7000-1. Guess Who Won

[Catman51]

They don’t have to claim anything about being a publisher or not.

The law says it’s irrelevant.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

No, you are the one who is irrelevant and wrong with all of your idiotic comments.

 

[colfax_m]

No, you are the one who is irrelevant and wrong with all of your idiotic comments.

Troll

 

[Catman51]

Troll

We all know that you are, but why keep proclaiming for yourself?

 

[martybegan]

It’s editorial discretion whether it’s before the fact or after the fact. There’s no difference. If CNN has a story on their page they decide to pull at a later date, it’s editorial discretion.

Your last sentence is incorrect. They don’t have to claim anything to be protected. That’s what section 230 does for them. If not for section 230, they would be liable regardless of what they claimed. Their claim is irrelevant. It’s what they do that matters.

Editorial discretion after the fact would be either modifying someone else's work, or removing it, which if you did your actual editorial discretion before would mean it should have never been posted by you in the first place.

They only get the protection if they are not publishers, and if they are not publishers, there is no first amendment issue.

 

[colfax_m]

Editorial discretion after the fact would be either modifying someone else's work, or removing it, which if you did your actual editorial discretion before would mean it should have never been posted by you in the first place.

They only get the protection if they are not publishers, and if they are not publishers, there is no first amendment issue.

Who cares what you think “should have” occurred? That’s irrelevant. Removing material after the fact remains an editorial decision.

Your last sentence is applicable to traditional media, but ignores the effect of section 230. Section 230 gives protection to people who are publishers. If they weren’t publishers, it wouldn’t have been necessary.

 

[martybegan]

Who cares what you think “should have” occurred? That’s irrelevant. Removing material after the fact remains an editorial decision.

Your last sentence is applicable to traditional media, but ignores the effect of section 230. Section 230 gives protection to people who are publishers. If they weren’t publishers, it wouldn’t have been necessary.

And a weasel move to be sure. "Someone whined about X and we give in, please don't hurt us!!!"

Section 230 gives people an out to say "we are not a publisher", i.e. the content isn't ours.

 

[colfax_m]

And a weasel move to be sure. "Someone whined about X and we give in, please don't hurt us!!!"

Section 230 gives people an out to say "we are not a publisher", i.e. the content isn't ours.

Again, you can call it what we you want. It’s still an editorial decision.

Section 230 does give them an out, but it doesn’t say they’re not a publisher. It says they’re not to have the liability of a publisher. Section 230 doesn’t take away their constitutional rights. It can’t.

 

[martybegan]

Again, you can call it what we you want. It’s still an editorial decision.

Section 230 does give them an out, but it doesn’t say they’re not a publisher. It says they’re not to have the liability of a publisher. Section 230 doesn’t take away their constitutional rights. It can’t.

Since they aren't publishers, and thus the content isn't theirs BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, there is no 1st amendment issue.

 

[colfax_m]

Since they aren't publishers, and thus the content isn't theirs BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, there is no 1st amendment issue.

Again, being given protection from liability does not mean they give up their first amendment rights.

They don’t say they aren’t publishers (or sometimes republisher or distributors), they say they’re not liable as publishers.

They have always retained the rights of publishers.

Rights and liabilities aren’t the same thing.

 

[martybegan]

Again, being given protection from liability does not mean they give up their first amendment rights.

They don’t say they aren’t publishers (or sometimes republisher or distributors), they say they’re not liable as publishers.

They have always retained the rights of publishers.

Rights and liabilities aren’t the same thing.

They haven't given up their own first amendment rights, they just don't have it with regards to a platform they run that they state explicitly the content isn't theirs.

They get one or the other, not both.

 

[colfax_m]

They haven't given up their own first amendment rights, they just don't have it with regards to a platform they run that they state explicitly the content isn't theirs.

They get one or the other, not both.

Why can’t they have both?

 

[martybegan]

Why can’t they have both?

Because you can't be a publisher and not a publisher. Because being both gives them protections they don't deserve if they are going to decide the content on their supposed free exchange platform. If they are going to have editorial control, make them do it and suffer the consequences of owning the content, or let them be protected by the 1st amendment when they let people post regardless of them agreeing with them or not.

