colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
Section 230 does not require removal of any content. The topic is not death threats. No one is defending having death threats on social media. Itās about whether conservatives have their social media accounts banned or content removed.No Iām not. Those are all forms of harrassment Twitter allows on its platform by certain members which are all against section 230.Then youāre meandering quite far away from the topic.Iām not talking about ā mean thingsā Iām talking about data mining,doxing,swatting,death threats etc...They also allow harassment from Trump too. Thatās not a āviolationā of 230. You donāt have a right to have mean things taken off the internet.They are already devolving. Which is why it needs to be addressed again. Example of violations...Twitter allows SJW mobās harrassment of itās other users which is clearly a violation of section 230.Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesnāt change my position.And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed? Mostly because he says FB allowed posts related to his son and Russia to be posted?The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. Iāve never heard of anyone winning.Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying youāre wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. Thatās my argument.??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.
You are assuming only the right has issues with these āprotectionsā.
Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230
The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know itwww.google.comSection 230 Is the Internetās First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away.
Imagine, for a moment, the following series of online exchanges. This isn't a real conversation. But it's the sort ofā¦www.google.com
however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.
There are a number of places on the internet donāt engage in the kind of ācensorshipā that youāre complaining of.
And theyāre just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.
Anyway even Mark Zuckerburg thinks Forums like FB and Twitter need more regulations because they actually fall in between a publisher and platform due to the scope of their reach ( they are international).
Section 230 was created when the internet was new...it needs to be reviewed again.
Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we donāt have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyoneās postings as a result.
This is what Iāve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.