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.
I doubt any of these allow child porno on their sites, but I wouldn't know...
I guess you'd know all the child porno sites, right?
Your ignorance is showing. But that's expected from the left; you deal from emotions and not knowledge or facts.
Let"s say that you are an Internet service provider. One of your customers uses your service to download child pornography. In the process of downloading, that pornography passes through your servers and is now stored in the cache of your servers. The FBI raids your customer's house and confiscates his computer. They start tracing back on the child porn and see that the network connection upstream to your customer points back to you. The FBI raids your facility and confiscates your servers. Not only do they find child pornography on your servers but they find proof that you delivered that pornography to your customer.... Guess what? You're going to prison for a long time... Except that you're actually not. There are laws that protect you because you're not the content provider; you are a service provider.
In another example, let's say that you are a company that functions as a file-sharing service, a mini-Dropbox, for example. You don't even own your own servers; you simply use a hosting service, rent some online disk storage, and wrote some software and now you're making money by letting people post files online and share them. Most of your customers are storing pictures of their kids or maybe some spreadsheets for work.. But then there's that one customer and now you're going to prison for running a business that hosts child pornography... Except, once again, you're not. There's a law that protects you as a service provider and not a content provider.
In both cases, and in the law, if you're a content provider, even if you didn't provide that exact content, then you don't qualify for the legal exemption. And, in both cases, the service provider must take reasonable steps to eliminate or prevent illegal content and, if they do take reasonable steps, the exception applies to them.
Facebook and the other social media companies enjoy that exception to the law. But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers. If they are content providers then their specific, explicit, special, exception needs to be removed. With that exception removed, when someone posts child pornography on their sites, they're liable. When someone posts calls to action to break the law, any law - including sedition, rioting, arson, or overthrow of government, then they are liable. They need to be shut down just like any other person would be for making explicit calls to action to violate the law.
For example .... guessing at someone's password until you get in -- that's hacking. Sending someone phishing email that looks legit but really baits them into entering their password -- that's hacking.
That's what Russians did.
Nope. "False" and "hateful" are most often just a matter of opinion.They are government protected monopolies. What is "damaging to society" shouldn't be left up to them. I think liberalism is damaging to society. You only proved why the government should regulate them.Is calling "FIRE!" in a crowded auditorium censorship?Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??
Or shouting "BOMB" IN an airplane?I
Free speech cannot cause damage or injury to others.
Fake news and outright lies are damaging to rational communications, especially when ignorant people like you are involved.
No.
But banning people on a platform for having the wrong opinion IS internet censorship.
You conflate it to shouting bomb in an airplane because your have a very, very low IQ.
No. This social media sites are privately owned and can choose what they allow up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.
It is not internet censorship since anyone that is censored can open their own social media site and post whatever they'd like - up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.
When posts are obviously false or obviously hateful, they certainly should delete them at their discretion.
The problem with you Trump idiots is that you believe your own BULLSHIT!
PITIFUL!!!
If they don't want to be sued, then they have to publish whatever their members submit. They can't pick and choose.They can pick and choose and they can be sued for what they choose. The whole theory behind reg 230 is that these websites wouldn't pick and choose.They reason they can be sued is the fact that they pick and choose, like WAPO with respect to Nicholas Sandman.Me either.I don't think people have really thought this through.
I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.
Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.
If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.
Explained above.I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.
I don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.
I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.
They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.
Aren't following this discussion?
No, that is not a reason for being sued as a publisher. The can be sued for libel. But at end of the day, like any other private entity, including WAPO and Fox, they are not required to publish everything or anything. They can pick and choose.
No, they can’t be sued for not publishing something. They are not REQUIRED to publish something. They are private entities.
Thanks for your incredibly hypothetical and ignorant post.
If you knew anything about managing networks, you'd know that virtually every company runs filtering software that identifies and blocks porn - except for porno sites.
If you knew anything about networks you would know these filters are not 100% effective.I doubt any of these allow child porno on their sites, but I wouldn't know...
I guess you'd know all the child porno sites, right?
Your ignorance is showing. But that's expected from the left; you deal from emotions and not knowledge or facts.
