Good. These a$$hats should not be allowed to get away with having it both ways. Either they are utilities or they are leftist opinion-censors. pick one and live with the consequences. Good for you, President Trump, way to Stand Up for the People!

link Section: Trump Demands Repeal of Section 230 Tech Liability Shield

Quote:President Donald Trump is vowing to veto the National Defense Authorization Act unless Congress repeals a section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that shields social media platforms from liability for what users post on them.

His comments came in tweets posted Tuesday night. He wrote: "Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to 'Big Tech' (the only companies in America that have it - corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity. Our Country can never be safe & secure if we allow it to stand.

"Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk. Take back America NOW. Thank you!"

Tech giants like Facebook and Twitter should no longer be shielded as a neutral platform when they operate as a publisher.

The issue surfaced again in October when Twitter blocked the accounts of users who tried to distribute a New York Post story about supposed influence peddling by Joe Biden's son, Hunter, and Facebook slowed the report's spread

which post-election polls altered the results of the election among Democrat voters by as much as 17%--more than enough to swing the election.

Good for him. Too bad he doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of it.

(12-02-2020 02:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Good for him. Too bad he doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of it.

For once, I somewhat agree with Tom. I'm against repealing 230 entirely. Not sure the internet could function without it. That said, there needs to be a statutory amendment or supreme court ruling that prohibits Big Tech censorship (acting as a publisher) from utilizing the protections. That is, if you censor free speech, you lose your 230 protection.

(12-02-2020 02:22 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 02:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Good for him. Too bad he doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of it.

For once, I somewhat agree with Tom. I'm against repealing 230 entirely. Not sure the internet could function without it. That said, there needs to be a statutory amendment or supreme court ruling that prohibits Big Tech censorship (acting as a publisher) from utilizing the protections. That is, if you censor free speech, you lose your 230 protection.

And even worse for trump here, is they don't really censor his tweets...regarding twitter. They merely put a warning label on them that his claims are disputed by facts.

(12-02-2020 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 02:22 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 02:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Good for him. Too bad he doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of it.

For once, I somewhat agree with Tom. I'm against repealing 230 entirely. Not sure the internet could function without it. That said, there needs to be a statutory amendment or supreme court ruling that prohibits Big Tech censorship (acting as a publisher) from utilizing the protections. That is, if you censor free speech, you lose your 230 protection.

And even worse for trump here, is they don't really censor his tweets...regarding twitter. They merely put a warning label on them that his claims are disputed by facts.

A form of censorship...

The problem is the selective enforcement of their TOS. 98 percent of the censorship on Twitter is levied to conservative viewpoints. Facts can be manipulated to serve a viewpoint.

(12-02-2020 02:22 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  For once, I somewhat agree with Tom. I'm against repealing 230 entirely. Not sure the internet could function without it.

So here is MY question...

Much is made about protecting sites like Twitter and Facebook, but undeniably, most 'hate groups' and certainly groups seeking to mislead and misinform voters have taken advantage of

I find it inconsistent that the left on this issue would have made such a big deal about 'misinformation campaigns', 'Russian interference' and the apparent (but not demonstrable) rise in 'hate groups' and yet not seek to do anything about it, except to use it to elect 'their' people, often through similar misinformation campaigns, interference and hate.

Its wrong if the interference comes from Russia... It's okay if it comes from France or inside our borders. It's wrong if the hate or misinformation comes from 'these' people... it's okay if it comes from 'these' people.

There is an interesting mini-series on Netflix called 'evil'... and the basic premise is that the internet has allowed previously disparate and disorganized 'bad' people to organize and appear larger than they are. While the series is a bit of a trip down 'criminal minds' coupled with 'paranormal activity', we've all seen the real world results of both a site with no legal responsibility even for hate speech along with sites that only censor that speech they disagree with. Its a common complaint on any moderated forum... that the moderator is only censoring 'certain' speech... whether its true or not.

