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

[iceberg]

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.

Did we kiss it goodbye in 1996?

No.we did not. S230 allowed dumbasses to post whatever they wanted and the PLATFORM was not responsible legally. They didn't have to follow everyone around and moderate content.

This is exactly what FB does today.

You are not using s230 as intended but what FB has morphed it to and pretending it's the same.

LOL n shit.

 

[Curried Goats]

Did we kiss it goodbye in 1996?

No.we did not. S230 allowed dumbasses to post whatever they wanted and the PLATFORM was not responsible legally. They didn't have to follow everyone around and moderate content.

This is exactly what FB does today.

You are not using s230 as intended but what FB has morphed it to and pretending it's the same.

LOL n shit.

You are thoroughly confused.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Did we kiss it goodbye in 1996?

No.we did not. S230 allowed dumbasses to post whatever they wanted and the PLATFORM was not responsible legally. They didn't have to follow everyone around and moderate content.

This is exactly what FB does today.

You are not using s230 as intended but what FB has morphed it to and pretending it's the same.

LOL n shit.

These sites did not exist in 1996.

The reason these sites had to start following everyone around and moderate content is because they were being held responsible for illegal things posted on them.

It is not only what FB does today, it is what every single site with very few exceptions does today...this site included.

I have been on one site in the 32 years I have been on forums that had no rules and moderation at all. That site is now closed down due to what was being posted, their host kicked them off due to the content.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are thoroughly confused.

I do not think he is confused, I think he is just pissed because he has been told that FB and Twitter are mean to his tribe.

 

[22lcidw]

Facebook has some type of computer program that picks anything not considered their standards out and then punishes people.

 

[Marener]

S230 allowed dumbasses to post whatever they wanted and the PLATFORM was not responsible legally. They didn't have to follow everyone around and moderate content.

This is a mistake. Platforms that didn’t follow everyone around and moderate content were never legally responsible. That’s the way the law worked before section 230. The problem section 230 solves is that the second you moderated anything, you became legally responsible for everything. It’s a problem that never existed before and it’s an otherwise insurmountable problem for social media website.

 

[iceberg]

These sites did not exist in 1996.

The reason these sites had to start following everyone around and moderate content is because they were being held responsible for illegal things posted on them.

It is not only what FB does today, it is what every single site with very few exceptions does today...this site included.

I have been on one site in the 32 years I have been on forums that had no rules and moderation at all. That site is now closed down due to what was being posted, their host kicked them off due to the content.

But posting online did.

And sites like this are not much different than back then in how run or handled.

Pretending Facebook is a site like this is beyond annoying.

 

[iceberg]

I do not think he is confused, I think he is just pissed because he has been told that FB and Twitter are mean to his tribe.

You keep mischaracterizing my points so you can mock me vs refute them.

You are just pissed because you are wrong and now gotta attack me. Wheee. I can do that too. But am I right?

Later.

 

[iceberg]

These sites did not exist in 1996.

The reason these sites had to start following everyone around and moderate content is because they were being held responsible for illegal things posted on them.

It is not only what FB does today, it is what every single site with very few exceptions does today...this site included.

I have been on one site in the 32 years I have been on forums that had no rules and moderation at all. That site is now closed down due to what was being posted, their host kicked them off due to the content.

They are NOT HELD LIABLE as long as they are a platform. This is spelled out.

From below YOUR PUBLISHER quote.

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

Actually this site telling you what that quote means.
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.

You don't even know the original intent of s230.

 

[dblack]

I do not think he is confused, I think he is just pissed because he has been told that FB and Twitter are mean to his tribe.

I don't know why anyone bothers taking their excuse-making seriously. But this is par for the course with Trumpsters. Their "arguments" are always just excuses. They don't have any values or principles. They don't give a fuck about free speech, or the rights of publishers or platforms, yada, yada, yada .. Those are just words they use to shout down opposition. This is just about political retribution and expanding state power over social media.

 

[iceberg]

I don't know why anyone bothers taking their excuse-making seriously. But this is par for the course with Trumpsters. Their "arguments" are always just excuses. They don't have any values or principles. They don't give a fuck about free speech, or the rights of publishers or platforms, yada, yada, yada .. Those are just words they use to shout down opposition. This is just about political retribution and expanding state power over social media.

And I'm not a Trumpster.

God you stereotype people are fucking pathetic.

 

[dblack]

And I'm not a Trumpster.

God you stereotype people are fucking pathetic.

Ahh.. my bad. Who did you vote for?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But posting online did.

And sites like this are not much different than back then in how run or handled.

Pretending Facebook is a site like this is beyond annoying.

I am not pretending Facebook is a site like this is beyond annoying, I am saying what you do to one will be done to them all. As soon as FB is found liable for something on their site these sites become free game, and they will just cease to exist.

My first forum was Runners World Online back in 2000. It eventually closed as the Mods could not keep up with what was being posted and they were worried about liability.

They are NOT HELD LIABLE as long as they are a platform. This is spelled out.

Under the definition you keep posting there is no such thing as just a platform, every site is a publisher under it. Now every site has the same liabilities as the NY Times.

When that happens only FB and Twitter will be left.

Won't that be so much better than what we have now!

 

[iceberg]

I am not pretending Facebook is a site like this is beyond annoying, I am saying what you do to one will be done to them all. As soon as FB is found liable for something on their site these sites become free game, and they will just cease to exist.

My first forum was Runners World Online back in 2000. It eventually closed as the Mods could not keep up with what was being posted and they were worried about liability.



Under the definition you keep posting there is no such thing as just a platform, every site is a publisher under it. Now every site has the same liabilities as the NY Times.