Let"s say that you are an Internet service provider. One of your customers uses your service to download child pornography. In the process of downloading, that pornography passes through your servers and is now stored in the cache of your servers. The FBI raids your customer's house and confiscates his computer. They start tracing back on the child porn and see that the network connection upstream to your customer points back to you. The FBI raids your facility and confiscates your servers. Not only do they find child pornography on your servers but they find proof that you delivered that pornography to your customer.... Guess what? You're going to prison for a long time... Except that you're actually not. There are laws that protect you because you're not the content provider; you are a service provider.
In another example, let's say that you are a company that functions as a file-sharing service, a mini-Dropbox, for example. You don't even own your own servers; you simply use a hosting service, rent some online disk storage, and wrote some software and now you're making money by letting people post files online and share them. Most of your customers are storing pictures of their kids or maybe some spreadsheets for work.. But then there's that one customer and now you're going to prison for running a business that hosts child pornography... Except, once again, you're not. There's a law that protects you as a service provider and not a content provider.
In both cases, and in the law, if you're a content provider, even if you didn't provide that exact content, then you don't qualify for the legal exemption. And, in both cases, the service provider must take reasonable steps to eliminate or prevent illegal content and, if they do take reasonable steps, the exception applies to them.
Facebook and the other social media companies enjoy that exception to the law. But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers. If they are content providers then their specific, explicit, special, exception needs to be removed. With that exception removed, when someone posts child pornography on their sites, they're liable. When someone posts calls to action to break the law, any law - including sedition, rioting, arson, or overthrow of government, then they are liable. They need to be shut down just like any other person would be for making explicit calls to action to violate the law.
Thanks for your incredibly hypothetical and ignorant post.
If you knew anything about managing networks, you'd know that virtually every company runs filtering software that identifies and blocks porn - except for porno sites.
If they don't want to be sued, then they have to publish whatever their members submit. They can't pick and choose.
If you knew anything about networks you would know these filters are not 100% effective.I doubt any of these allow child porno on their sites, but I wouldn't know...
I guess you'd know all the child porno sites, right?
Your ignorance is showing. But that's expected from the left; you deal from emotions and not knowledge or facts.
Let"s say that you are an Internet service provider. One of your customers uses your service to download child pornography. In the process of downloading, that pornography passes through your servers and is now stored in the cache of your servers. The FBI raids your customer's house and confiscates his computer. They start tracing back on the child porn and see that the network connection upstream to your customer points back to you. The FBI raids your facility and confiscates your servers. Not only do they find child pornography on your servers but they find proof that you delivered that pornography to your customer.... Guess what? You're going to prison for a long time... Except that you're actually not. There are laws that protect you because you're not the content provider; you are a service provider.
In another example, let's say that you are a company that functions as a file-sharing service, a mini-Dropbox, for example. You don't even own your own servers; you simply use a hosting service, rent some online disk storage, and wrote some software and now you're making money by letting people post files online and share them. Most of your customers are storing pictures of their kids or maybe some spreadsheets for work.. But then there's that one customer and now you're going to prison for running a business that hosts child pornography... Except, once again, you're not. There's a law that protects you as a service provider and not a content provider.
In both cases, and in the law, if you're a content provider, even if you didn't provide that exact content, then you don't qualify for the legal exemption. And, in both cases, the service provider must take reasonable steps to eliminate or prevent illegal content and, if they do take reasonable steps, the exception applies to them.
Facebook and the other social media companies enjoy that exception to the law. But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers. If they are content providers then their specific, explicit, special, exception needs to be removed. With that exception removed, when someone posts child pornography on their sites, they're liable. When someone posts calls to action to break the law, any law - including sedition, rioting, arson, or overthrow of government, then they are liable. They need to be shut down just like any other person would be for making explicit calls to action to violate the law.
Thanks for your incredibly hypothetical and ignorant post.
If you knew anything about managing networks, you'd know that virtually every company runs filtering software that identifies and blocks porn - except for porno sites.
Blocking posts that criticize BLM is not "due dilligence," nor is it "hate speech."If you knew anything about networks you would know these filters are not 100% effective.I doubt any of these allow child porno on their sites, but I wouldn't know...
I guess you'd know all the child porno sites, right?