At the very least, websites should be responsible for ensuring that as we do in news, that OP EDs are clearly identified as such. I'd say the same about some of the ridiculous, misleading and illegal ads on sites like facebook... but you can't get your money back because the site is in another country... and you can't bother with facebook because they hide behind a shield of 'we didn't post the ad'. FTR, I'm not talking about things in the 'marketplace' section, but the ads that pop up in your feed, based on your browsing history through facebook's algorithms. They are specifically complicit in allowing misleading ads about 'pet' products to show up because their members looked at videos featuring pets.

I don't pretend to have thought every issue through... but the idea that we can't or shouldn't do anything about this is just flat wrong. I'm smart enough to know that a website with a name like iutyut.com offering new DeWalt tools for 80% off is likely a scam, but lots of people aren't. If I go to WalMart.com or Amazon, I expect that anything am allowed to purchase there, even if it gets fulfilled by 'iutyut.com' carries some sort of recourse through the owner of the site... or a clear disclaimer if not.

I'm speaking about shopping, but 'news' shouldn't be any different. If they censor, they are responsible for choosing what gets printed. If they don't censor, they can still make sure that like getting a press pass, that 'news' sites are identified as 'news' and 'not news' are identified as opinions. Lots of opinions ARE correct, but they are still just opinions. National Enquirer vs FOX or CNN (and not the op ed or entertainment departments of those feeds)

(12-02-2020 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 02:22 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 02:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Good for him. Too bad he doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of it.

For once, I somewhat agree with Tom. I'm against repealing 230 entirely. Not sure the internet could function without it. That said, there needs to be a statutory amendment or supreme court ruling that prohibits Big Tech censorship (acting as a publisher) from utilizing the protections. That is, if you censor free speech, you lose your 230 protection.

And even worse for trump here, is they don't really censor his tweets...regarding twitter. They merely put a warning label on them that his claims are disputed by facts.

I wouldn't have an issue with that if they would do the same to Biden or his campaign tweets. It is the one sided treatment that I despise.

But I agree with the idea of not getting completely rid of section 230. If they did, none of these outfits would leave anything up due to fear of getting sued. If you read the wording of section 230, part of it is so vague that it is open to anybody's interpretation. (See my bolded below)

Quote: Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
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.

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Just re-write section A to make it more clear. The "otherwise objectionable" part is where these platforms take it on themselves to object to a different viewpoint, i.e. a conservative viewpoint. If these platforms want to be considered a platform and not a publisher, they CAN NOT take down or block content that they disagree with. There are lots of SJWs that work at these tech companies that enthusiastically take down content simply because it doesn't fit their worldview. They find all kinds of ideas and speech 'otherwise objectionable' and currently have protection to remove it.

(12-02-2020 03:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 02:22 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  For once, I somewhat agree with Tom. I'm against repealing 230 entirely. Not sure the internet could function without it.

So here is MY question...

Much is made about protecting sites like Twitter and Facebook, but undeniably, most 'hate groups' and certainly groups seeking to mislead and misinform voters have taken advantage of

I find it inconsistent that the left on this issue would have made such a big deal about 'misinformation campaigns', 'Russian interference' and the apparent (but not demonstrable) rise in 'hate groups' and yet not seek to do anything about it, except to use it to elect 'their' people, often through similar misinformation campaigns, interference and hate.

Its wrong if the interference comes from Russia... It's okay if it comes from France or inside our borders. It's wrong if the hate or misinformation comes from 'these' people... it's okay if it comes from 'these' people.

There is an interesting mini-series on Netflix called 'evil'... and the basic premise is that the internet has allowed previously disparate and disorganized 'bad' people to organize and appear larger than they are. While the series is a bit of a trip down 'criminal minds' coupled with 'paranormal activity', we've all seen the real world results of both a site with no legal responsibility even for hate speech along with sites that only censor that speech they disagree with. Its a common complaint on any moderated forum... that the moderator is only censoring 'certain' speech... whether its true or not.

