Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots

[SlickAg]

Fair point - the gay couple wasn’t claiming First A protection. Still the relevant part was used to protect the service provider, even if on a narrow basis.

Still bugs me to call social media moderation a First Amendment issue in that you’re still, through government regulation, fundamentally saying a private entity can’t choose who they do business with. It’d be like a museum choosing to take down an art display as backlash to something an artist does. Or a bar firing a band for saying something politically objectionable. Why open that door at all?

Which is why it’d really only be consistent to apply anti-censorship regulation from a Section 230 reform standpoint.

The problem is that the concept, the idea, the ethos behind Twitter was "freedom of expression...speaking truth to power...empowering dialogue". But then they didn't hold up what was seemingly their end of the bargain.

I'll be honest, I've enjoyed this thread because I find it intellectually invigorating. As political as these conversations have been, which was inevitable, I feel like it's been fairly respectful from all viewpoints.

I'm hopeful that the lessons learned from this thread can be applied to other controversial topics as well.

 

[ABMD]

I imagine we'll see social media platforms transition from a "digital street corner" model to a "digital print service provider" that will put supported content more in the model of newspaper editorial/ad pages as they realize the power they have. But I'd also imagine the continued emergence of alternative social media platforms such as Parler, etc.

You know Parler is pretty much shut down until they can get another site to host them? Big-Tech is literally silencing anything that is unwilling to silence or police content.

again, edit..posted this before I saw someone else already did

 

[BigRed389]

The problem is that the concept, the idea, the ethos behind Twitter was "freedom of expression...speaking truth to power...empowering dialogue". But then they didn't hold up what was seemingly their end of the bargain.

I'll be honest, I've enjoyed this thread because I find it intellectually invigorating. As political as these conversations have been, which was inevitable, I feel like it's been fairly respectful from all viewpoints.

I'm hopeful that the lessons learned from this thread can be applied to other controversial topics as well.

I won’t disagree on the bias of those platforms but ideals often fail to stand up to reality and we have to deal with it as best we can. FB is even worse.
Also agreed been nice to have a debate without being called a communist or fascist (depending on who I’m talking to) for a change.

But neither of those things obligated them to give users free speech, right (not being difficult, I honestly don't know)?

So newspapers and TV are not required, obviously as they choose what they publish, so they can do what they want other than general FCC decency guidelines and such. Their protected speech is their speech, not outside users.

Section 230 also does not at the moment which is why they can kick people off. What’s suggested is reform it so that if companies want to claim the privileges that go with it then they cannot apply censorship aside from otherwise criminal/illegal content - which I see as addressing existing problems like doxxing. I think there’s a clear cut line for political content to be free of censorship. I think there’s wiggle room for things like hate speech - again working under 230 gives the government/industry to find a way to something mutually agreeable that can be consistent across industry, but that’s something that could go either way and get revisited.

 

[Pags]

You know Parler is pretty much shut down until they can get another site to host them? Big-Tech is literally silencing anything that is unwilling to silence or police content.

Yeah, I know. But I imagine someone will host them. Or someone will host the next Parler-esque twitter alternative.

 

[SlickAg]

But neither of those things obligated them to give users free speech, right (not being difficult, I honestly don't know)?

Hate speech is generally protected under the First Amendment. So as long as it's not illegal, Section 230 removes the liability for tech companies to moderate that content. This is the key phrase: "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." As long as they are not the publisher or the speaker, they are essentially immune from liability. When they start selectively censoring or suppressing speech, other than what is illegal, violent, obscene, etc, they became a "publisher" because they're editing and moderating content.

President Trump went after Big Tech companies and Section 230 with an Executive Order. Bill Barr held a summit about Section 230 reform. Republican lawmakers have been proposing amendments and changes to it. If the Republicans had gained power, I think there would have been some pretty sweeping changes.

 

[Brett327]

It’s fascinating to watch some of you assail the most fundamental and sacred principles of raw capitalism- competition, profit maximization, and the invisible hand of the free market in determining the behavior of corporations. The cognitive dissonance must be shearing the hemispheres of your brains into tiny gelatinous bits.

 

[Jim123]

I wonder if Sealand still does internet site hosting. Their wiki page suggests not anymore.

I'm sure Parler will soon be able to find a new physical home, somewhere.

Apple deleting the app from their app store is laughable. Five years ago they sure cared more about money than cooperating with law enforcement on domestic terrorism. It's about politics and money, it always is; values the other niceties are convenient when they don't interfere with these two things.

 

[SlickAg]

It’s fascinating to watch some of you assail the most fundamental and sacred principles of raw capitalism- competition, profit maximization, and the invisible hand of the free market in determining the behavior of corporations. The cognitive dissonance must be shearing the hemispheres of your brains into tiny gelatinous bits.

Laissez-faire has never really been the bedrock of the American economic system. I also didn't figure you for a The Heritage Foundation type.

 

[Pags]

I won’t disagree on the bias of those platforms but ideals often fail to stand up to reality and we have to deal with it as best we can
Also agreed been nice to have a debate without being called a communist or fascist (depending on who I’m talking to) for a change.




So newspapers and TV are not required, obviously as they choose what they publish, so they can do what they want other than general FCC decency guidelines and such. Their protected speech is their speech, not outside users.

