Loading...

Forum

Forum breadcrumbs - You are here:ForumCategory: Ask Me AnythingSection 230?
You need to log in to create posts and topics.

Section 230?

Cullen You spout off about internet platforms being your own private turf and if facebook or twitter ban you so be it.. Dood, Get Real Look at section 230 They Violate that in every way man... I thought you were .. never mind..  https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2020/10/21/congress-needs-to-reform-section-230next-year/#43a529eb5fbd

Poke,

Section 230 protects ME from people like YOU using my forum and breaking the law. I am not the publisher of YOUR content just because I invite you into my home to "spout off". The NY Post is a specific publisher of content, not just an aggregator of other people's content. So, think of it like me publishing a blog vs you writing a content. When I post a blog post and break a law I am using my private property to break the law. When you write an illegal comment on my website YOU are breaking the law even though you're doing it on my private property (which I opened to you).

Also, don't worry. I respect your comments and would never ban you here. 🙂

 

"Pragmatic Capitalism is the best website on the Internet. Just trust me. Please?" - Cullen Roche

I am talking about the big guys like Twitter and facebook. They claim to be simple platforms for public speech.

BUT they are in fact publishers of content when they edit things people post. They hide behind section 230. They pretend to be an aggregator but are in fact a publisher. And in fact you could take it a step further by saying they give political parties campaign contributions when they censor opposing party views.

It's pretty straightforward that they are publishers and not simply platforms for free public discourse.

 

@cowpoke,

I don't think I agree that they're publishers. They're not creating their own content and editing content doesn't make them publishers, it makes them moderators. Same as if I decide to delete your comments here. I rarely have to delete something because the commentator says something that is egregious. From a legal perspective you can't really treat me like a publisher for doing that because then I am necessarily liable for everything you write here. That's nuts. The same basic thing applies to Twitter and Facebook.

CR

"Pragmatic Capitalism is the best website on the Internet. Just trust me. Please?" - Cullen Roche

True, you are allowed to moderate or ban offensive speech, but where do you draw the line between blocking offensive comments and simply opposing viewpoints ? "If they are a platform protected by Section 230, tech companies are allowed a limited amount of moderation to ban “offensive” speech. However, this is not the same as regulating political speech, which goes too far. Big tech regularly engages in censorship, especially of conservative viewpoints. Banning Infowars, Laura Loomer and Milo Yiannopoulos is banning political speech. It may not be likable speech, but it is nevertheless political speech, not the offensive type of speech Section 230 had in mind. "

https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2019/05/06/big-tech-trying-to-have-it-both-ways-as-platform-and-publisher-n2545882

 

I don't remember what Laura Loomer has been saying, but Infowars, and Milo are pretty egregious, and even dangerous.