This whole bullshit of them terminating accounts for "breaking the rules" is nothing but a smokescreen for them removing people they dislike, views they dislike and classes they dislike.

 

[colfax_m]

Because you can't be a publisher and not a publisher. Because being both gives them protections they don't deserve if they are going to decide the content on their supposed free exchange platform. If they are going to have editorial control, make them do it and suffer the consequences of owning the content, or let them be protected by the 1st amendment when they let people post regardless of them agreeing with them or not.

This whole bullshit of them terminating accounts for "breaking the rules" is nothing but a smokescreen for them removing people they dislike, views they dislike and classes they dislike.

As I said, they’re a publisher. They’re always a publisher. They get the protections of not being a publisher because Congress gave it to them. You say they don’t “deserve” those protections but that doesn’t matter. No one gives a shit what you think they deserve. What matters is what the law says and the law says they get the protections even though they’re a publisher.

So yeah. They get both. Deal with it.

 

[martybegan]

As I said, they’re a publisher. They’re always a publisher. They get the protections of not being a publisher because Congress gave it to them. You say they don’t “deserve” those protections but that doesn’t matter. No one gives a shit what you think they deserve. What matters is what the law says and the law says they get the protections even though they’re a publisher.

So yeah. They get both. Deal with it.

Then they shouldn't get the protections, they should be removed and they should be held liable for anything they publish. Sorry, but bullshit laws don't mean they can have the best of both worlds.

Also, I haven't expressed my disdain for you in a few pages, so

I hope you suck a cock filled with AIDS, get AIDS, then get eaten by a hungry Ebola infected Tiger.

 

[colfax_m]

Then they shouldn't get the protections, they should be removed and they should be held liable for anything they publish. Sorry, but bullshit laws don't mean they can have the best of both worlds.

Also, I haven't expressed my disdain for you in a few pages, so

I hope you suck a cock filled with AIDS, get AIDS, then get eaten by a hungry Ebola infected Tiger.

Actually the law does say they get the best of both worlds because that’s the only way the internet makes sense. That’s literarily the entire point of the law. I don’t give a shit what you want or what you think should happen. That doesn’t change reality.

Take away the law and the free exchange of ideas online will get DRAMATICALLY WORSE. You have the “if I can’t have it no one can” mentality of a spoiled child.

 

[Catman51]

Why can’t they have both?

It does not comlply with the actual law, not the one you want ,moron.

 

[martybegan]

Actually the law does say they get the best of both worlds because that’s the only way the internet makes sense. That’s literarily the entire point of the law. I don’t give a shit what you want or what you think should happen. That doesn’t change reality.

Take away the law and the free exchange of ideas online will get DRAMATICALLY WORSE. You have the “if I can’t have it no one can” mentality of a spoiled child.

The law is bullshit, any claims of first amendment protections while protected by the law is bullshit.

Dude, Twitter et al is already taking away the free exchange of ideas, you just don't care because the only people getting ghosted are people you despise.

You don't want the free exchange of ideas, you want the free exchange of YOUR ideas.

 

[colfax_m]

The law is bullshit, any claims of first amendment protections while protected by the law is bullshit.

Dude, Twitter et al is already taking away the free exchange of ideas, you just don't care because the only people getting ghosted are people you despise.

You don't want the free exchange of ideas, you want the free exchange of YOUR ideas.

The law is the law. The fact that you don’t like it is irrelevant. You can sit and piss and moan all you want.

It’s irrelevant.

They have first amendment rights. The fact that you’re pissed that someone else has rights just shows what a pathetic little wannabe fascist you are.

 

[martybegan]

The law is the law. The fact that you don’t like it is irrelevant. You can sit and piss and moan all you want.

It’s irrelevant.

They have first amendment rights. The fact that you’re pissed that someone else has rights just shows what a pathetic little wannabe fascist you are.

They do, their platforms do not, as they claim the opinions on those platforms are not theirs.

 

[colfax_m]

They do, their platforms do not, as they claim the opinions on those platforms are not theirs.

If they do, their platform does.

Otherwise the first amendment is meaningless.

If you want your message on the internet, put it there yourself. Don’t be a lazy little fascist.