Section 230 also does not at the moment which is why they can kick people off. What’s suggested is reform it so that if companies want to claim the privileges that go with it then they cannot apply censorship aside from otherwise criminal/illegal content - which I see as addressing existing problems like doxxing. I think there’s a clear cut line for political content to be free of censorship. I think there’s wiggle room for things like hate speech - again working under 230 gives the government/industry to find a way to something mutually agreeable that can be consistent across industry, but that’s something that could go either way and get revisited.

Thanks. So basically 230 says I can run a website/ISP/social media platform that caters to whatever freaky nonsense I want. But it doesn't mean that I have to allow whatever anyone wants. For instance, while PagsPacificWarEsoteriaAndWoodworking.com is under no obligation to provide a sub forum on furries and if I cast out the furries on that site they can't take me to court for censoring them.

Since the attack was on the very body of folks who make those laws I wonder if this was done as a preemptive step to try and limit future restrictions. Or to put it another way, the laws they operate under can always be changed and if Congress hypothetical decided that they had played a major part in the attack on Congress they may look at changing the laws. Especially considering they've been on the congressional hot seat recently.

 

[Ghost SWO]

It’s fascinating to watch some of you assail the most fundamental and sacred principles of raw capitalism- competition, profit maximization, and the invisible hand of the free market in determining the behavior of corporations. The cognitive dissonance must be shearing the hemispheres of your brains into tiny gelatinous bits.

Yes. Can you rephrase at a 5th grade level? The dissonance is resonating quite strong with me.

 

[SlickAg]

I wonder if Sealand still does internet site hosting. Their wiki page suggests not anymore.

I'm sure Parler will soon be able to find a new physical home, somewhere.

Apple deleting the app from their app store is laughable. Five years ago they sure cared more about money than cooperating with law enforcement on domestic terrorism. It's about politics and money, it always is; values the other niceties are convenient when they don't interfere with these two things.

Their CEO said no one is willing to do business with them right now.

Cancel culture at its finest. Quilt by association, if you will.

In true American spirit, however, they did file a lawsuit against AWS today.

I'm glad you mentioned the last part. People forget about that. Not to mention...whoops!

Apple knew a supplier was using child labor but took 3 years to fully cut ties, despite the company's promises to hold itself to the 'highest standards,' report says

Ex-employees told The Information that Apple kept working with suppliers, despite repeated labor law violations, when cutting ties was more costly.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[SlickAg]

Thanks. So basically 230 says I can run a website/ISP/social media platform that caters to whatever freaky nonsense I want. But it doesn't mean that I have to allow whatever anyone wants. For instance, while PagsPacificWarEsoteriaAndWoodworking.com is under no obligation to provide a sub forum on furries and if I cast out the furries on that site they can't take me to court for censoring them.

Since the attack was on the very body of folks who make those laws I wonder if this was done as a preemptive step to try and limit future restrictions. Or to put it another way, the laws they operate under can always be changed and if Congress hypothetical decided that they had played a major part in the attack on Congress they may look at changing the laws. Especially considering they've been on the congressional hot seat recently.

Not exactly.

Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.

So you'd have to be prepared to argue why the furries fall into one of the above categories. Otherwise, you're engaging in editorial conduct and forfeit your safe harbor protections. Would you win with the furries? Probably. Would you win if you decided to remove the guy who kept arguing the Wildcat was actually a better plane than the Hellcat? Doubtful, even though we all know it's the fakest of news.

Yeah, I know. But I imagine someone will host them. Or someone will host the next Parler-esque twitter alternative.

So they were talking about this on the radio today (it was Fox News). It would take billions of dollars of investment into a stand-alone cloud company in order to make President Trump's dream of a Twitter alternative a reality. The buzz is that apparently there is not enough interest to make that happen. And Parler is toxic right now, getting dumped and turned down by everyone.

 

[BigRed389]

Not exactly.

Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.

So you'd have to be prepared to argue why the furries fall into one of the above categories. Otherwise, you're engaging in editorial conduct and forfeit your safe harbor protections. Would you win with the furries? Probably. Would you win if you decided to remove the guy who kept arguing the Wildcat was actually a better plane than the Hellcat? Doubtful, even though we all know it's the fakest of news.

I think they’re being stupid right now. They’re overreaching with some of the latest hits right now (hitting content that literally has nothing to do with stop the steal) and there are enough Democrats who hate Big Tech to go after them as well.

If this spawns an unholy alliance between AOC and Ted Cruz I will laugh my ass off.

 

[Pags]

Their CEO said no one is willing to do business with them right now.

Cancel culture at its finest. Quilt by association, if you will.

In true American spirit, however, they did file a lawsuit against AWS today.

I'm glad you mentioned the last part. People forget about that. Not to mention...whoops!

Apple knew a supplier was using child labor but took 3 years to fully cut ties, despite the company's promises to hold itself to the 'highest standards,' report says

Ex-employees told The Information that Apple kept working with suppliers, despite repeated labor law violations, when cutting ties was more costly.

www.businessinsider.com

There's money to be made here and I'm sure someone will offer up their services. I'm sure someone in Thailand would do it.

 

[Sam I am]

This thread is just a splendid shit-show.