When that happens only FB and Twitter will be left.

Won't that be so much better than what we have now!

Then you don't know the difference between the two.

No sense in this discussion any longer.

LOL n shit.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Then you don't know the difference between the two.

No sense in this discussion any longer.

LOL n shit.

Using your definition there is no difference.

Can you give an example of a site that is just a platform?

 

[iceberg]

Using your definition there is no difference.

Can you give an example of a site that is just a platform?

There is a difference.

Platforms don't correct you, just provide you a service n go away.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There is a difference.

Platforms don't correct you, just provide you a service n go away.

Name one.

 

[dblack]

Never fear - Congress is on the job!

After Dobbs, Democrats and Republicans Switch Places on Speech Policy

Republicans have long advocated against platform censorship, while Democrats have favored more restrictions on speech. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, both parties are now pushing speech policies they once argued against.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[iceberg]

Name one.

why? so you can LOL and say im pouting cause they are being mean?

i see zero value in those conversations. i am trying to discuss a point regardless of who it would apply to in the end. whatever rules are in play, both abide by them evenly and stop the one upmanship bullshit. but that doesn't feed your daily need to get guffaws at others expense in here, now does it?

if you get right down to it - facebook *is* a platform. but a platform by nature is more open for all and doesn't care who does what. it simply provides a service, do with it as you will. break a law, worry about that. say something someone else doesn't like, don't give a shit.

that is a "pure" platform.

HOWEVER, in a S230 sense, platform isn't even used. that came later as the wordsmithing began. somewhere in the mid 2000's i believe. S230 doesn't even deal with a "publisher" in a strict sense. it mostly deals with REPUBLICATION of information.

early providers such as AOL didn't want to be responsible for moonglow, rightwinger, skews and yes, several on the right also spouting extreme shit and the "platform" being held liable. so S230 says "you're not, don't worry about having to moderate it".

for whatever bullshit reason we keep going back to wordsmithing vs. intent of the section.

now, facebook and social media moderates the hell out of shit and not because of a "legal" sense, but a moral one. when you get to the point of fact checking memes you are way past legal responsibility and now dictating what is true and a lie.

no "platform" or "publisher" has that "right" now do they?

you keep implying that if *I* am right about S230, the media can dictate away what can be said and all free conversation will be killed.

except, that isn't the point of S230, now is it? the point was to keep from having to moderate. so if we use S230 for lack of a better solution in these times, FB, Twitter and any other social media isn't responsible for REPUBLICATION of information so moderating isn't necessary.

ergo, free speech (and yes, chaos) ensues.

allowing S230 to be used to silence people is bullshit.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, no problem - I mean I've certainly flubbed references like that and will no doubt do so again.

However, that said, I think that 230 doesn't mean what you think it means. The main reason 230 exists isn't to give posters/users 'free speech'; it was inserted into the law to protect internet service providers, to effectively hold them harmless from harmful content. More specifically, it says that internet service providers, which was later interpreted to include social media companies, cannot be treated as "publishers".

Why is that important, you ask?

Because whereas service providers or social media companies cannot be sued for harmful content that exists in their domain, "publishers" can.

As an example, suppose that person A says person B is a "drunken, whoring, lying, cheating, embezzling scumbag" on Facebook. Person B says that's not true and I'm going to sue your ass person B, and I'm also gonna sue Facebook for 'publishing' that content, since they allowed it on their website/app. Facebook's defense is, "Well we didn't know - we can't possibly police everything that's on our service." Section 230 protects Facebook. It doesn't protect person A of course, who is later found liable and has to pay person B damages. But Facebook only has to pay its lawyer to get the lawsuit tossed.

Now if Facebook weren't some massive platform but were instead some small website or blog that allows Person A and Person B to post public messages to each other, that could be completely different, especially if person B emails the site owner and tells him that Person A is saying nasty, untrue things about him and that you remove the content immediately. Assuming the worst, that the website/blog doesn't take it down, the courts could conclude that the website/blog owner had editorial control over the content , and that they are also a "publisher", which makes them liable for a lawsuit.

That's what Section 230 is all about. It was not intended to protect "free speech" - the Constitution already does that. In fact the law predates Facebook and social media. The powers that be have said that social media companies enjoy protection and privileges under 230 because that is likely the most logical way to treat these platforms. They are so large and provide service to so many users, they can't realistically police everything that's on their servers.

As with anything, legal privileges can be abused. Regulators and lawmakers could at any time decide that Facebook is abusing its privileged protections under the law and take that protection away. That's why they have content moderators who monitor their site actively to flag illegal behavior (i.e., depictions of violence, physical or sexual abuse, child abuse, etc) and then report it to authorities. If social media companies didn't do that, they'd face torrents of criticism that they're hiding behind their legal protection, and they'd probably have that protection modified or even cut outright.

If anything that has been the criticism of social media companies for most of their existence: that Facebook, Twitter, and others have used Section 230 to basically allow harmful content, such as hate speech. And that criticism has come mostly from the left, not the right.

Which brings me to my last and most important point: MAGA's complaints about social media's suppression of "free speech" and the threat to remove protection under Sec 230 of the federal statute are completely bogus, because they have absolutely no connection to the law in the first place. Republicans hold 230 over their heads because they want to intimidate them into allowing the very kinds of things that Section 230 was intended to prevent: abuses of their platform.

The fact is they are using algorithms to monitor content and are censoring content the commiecrats don't like. And the commies are pushing for more of it. Of course Zuckerberg proved his bias during the 2016 elections.

.