Biden Administration Can't Be Sued For Pressuring Social Media Companies To Remove Misinformation, SCOTUS Ruling/

[Marener]

Its true... they planted a puppet there for a reason....

Oh, okay. Read it on the internet which means it’s definitely true. The internet doesn’t lie.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sure, but the courts are there to stop it.

Or they can just say "whoops, no standing" and move on.

 

[Marener]

Or they can just say "whoops, no standing" and move on.

Pretty hard to have no standing when the issue at hand is the government shutting down your website, which is what you’re claiming they could do.

I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Pretty hard to have no standing when the issue at hand is the government shutting down your website, which is what you’re claiming they could do.

I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

Most sites are not going to take that chance and go along with the strong arming.

I truly wish I shard your pollyannaish view of our Govt, but I have seen too much and read too much to ever be able to do that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Doesn’t exist on a private social media platform. Their server. Their rules. They can kick you off for any reason or no reason.

What about the phone company? Same idea?

 

[Marener]

Most sites are not going to take that chance and go along with the strong arming.

I truly wish I shard your pollyannaish view of our Govt, but I have seen too much and read too much to ever be able to do that.

You probably should believe less of what you read. The government is not some overwhelming authoritarian beast.

 

[Marener]

What about the phone company? Same idea?

Nope. Different legal framework. Phone companies are common carriers and their communications are private. Social media companies are very much public communication and not common carriers.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You probably should believe less of what you read. The government is not some overwhelming authoritarian beast.

You should maybe believe more of what you read. The Govt is not a overwhelming authoritarian beast, but but it is dirty to its core.

I just finished a book about the US involvement with Panama and Noriega, it gives a glimpse of what our Govt is more than capable of in the name of "freedom"

Panama

 

[Marener]

You should maybe believe more of what you read. The Govt is not a overwhelming authoritarian beast, but but it is dirty to its core.

I just finished a book about the US involvement with Panama and Noriega, it gives a glimpse of what our Govt is more than capable of in the name of "freedom"

Panama

The Cold War was a long time ago.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Cold War was a long time ago.

And you think our Govt has become more honest and benevolent since then?

If so, I have some very nice ocean front property just outside of Hill City Kansas for sale, very good price.

 

[Marener]

And you think our Govt has become more honest and benevolent since then?

If so, I have some very nice ocean front property just outside of Hill City Kansas for sale, very good price.

I know it’s harder for them to get away with the crap they got away with in the 70s.

If there was a concerted pressure put on websites, we’d know about it. The fact is that these websites were aligned with the government on this neither wanted the fringe crackpots posting conspiracies.

 

[debbiedowner]

I'm not dancing until the immunity case comes down. Ultimately it is the unitary theory of exec power that would agree with Nixon that if the President orders it, it's legal.

What's funny MAGA wants the immunity without thinking this will also apply to dem Presidents until another SCOTUS 20 years from now changes it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I know it’s harder for them to get away with the crap they got away with in the 70s.

I think it is far easier. As divided as we are as a country each side will dismiss any stories of negativity of their chosen party.

Much as we are seeing in this thred

 

[Marener]

I think it is far easier. As divided as we are as a country each side will dismiss any stories of negativity of their chosen party.

Much as we are seeing in this thred

It would be easier to acknowledge the story if there were much evidence to support it.

You claim there was threats and pressure applied, but we’ve heard none of that from the people actually involved.

The only ones complaining were the people who had their accounts closed for shitposting.

As for partisans dismissing stories, you chopped off a quite relevant part of my post because it didn’t serve your narrative. So yeah, we are seeing this in the thread.

 

[bendog]

What does it do?​

Section 230 states that providers or users of “interactive computer services,” [PDF] which include internet service providers as well as platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Craigslist, cannot be treated as publishers of—and thus held liable for—content produced by others. It also allows those companies to voluntarily take actions in “good faith” to moderate content.
[emphasis mine]

It’s been called the “twenty-six words that created the internet.” Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is a landmark U.S. law that shields social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook from liability for content their users post. The tech industry maintains that the provision allows the internet to flourish, but critics say companies either aren’t doing enough to combat harmful content, or are going too far with censorship.

More From Our Experts
Kat Duffy
Cyber Week in Review: June 14, 2024
Tarah Wheeler
Supporting American Small Businesses Against Foreign Threats
Rush Doshi
Analyzing Lai Ching-te’s Inaugural Address: More Continuity Than Difference
President Donald J. Trump has called to repeal the law and signed an executive order attempting to curb some of its protections, though the order has been challenged in court. More recently, he threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an annual defense funding bill, if it does not revoke Section 230. The impact of these moves on online expression could be profound.

Trump and Section 230: What to Know

President Trump has threatened to veto a major defense funding bill because of a law that protects social media companies such as Twitter from liability for what their users post. Why is it controver…

www.cfr.org

 

[bendog]

It would be easier to acknowledge the story if there were much evidence to support it.

You claim there was threats and pressure applied, but we’ve heard none of that from the people actually involved.

The only ones complaining were the people who had their accounts closed for shitposting.

As for partisans dismissing stories, you chopped off a quite relevant part of my post because it didn’t serve your narrative. So yeah, we are seeing this in the thread.

Harpy outed herself. too funny. Nice person, but ....

 

[Harpy Eagle]

As for partisans dismissing stories, you chopped off a quite relevant part of my post because it didn’t serve your narrative. So yeah, we are seeing this in the thread.

I quoted the part I responded to, it is how I have always posted on this forum and it does not matter which side I am replying to.

I did not chop off anything, it is there for the whole forum to see in your post.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Harpy outed herself. too funny. Nice person, but ....

Outed?

Herself?

Are you drunk tonight?

 

[Godboy]

Passing bipartisan legislation really isn’t in Trump’s wheelhouse. He spends too much time trashing his opponents to be able to lead them in a coalition.

It’s a fact that lots of things COULD happen. Doesn’t make it likely.

Saying he can legally force people to do something is an absurd stretch.

Just because you dismiss the threat on this forum, doesnt mean social media companies will do the same.

 

[Marener]

I quoted the part I responded to, it is how I have always posted on this forum and it does not matter which side I am replying to.

I did not chop off anything, it is there for the whole forum to see in your post.

The fact that you didn’t respond to it is telling.