Your ignorance is showing. But that's expected from the left; you deal from emotions and not knowledge or facts.
Let"s say that you are an Internet service provider. One of your customers uses your service to download child pornography. In the process of downloading, that pornography passes through your servers and is now stored in the cache of your servers. The FBI raids your customer's house and confiscates his computer. They start tracing back on the child porn and see that the network connection upstream to your customer points back to you. The FBI raids your facility and confiscates your servers. Not only do they find child pornography on your servers but they find proof that you delivered that pornography to your customer.... Guess what? You're going to prison for a long time... Except that you're actually not. There are laws that protect you because you're not the content provider; you are a service provider.
In another example, let's say that you are a company that functions as a file-sharing service, a mini-Dropbox, for example. You don't even own your own servers; you simply use a hosting service, rent some online disk storage, and wrote some software and now you're making money by letting people post files online and share them. Most of your customers are storing pictures of their kids or maybe some spreadsheets for work.. But then there's that one customer and now you're going to prison for running a business that hosts child pornography... Except, once again, you're not. There's a law that protects you as a service provider and not a content provider.
In both cases, and in the law, if you're a content provider, even if you didn't provide that exact content, then you don't qualify for the legal exemption. And, in both cases, the service provider must take reasonable steps to eliminate or prevent illegal content and, if they do take reasonable steps, the exception applies to them.
Facebook and the other social media companies enjoy that exception to the law. But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers. If they are content providers then their specific, explicit, special, exception needs to be removed. With that exception removed, when someone posts child pornography on their sites, they're liable. When someone posts calls to action to break the law, any law - including sedition, rioting, arson, or overthrow of government, then they are liable. They need to be shut down just like any other person would be for making explicit calls to action to violate the law.
Thanks for your incredibly hypothetical and ignorant post.
If you knew anything about managing networks, you'd know that virtually every company runs filtering software that identifies and blocks porn - except for porno sites.
Nothing is 100% effective. But as long as they do their 'due diligence' by running filtering software, their responsibility is satisfied.
I say BLM is a Marxist terrorist organization. Is that "hate speech?"Nope. "False" and "hateful" are most often just a matter of opinion.They are government protected monopolies. What is "damaging to society" shouldn't be left up to them. I think liberalism is damaging to society. You only proved why the government should regulate them.Is calling "FIRE!" in a crowded auditorium censorship?Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??
Or shouting "BOMB" IN an airplane?I
Free speech cannot cause damage or injury to others.
Fake news and outright lies are damaging to rational communications, especially when ignorant people like you are involved.
No.
But banning people on a platform for having the wrong opinion IS internet censorship.
You conflate it to shouting bomb in an airplane because your have a very, very low IQ.
No. This social media sites are privately owned and can choose what they allow up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.
It is not internet censorship since anyone that is censored can open their own social media site and post whatever they'd like - up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.
When posts are obviously false or obviously hateful, they certainly should delete them at their discretion.
The problem with you Trump idiots is that you believe your own BULLSHIT!
PITIFUL!!!
Reality is something beyond your comprehension.
These rats are censoring conservatives.
It is also an in-kind donation to the Democratic Party. Therefore in violation of campaign finance laws.
You misread it then.In post 216. That is what it sounds like.That isn't what I said.No. That isn’t what I said. My response was to BriPat who was claiming that if they are publishers they have to publish everything or be sued. And that isn’t true.BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true. If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for.
Bullshit.
Platforms like USMB are PROTECTED from civil liability because USERS are responsible for their own content.
WHEN a company like the Twazis DICTATE content, they assume responsibility for that content. Twitter isn't a message board, it is a publisher of far left commentary. IF as a publisher, their contributing writers slander and libel others - whihc is ALL Twitter does - then Twitter is just like CNN and can be sued.
USMB will tell you WHAT infraction - even the utterly bullshit ones by Will - you are being dinged for. That's called transparency - IF USMB can have transparency in moderation so can the Twazis.
What specifically is bullshit about what I said? I already pointed out they would libel for slander, which means even censorship on their part.
You said they must publish anything - that isn't true. They can be like NBC or DailyKOS and only publish radical left, hate filled bullshit. They simply are not shielded from liability because it is THEIR content, not user opinions.