At the very least, websites should be responsible for ensuring that as we do in news, that OP EDs are clearly identified as such. I'd say the same about some of the ridiculous, misleading and illegal ads on sites like facebook... but you can't get your money back because the site is in another country... and you can't bother with facebook because they hide behind a shield of 'we didn't post the ad'. FTR, I'm not talking about things in the 'marketplace' section, but the ads that pop up in your feed, based on your browsing history through facebook's algorithms. They are specifically complicit in allowing misleading ads about 'pet' products to show up because their members looked at videos featuring pets.

I don't pretend to have thought every issue through... but the idea that we can't or shouldn't do anything about this is just flat wrong. I'm smart enough to know that a website with a name like iutyut.com offering new DeWalt tools for 80% off is likely a scam, but lots of people aren't. If I go to WalMart.com or Amazon, I expect that anything am allowed to purchase there, even if it gets fulfilled by 'iutyut.com' carries some sort of recourse through the owner of the site... or a clear disclaimer if not.

I'm speaking about shopping, but 'news' shouldn't be any different. If they censor, they are responsible for choosing what gets printed. If they don't censor, they can still make sure that like getting a press pass, that 'news' sites are identified as 'news' and 'not news' are identified as opinions. Lots of opinions ARE correct, but they are still just opinions. National Enquirer vs FOX or CNN (and not the op ed or entertainment departments of those feeds)

The problem with getting rid of 230, is you are now saying that Facebook or Twitter can be held legally responsible for stuff that you or I post.

Although you alluded to something that I think does need to be governed, and that is the use of our own information. Companies can gather millions of data points on us, that can then be sold to companies who want to disseminate fake news. They can use it to target middle of the road people who are religious that says Trump admitted he was the anti christ, or target a middle of the road conservative that pelosi drafted a bill to arrest everybody who votes republicans (or whatever or crazy stuff you want to think of).

I think that is more of an issue than just banning some people from facebook or twitter. People's information can be sold and used to manipulate what you see and how you see it.

If you took that away, companies wouldn't be able to target certain demographics, right down to the county level. Take all that away and make companies have to advertise to a broader audience, in which case, their BS would get found out more easily.

Campaigns wouldn't spend millions of dollars on this if they didn't think it worked.

(12-02-2020 04:34 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 03:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 02:22 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  For once, I somewhat agree with Tom. I'm against repealing 230 entirely. Not sure the internet could function without it.

So here is MY question...

Much is made about protecting sites like Twitter and Facebook, but undeniably, most 'hate groups' and certainly groups seeking to mislead and misinform voters have taken advantage of

I find it inconsistent that the left on this issue would have made such a big deal about 'misinformation campaigns', 'Russian interference' and the apparent (but not demonstrable) rise in 'hate groups' and yet not seek to do anything about it, except to use it to elect 'their' people, often through similar misinformation campaigns, interference and hate.

Its wrong if the interference comes from Russia... It's okay if it comes from France or inside our borders. It's wrong if the hate or misinformation comes from 'these' people... it's okay if it comes from 'these' people.

There is an interesting mini-series on Netflix called 'evil'... and the basic premise is that the internet has allowed previously disparate and disorganized 'bad' people to organize and appear larger than they are. While the series is a bit of a trip down 'criminal minds' coupled with 'paranormal activity', we've all seen the real world results of both a site with no legal responsibility even for hate speech along with sites that only censor that speech they disagree with. Its a common complaint on any moderated forum... that the moderator is only censoring 'certain' speech... whether its true or not.

At the very least, websites should be responsible for ensuring that as we do in news, that OP EDs are clearly identified as such. I'd say the same about some of the ridiculous, misleading and illegal ads on sites like facebook... but you can't get your money back because the site is in another country... and you can't bother with facebook because they hide behind a shield of 'we didn't post the ad'. FTR, I'm not talking about things in the 'marketplace' section, but the ads that pop up in your feed, based on your browsing history through facebook's algorithms. They are specifically complicit in allowing misleading ads about 'pet' products to show up because their members looked at videos featuring pets.

