamation cases against Facebook Twitter and Youtube, because they have such deep pockets.

    This will have a huge impact. Either Facebook Twitter and Youtube will lose a lot of money or Facebook Twitter and Youtube will go back to a non censorship policy, to get them out of the Publisher zone.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Twitter and the others are making statements about the accuracy of things others post, that is adding content and so are other things they do.
    Facebook and Twitter and Youtube remove a lot of things they don't like. That is a form of editorializing. That makes them a publisher.

    Trump wants Facebook to stop doing what they're doing. If Trump can send an army of defamation lawyers at those social networks, it's death by a thousand cuts for them.

    Ma Bell was not allowed to refuse telephone service to people they didn't like. But Publishers can do what they want.


    There are benefits to being a publisher and benefits to being not a publisher.

    The social networks can't have the benefits of being a publisher and the benefits of not being a publisher. You're one or the other, and you have the upside and downside of one or the other.

  30. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    What protections? The freedom to edit Trump's posts? It's their business they can do as they choose with it. If he doesn't like it, he shouldn't use it.

    This is seriously Libertarian 101.
    And if they're doing that, that means that Facebook approves of all the posts that all of its contributors make. If a contributor DEFAMES someone, that means that Facebook DEFAMED someone.

    I guess that's also part of Libertarian 101.

    Facebook now gets to choose between neutral, and letting everyone say what they want, which has the downside of not allowing Facebook to push its political agenda, but has the upside of protecting them from DEFAMATION suits, or they can go the Publisher route, allowing Facebook the freedom to delete whatever they want, but has the downside of making Facebook responsible for everything that everyone says, making Facebook responsible for DEFAMATION.

  31. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    Last I checked Facebook and Twitter were private corporations. If the orange dude doesn't like their editing, he shouldn't use their services.
    The only real change that has happened is that Facebook and them are now seen as Publishers, and they can be sued for DEFAMATION. That's huge.

    It means that Facebook will lose a lot of money.

  32. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    I'm wondering how exposure to lawsuits will make social media moderate less rather than more.
    it will either moderate LESS - in order to get out of the Publisher Zone

    or it will moderate MORE - to make sure that no one is DEFAMING. When the contributors DEFAME, Facebook gets sued and loses a lot of money.

  33. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Prosecute on what grounds? Can you give an example of a type of posted content that would subject a platform to a civil or criminal suit by the federal government if the platform didn't have the Section 230 immunity AND that isn't already excluded from the immunity under Section 230(e)?
    Calls for violence and a host of other things.
    Watch.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  34. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The state regulating a business, telling them how to run their business, means less state control?



    What unfair advantage? And which individual rights are being violated?

    AFAIK, there is no law requiring anyone to use any of these services.

    Don't like it? Don't use it. I don't.



    Sure, but the whole issue is whether a person who simply provides a venue for OTHERS to speak should be liable for what THEY say.

    Anyone harmed can always go after the actual SPEAKER.

    Why should they be able to go after the person who provided the venue, when that person in no way endorsed what was said?

    If a publishing company publishes a book that contains libel, okay, they consciously published that; they might be liable along with the author.

    If a TV station does this, same thing.

    Twitter etc are entirely different.

    Let me bring it home; should Bryan, or whoever currently owns RPF, be liable for everything said here?

    And then what if RPF had 500,000,000 members?
    RPF is liable and has been liable.

    And Twitter Facebook and Youtube should be too. Unless they stop acting like publishers.

    Twitter Facebook and Youtube should not be able to have it both ways.

    They're either a platform, which doesn't censor and doesn't get sued for defamation or they're a publisher which can censor and can get sued for defamation.

    Twitter Facebook and Youtube want to act like Publishers (censorship, editorial content) at the same time as being regulated like a Platform (no responsibility to police defamation). Those are the bad guys, and they're currently able to have it both ways.

    How about this set of rules for them? They can be sued for defamation and they can't censor political content.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-24-2017, 01:27 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2014, 04:54 PM
  3. Obama Threatens "Executive Order" on GUNS
    By presence in forum Second Amendment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 10:51 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-24-2010, 06:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •