META (Facebook) Banning Conservatives over their opinions.....

[iceberg]

That is not deciding what is published since they have to already have been published to be deleted.



That is not what I am saying at all. FB should abide by the same rules as other social media companies. They should not abide by the rules of publishers since they are not one.



I am not avoiding anything, I am pointing out the massive difference between FB and the NY Times.

https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014792387-Comments

Bet they delete comments all the time.

Now, what are the rules of engagement set out by the gov for social media? Please list them.

 

[multivita-man]

I also think not perfect but best we have.

In that light, is Facebook a platform or publisher?

And if rules done to benefit a side, R or D, you are not fixing a thing. Battshittery dems abusing it is why we are here.

Negative, for the reasons I outlined in my longer post above. The conservative grievances about social media have absolutely nothing to do with Sec 230.

Now do I think that social media companies could be more consistent and transparent in their moderation policy? Absolutely. No argument there, and perhaps if we're going to revisit 230 as it applies to social media, that might be the place to focus on.

I kinda get queasy when I start thinking about writing things like platform terms of conditions into the law, because it's almost like a regulation of speech. However, I think that there's another way to look at it. I think the compromise is to force companies to consistently enforce their terms of service.

That way there's no grievance about favoring one side or the other, or no debate about why one post got someone banned from the platform when so many other posts like it were tolerated for years. I actually do understand that complaint, and it's a complaint that both sides of the political spectrum can agree on - I think.

 

[dblack]

https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014792387-Comments

Bet they delete comments all the time.

Now, what are the rules of engagement set out by the gov for social media? Please list them.

None of this matters. Facebook and Twitter are biased against Trump conservatives, so they must crushed. That's as complicated as it gets. Everything else is excuse making. Any excuse will do.

 

[iceberg]

Negative, for the reasons I outlined in my longer post above. The conservative grievances about social media have absolutely nothing to do with Sec 230.

Now do I think that social media companies could be more consistent and transparent in their moderation policy? Absolutely. No argument there, and perhaps if we're going to revisit 230 as it applies to social media, that might be the place to focus on.

I kinda get queasy when I start thinking about writing things like platform terms of conditions into the law, because it's almost like a regulation of speech. However, I think that there's another way to look at it. I think the compromise is to force companies to consistently enforce their terms of service.

That way there's no grievance about favoring one side or the other, or no debate about why one post got someone banned from the platform when so many other posts like it were tolerated for years. I actually do understand that complaint, and it's a complaint that both sides of the political spectrum can agree on - I think.

S230 comes in due to a lack of anything else. It was written for AOL and like in the 90s.

I think we agree rules need to be in play that are unbiased and apply to all regardless of side. 100% agree there.

Only those do not exist.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014792387-Comments
Bet they delete comments all the time.

I am sure they do, but that is different then their publishing side of the business.

I am really not sure why this has gotten so confusing. If 20 years ago I had asked you what a publisher was I bet we would have agreed on the answer. But now that politics are involved we cannot. Sort of sad really.

I think we agree rules need to be in play that are unbiased and apply to all regardless of side. 100% agree there.

Only those do not exist.

Yes, they do. The way the rules are now they apply just fine.

 

[iceberg]

I am sure they do, but that is different then their publishing side of the business.

I am really not sure why this has gotten so confusing. If 20 years ago I had asked you what a publisher was I bet we would have agreed on the answer. But now that politics are involved we cannot. Sort of sad really.



Yes, they do. The way the rules are now they apply just fine.

List those rules. 3rd time I've asked.

And I've said it's not perfect but all we have. You like to pretend I've said, otherwise so you can giggle.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

List those rules. 3rd time I've asked.

Section 230

47 U.S.C. § 230 The Internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Our unprecedented ability to communicate online—on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia...

www.eff.org

And I've said it's not perfect but all we have. You like to pretend I've said, otherwise so you can giggle.

But you are wanting to change the rules because FB and Twitters are supposedly mean to your side. And when you succeeded in doing so sites like this will cease to exist and things will be far worse than they are now.

 

[iceberg]

Section 230

47 U.S.C. § 230 The Internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Our unprecedented ability to communicate online—on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia...

www.eff.org

But you are wanting to change the rules because FB and Twitters are supposedly mean to your side. And when you succeeded in doing so sites like this will cease to exist and things will be far worse than they are now.

So you say s230 doesn't apply then post it as what Facebook must follow.

OK.

And I don't give a damn about the rules in as much as applied evenly. You keep incorrectly assuming my mindset and motive so you can.... Giggle.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So you say s230 doesn't apply then post it as what Facebook must follow.

OK.

I am saying it does apply.

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

And I don't give a damn about the rules in as much as applied evenly. You keep incorrectly assuming my mindset and motive so you can.... Giggle.

Which rules are not being applied evenly?

 

[iceberg]

I am saying it does apply.

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"


Which rules are not being applied evenly?

That is saying Facebook or myself won't be treated as a publisher of someone else's info.

Now since s230 defines platform or publisher, and you now want to say this applies, which best fits?

Is, Facebook a platform or publisher?

 

[Marener]

Section 230

47 U.S.C. § 230 The Internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Our unprecedented ability to communicate online—on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia...

www.eff.org

But you are wanting to change the rules because FB and Twitters are supposedly mean to your side. And when you succeeded in doing so sites like this will cease to exist and things will be far worse than they are now.

They can’t succeed in the market so they want the government to enforce their idea of fairness.

 

[iceberg]

I am sure they do, but that is different then their publishing side of the business.

I am really not sure why this has gotten so confusing. If 20 years ago I had asked you what a publisher was I bet we would have agreed on the answer. But now that politics are involved we cannot. Sort of sad really.



Yes, they do. The way the rules are now they apply just fine.

20 years ago s230 said you don't have to moderate content posted to your platform.

Now it's morphed so they can do it but the definitions are not supposed to morph also? Like I said, benefits of both, responsibility of neither.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That is saying Facebook or myself won't be treated as a publisher of someone else's info.

Now since s230 defines platform or publisher, and you now want to say this applies, which best fits?

Is, Facebook a platform or publisher?

(4) Access software provider The term ‘‘access software provider’’ means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following: (A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content; (B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or (C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

 

[iceberg]

(4) Access software provider The term ‘‘access software provider’’ means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following: (A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content; (B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or (C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

Are they a platform or publisher?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

20 years ago s230 said you don't have to moderate content posted to your platform.

Now it's morphed so they can do it but the definitions are not supposed to morph also? Like I said, benefits of both, responsibility of neither.

It has morphed as platforms have been sued for allowing things like child porn on them, as they should have been.

I am fine with changing definitions, but not to remove the fact a publisher decides what is published, before it is published.

To make sites like this publishers is to kill sites like this for good. Perhaps you think it is worth it, I do not agree.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Are they a platform or publisher?

I have said like 100 times now they are not a publisher.

What does that leave you with?

 

[iceberg]

It has morphed as platforms have been sued for allowing things like child porn on them, as they should have been.

I am fine with changing definitions, but not to remove the fact a publisher decides what is published, before it is published.

To make sites like this publishers is to kill sites like this for good. Perhaps you think it is worth it, I do not agree.

Now to follow your quote of s230. I see you left this off.

In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.
.....
Publishes 3rd party content.

Say that with me.

Publishes 3rd party content.

 

[iceberg]

I have said like 100 times now they are not a publisher.

What does that leave you with?

As I just posted, s230 says they do "publish 3rd party content"

And if merely a platform, then s230 is there to keep them from having to moderate. Yet moderate they do. Publish fact checks they do.

What does that leave you with?

And now you are being an LOL fuck head.

Later.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Now to follow your quote of s230. I see you left this off.

In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.
.....
Publishes 3rd party content.

Say that with me.

Publishes 3rd party content.

If we are going with that then every site is a publisher and nothing else.

There is no such thing as a platform under that definition.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

As I just posted, s230 says they do "publish 3rd party content"

And if merely a platform, then s230 is there to keep them from having to moderate. Yet moderate they do. Publish fact checks they do.

What does that leave you with?

And now you are being an LOL fuck head.

Later.

There is no such thing as "merely a platform" that that makes one a publisher.

That leaves us with every single site on the web being a publisher and subject to said laws. This site is fucked, you can kiss it goodbye under your definition.