Nothing is 100% effective. But as long as they do their 'due diligence' by running filtering software, their responsibility is satisfied.
Everything you post is a lie. Shouldn't all your posts be yanked?These rats are censoring conservatives.
It is also an in-kind donation to the Democratic Party. Therefore in violation of campaign finance laws.
So you're in favour of Republicans lying to cover up their incompetence and failure? The video's that are being "censored" are promoting lies, and conspiracy theories as fact, and then trying to slap the seal of the President of the United States on this bullshit and claim "free speech". 1500 Americans are dying every day as a result of their policies, and the President is trying to cancel the election, and YOU'RE crying "censorship".
Who did he bully?Isn't his gold digger wife suppose to end bullying online? Why is he still going strong bullying people virtually?Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.
HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation PracticesThis Is Big!On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.
Blocking posts that criticize BLM is not "due dilligence," nor is it "hate speech."If you knew anything about networks you would know these filters are not 100% effective.I doubt any of these allow child porno on their sites, but I wouldn't know...
I guess you'd know all the child porno sites, right?
Your ignorance is showing. But that's expected from the left; you deal from emotions and not knowledge or facts.
Let"s say that you are an Internet service provider. One of your customers uses your service to download child pornography. In the process of downloading, that pornography passes through your servers and is now stored in the cache of your servers. The FBI raids your customer's house and confiscates his computer. They start tracing back on the child porn and see that the network connection upstream to your customer points back to you. The FBI raids your facility and confiscates your servers. Not only do they find child pornography on your servers but they find proof that you delivered that pornography to your customer.... Guess what? You're going to prison for a long time... Except that you're actually not. There are laws that protect you because you're not the content provider; you are a service provider.
In another example, let's say that you are a company that functions as a file-sharing service, a mini-Dropbox, for example. You don't even own your own servers; you simply use a hosting service, rent some online disk storage, and wrote some software and now you're making money by letting people post files online and share them. Most of your customers are storing pictures of their kids or maybe some spreadsheets for work.. But then there's that one customer and now you're going to prison for running a business that hosts child pornography... Except, once again, you're not. There's a law that protects you as a service provider and not a content provider.
In both cases, and in the law, if you're a content provider, even if you didn't provide that exact content, then you don't qualify for the legal exemption. And, in both cases, the service provider must take reasonable steps to eliminate or prevent illegal content and, if they do take reasonable steps, the exception applies to them.
Facebook and the other social media companies enjoy that exception to the law. But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers. If they are content providers then their specific, explicit, special, exception needs to be removed. With that exception removed, when someone posts child pornography on their sites, they're liable. When someone posts calls to action to break the law, any law - including sedition, rioting, arson, or overthrow of government, then they are liable. They need to be shut down just like any other person would be for making explicit calls to action to violate the law.
Thanks for your incredibly hypothetical and ignorant post.
If you knew anything about managing networks, you'd know that virtually every company runs filtering software that identifies and blocks porn - except for porno sites.
Nothing is 100% effective. But as long as they do their 'due diligence' by running filtering software, their responsibility is satisfied.
I say BLM is a Marxist terrorist organization. Is that "hate speech?"
That law is pure idiocy and unconstitutional. The commerce clause does not give the federal government to run every business in the United States.They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.
Can bakers refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?
They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.
Posts criticizng BLM aren't being taken down. Posts calling them a "terrorist organization" and claiming that BLM is responsible for the riots which are the result of the President's actions, and lying about BLM, goes beyond "criticize", and is an incitement to violence. Incitements to violence violate user agreements with both Facebook and Twitter.
Everything you post is a lie. Shouldn't all your posts be yanked?These rats are censoring conservatives.
It is also an in-kind donation to the Democratic Party. Therefore in violation of campaign finance laws.
So you're in favour of Republicans lying to cover up their incompetence and failure? The video's that are being "censored" are promoting lies, and conspiracy theories as fact, and then trying to slap the seal of the President of the United States on this bullshit and claim "free speech". 1500 Americans are dying every day as a result of their policies, and the President is trying to cancel the election, and YOU'RE crying "censorship".