I don't pretend to have thought every issue through... but the idea that we can't or shouldn't do anything about this is just flat wrong. I'm smart enough to know that a website with a name like iutyut.com offering new DeWalt tools for 80% off is likely a scam, but lots of people aren't. If I go to WalMart.com or Amazon, I expect that anything am allowed to purchase there, even if it gets fulfilled by 'iutyut.com' carries some sort of recourse through the owner of the site... or a clear disclaimer if not.

I'm speaking about shopping, but 'news' shouldn't be any different. If they censor, they are responsible for choosing what gets printed. If they don't censor, they can still make sure that like getting a press pass, that 'news' sites are identified as 'news' and 'not news' are identified as opinions. Lots of opinions ARE correct, but they are still just opinions. National Enquirer vs FOX or CNN (and not the op ed or entertainment departments of those feeds)

The problem with getting rid of 230, is you are now saying that Facebook or Twitter can be held legally responsible for stuff that you or I post.

Although you alluded to something that I think does need to be governed, and that is the use of our own information. Companies can gather millions of data points on us, that can then be sold to companies who want to disseminate fake news. They can use it to target middle of the road people who are religious that says Trump admitted he was the anti christ, or target a middle of the road conservative that pelosi drafted a bill to arrest everybody who votes republicans (or whatever or crazy stuff you want to think of).

I think that is more of an issue than just banning some people from facebook or twitter. People's information can be sold and used to manipulate what you see and how you see it.

If you took that away, companies wouldn't be able to target certain demographics, right down to the county level. Take all that away and make companies have to advertise to a broader audience, in which case, their BS would get found out more easily.

Campaigns wouldn't spend millions of dollars on this if they didn't think it worked.

I get your concerns and agree, especially about the personal data... but I think there are ways to address the legal issues. As an example (something I'm much more familiar with) HIPAA proscribes penalties for allowing a patient's private personal information to be divulged, but it does not penalize you just for being hacked or having information stolen. It only penalizes you if you don't take reasonable steps to protect the information, and then if made aware of a threat, you don't take reasonable and timely steps to address it.

I think something like that is possible.

I would create a law to protect social media sites from the Government where they can censor things that crosses the line. You agree to their terms of service. Don't cry like a bunch of babies when they take down your posts or banned you because you violated your contract that you agreed to in the first place.

Dont repeal it. Just clarify the definition of a platform and clearly lay out what it means to be a publisher. Place minimum of seven figure fines for companies operating as a platform that engage in any activities prohibited.




Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You can't repeal section 230, no matter how much Trump likes to talk about it.

Even then, I'm not sure what power he thinks he has here. Even if Trump vetoed it, the New congress could just bring it up again and send it to Biden once he takes office. His best bet would be hoping that by vetoing it would force congress to go back and discuss it again, but there's no real incentive for them to do so because Trump effectively has no power right now.

(12-02-2020 03:47 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  The problem is the selective enforcement of their TOS. 98 percent of the censorship on Twitter is levied to conservative viewpoints. Facts can be manipulated to serve a viewpoint.

Source?

(12-02-2020 06:16 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I would create a law to protect social media sites from the Government where they can censor things that crosses the line. You agree to their terms of service. Don't cry like a bunch of babies when they take down your posts or banned you because you violated your contract that you agreed to in the first place.

The minute a person [other than the one who speaks/writes the words] can change or limit the author - that is censorship and you are no longer social, you are a private publisher, Plain and simple.

If you want the protections of 230, the 1st amendment has to be allowed.

There are plenty of social media police out there who will call out a liar who do not run the site. It is up to the reader to absorb the statement(s) and rule for themselves whether it is correct or incorrect.

These SM companies are now trying to save their collective arse by trying to keep their sites from devolving into a cesspool by suppressing words and thoughts as the arbitor. I am all for them trying to do that, but they should give up their special 230 protection as that is clearly a one sided at worst and heavily leaning at best expression of speech.

(12-02-2020 02:22 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 02:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Good for him. Too bad he doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of it.

For once, I somewhat agree with Tom. I'm against repealing 230 entirely. Not sure the internet could function without it. That said, there needs to be a statutory amendment or supreme court ruling that prohibits Big Tech censorship (acting as a publisher) from utilizing the protections. That is, if you censor free speech, you lose your 230 protection.

To me, the legal reasoning should be pretty clear. The reason for 230 is that if you are merely providing a conduit or medium, then you aren't responsible for the content that others place on that conduit or medium. It's like suing the builder of a road if somebody drives down the road with an obscene or hateful wording visible on his/her car.

But if they censor content, they are no longer merely a conduit. At that point, it seems logical to me for them to assume some responsibility for content.

(12-03-2020 08:48 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 06:16 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I would create a law to protect social media sites from the Government where they can censor things that crosses the line. You agree to their terms of service. Don't cry like a bunch of babies when they take down your posts or banned you because you violated your contract that you agreed to in the first place.

The minute a person [other than the one who speaks/writes the words] can change or limit the author - that is censorship and you are no longer social, you are a private publisher, Plain and simple.

If you want the protections of 230, the 1st amendment has to be allowed.

There are plenty of social media police out there who will call out a liar who do not run the site. It is up to the reader to absorb the statement(s) and rule for themselves whether it is correct or incorrect.

These SM companies are now trying to save their collective arse by trying to keep their sites from devolving into a cesspool by suppressing words and thoughts as the arbitor. I am all for them trying to do that, but they should give up their special 230 protection as that is clearly a one sided at worst and heavily leaning at best expression of speech.

facebook and twitter aren't publishing the content though. It's being created by individuals who joined based on TOC.

the beauty of capitalism, is that if you don't like the way a company operates, you can take your business elsewhere, or go start up your own company to compete against them.

People like Redwingtom just dont understand where it stops at... Hey great, they screwed over the orange man! this is fantastic!

But idiots dont look to the future so they cant understand that at some point it is going to be the candidate they like that gets the same treatment.

The same thing happening with the confederacy crap... 20 years ago when it started becoming a hot topic "take down the statues, get rid of the confederate flag" I was saying then.. I dont care about the confederate flag, and I dont care about the statues... what I DO care about is where does it stop... When it comes down to it, every atrocity committed under the confederate flag.. was also committed under the US Flag... so at some point there will be a bunch of idiots running around protesting the US Flag and wanting to yank down statues of people like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln...

But, dumbasses cant see in the future, only the emotion they are wearing on their sleeves right at that moment.

(12-03-2020 09:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, the legal reasoning should be pretty clear. The reason for 230 is that if you are merely providing a conduit or medium, then you aren't responsible for the content that others place on that conduit or medium. It's like suing the builder of a road if somebody drives down the road with an obscene or hateful wording visible on his/her car.

But if they censor content, they are no longer merely a conduit. At that point, it seems logical to me for them to assume some responsibility for content.

From a basic level I agree... but facebook goes much further than this by providing their algorithm to 'direct' specific traffic to you based on your patterns... and even providing that information for people to exploit. YES, people agree to the TOS, but the average ADULT reading level in this country is 4th-7th grades... and despite dozens of pages of writing, it doesn't clearly state (to anyone but a lawyer) the risks being assumed. I challenge anyone to give the TOS to a 7th grader and have them understand it.

If I am afraid of bees and facebook learns this and starts directing to me scary stories about bees and ads for both legitimate and scam sellers of 'bee protection' services... then they are not merely a conduit... a paver of roads. They have directly engaged in my navigation. They have exploited my fears and enabled scammers to further exploit me.