Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
The problem appears to be that Facebook seems unable to understand opinion And fact. The two are different words and have different meanings. Opinion is protected. Facebook calling their fact checkers opinions for whatever reason means that they are censoring because the people doing it have no leg to stand on when they claim fact checkingFacebook calls opinion a fact, then uses that “fact” to first remove offending posts then ban the posters, if opinion is protected, the opinions of both sides should be protected.
You don't give a fuck about property rights.I’m sticking up for property rights. Maybe that’s not your interest.
Wrong again, moron. I can sue any publisher on the internet, except Facebook, Twitter, youTube, etc.Facebook is claiming their opinions are protected from claims of defamation.
That’s what Stossel’s lawsuit is about.
Everyone’s opinions are protected in the same way.
It seems you don’t understand what the topic is over. It’s about protection from claims of defamation.
Yes you are.100% wrong. Completely backwards.
I've explained that to this dumbshit Colfax 1000 times already.if they are deleting content, based on their opinions…they are deciding what is published and what isn’t…hence they are not protected by the law granting them an exemption from lawsuits
Under Rule 230 there is, unless you also concede that people have the right to sue FacebookThey aren’t denying you rights. There is no right to post on Facebook or any other website you don’t personally own.
Wrong, dumbass. Website have always had that right.If they didn’t delete content, there would be no law needed to grant them exemption from lawsuits.
The law only exists to give websites the ability to delete content while protecting them from such lawsuits.
If they do that, then they can be sued. That's the bottom line.Not sure about changing your post, but that’s not the question here.
They have every right to add their notations to your post. Your post exists in their website. They can do basically whatever they want with it.
Read the TOS next time.
You're wasting bandwidth on this dumbass.no that’s not why the law exist dumbass
the law exist to exempt them from lawsuits based on what is posted
when they start deleting things they are deciding what is published and what isn’t
…hence publisher and thus the law doesn’t apply
i get you want to protect your big business donors and propagandist but the law is the law
I'll bet you thought that made sense.Let’s say the law never existed. No section 230.
If a website never deleted anything, nothing, everything stayed up, then they could never be sued for defamation based on what’s posted because they would not be considered a publisher.
So the law would not exist to do so. There is no law necessary to do so.
You're such a dumbass.Only IF they took down any content or any poster.
If a website just leave all content up, then they could never be sued because they’re not a publisher. Even without the law.
The law was specifically designed to give websites the ability to take down content and NOT be liable as a publisher.
He says the same wrong thing over and over until you get fed up.Colfax never shuts up but never says anything.
go figure.
Poor baby. Lies are lies.Facts are Opinions, Up is Down, Black is White and all other sorts of silliness....
You're a dumbass. Everything you post is wrong.If they didn’t act like a publisher, they wouldn’t need protection from any law since only the publisher could be sued.
Cite the case law and let me know if it’s before the law was passed.
Here’s the two most relevant cases to make this point.
Cubby v Compuserve: Compuserve couldn’t be sued because it didn’t take down any material. It was merely a distributor like a newsstand.
Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy: Prodigy took down some offensive material therefore it was a publisher and was sued for libel.
Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
After that, they passed section 230 to protect someone like Prodigy who wanted to moderate forums but not be able to be sued for everything posted.
And you're an idiot.Facts are Opinions, Up is Down, Black is White and all other sorts of silliness....
Their opinions are supported by facts dopey.Your opinions are supported by bullshit you find on the internet.Facebook admitted that so-called "fact checkers" produce opinions, and nothing more.
