Our Politicians have lost their way

[Shaps]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/social-media-sites-booted-trump-230128953.html

When you have the Mexican President supporting American ideals and the law of free speech more than your own Politicians... you know we're in bizarro world.

Hopefully at the State and local levels in the 2022 elections the citizenry starts taking this country back from the jackasses we have in power now.

[Seran]

Mexico is ranked nearly at the top of the list of countries with the most atrocious censorship and for attacks on reporters, barely behind the worst dictatorships in the world. They don't get a free pass simply because they don't want Facebook to censor their lies like they did Trump

[~Rocktar~]

Mexico is ranked nearly at the top of the list of countries with the most atrocious censorship and for attacks on reporters, barely behind the worst dictatorships in the world. They don't get a free pass simply because they don't want Facebook to censor their lies like they did Trump

And they should lose their 230 protections BECAUSE they censor people. Let the free market deal with them then.

[Shaps]

Mexico is ranked nearly at the top of the list of countries with the most atrocious censorship and for attacks on reporters, barely behind the worst dictatorships in the world. They don't get a free pass simply because they don't want Facebook to censor their lies like they did Trump

That's why I called it Bizarro world you dipshit. Learn to understand context instead of your blind hatred. Your hypocrisy, and that of the current political majority, is astounding.

[Ashliana]

And they should lose their 230 protections BECAUSE they censor people. Let the free market deal with them then.

Let's hear your fantasy about what you magical abilities you (incorrectly, retardedly) think §230 gives tech companies.

[Parkbandit]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/19/what-is-section-230-and-why-do-some-people-want-to-change-it.html

[Ashliana]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/19/what-is-section-230-and-why-do-some-people-want-to-change-it.html

That's a nice evasion attempt, but an unsuccessful one. There's no problem with that article. There's a problem with numerous conservatives, including you idiots on this board, misrepresenting what it does. So let's hear one of those board conservatives, in their own words, state what behavior §230 supposedly facilitates, and why repealing it would accomplish the desired effect.

Spoiler Alert: If you think it has anything to do with the platforms' ability to remove Donald Trump, you're incorrect. :) If you think repealing it would lead to conservatives being able to say anything they want on social media without repercussion, you're basically about as wrong as you could be.

[Parkbandit]

That's a nice evasion attempt, but an unsuccessful one. There's no problem with that article. There's a problem with numerous conservatives, including you idiots on this board, misrepresenting what it does. So let's hear one of those board conservatives, in their own words, state what behavior §230 supposedly facilitates, and why repealing it would accomplish the desired effect.

Spoiler Alert: If you think it has anything to do with the platforms' ability to remove Donald Trump, you're incorrect. :) If you think repealing it would lead to conservatives being able to say anything they want on social media without repercussion, you're basically about as wrong as you could be.

What are you talking about? I literally answered a dumb question you asked.

Remove the 230 and let the free market work. As it is currently, the Tech companies can do whatever they want to do with their platform without repercussions from people who feel they've been wronged.

Let's let the court decide.

But the Biden Administration and Congress won't want to do anything since the tech companies are doing their bidding.. so we will have to wait until 2022.

[Ashliana]

What are you talking about? I literally answered a dumb question you asked. Except for that whole inconvenient part where no, you didn't answer it, and as we'll see, the next sentence out of your mouth demonstrates your ignorance, so it was quite pointed.


Remove the 230 and let the free market work. As it is currently, the Tech companies can do whatever they want to do with their platform without repercussions from people who feel they've been wronged.

§230 doesn't have anything to do with "the free market." So we're back to the validity of my question -- conservative ignorance about what the law does, since you were too stupid to understand the point of the question. §230 doesn't give tech companies the ability or permission to do literally ANYTHING they didn't have the power to do prior to the law. All it does is clarify liability, and transfer the liability for a user's statement to the user, and not the tech company hosting the user's statement. For example, who's responsible right now for your retarded statements on the PC? You. If §230 were repealed, Kranar becomes responsible. The result? Way more heavy-handed moderation, either in scanning posts constantly and taking down anything controversial, or making all comments be explicitly approved through a queue. Most platforms simply wouldn't allow public discussion, since it would be crazy risk, legally, for the platform.


Let's let the court decide.

This doesn't make any sense at all. Are you under the ignorant assumption -- yet again -- that there's currently a case involving §230 making its way through the courts? There isn't. The conservative-majority Court declined (https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-declines-review-section-230-for-now) to hear the most recent one.


But the Biden Administration and Congress won't want to do anything since the tech companies are doing their bidding.. so we will have to wait until 2022.

This is the only thing you've said that isn't monumentally retarded, though you've attributed it to them "doing their bidding" rather than "§230 serves the public interest."

Spoiler Alert: There's a shit ton to criticize about tech companies, and the essential monopoly that the lack of federal regulation, which Republicans hate, helped create. But you're too poorly informed about the topic to have a meaningful opinion on the subject, just like everything else in your life.

[~Rocktar~]

Let's hear your fantasy about what you magical abilities you (incorrectly, retardedly) think §230 gives tech companies.

As has been explained plainly and clearly multiple times to you and others, Section 230 protects companies designated as "mediums" from lawsuit over what they transmit over their network. In order to have that protection, they must not edit, manipulate or restrict what is transmitted because then they become a publisher and are then libel for what they transmit. So, censoring people moves them out of the medium zone and into publisher.

Now, we need active enforcement of the law regarding this because right now, they are getting the best of both worlds.

So, if you remove those protections, Leftist pieces of shit like yourself and others can sue them for conservative articles calling you pieces of shit. And conversely Conservatives can then sue them for the complete fabrications and falsified propaganda they publish. The blizzard of lawsuits from all sides would possibly be fatal to them. So, if there were active enforcement of Section 230 rules, they would either have to stop censoring people to keep their protection or they would have to face the music like a publisher and likely get ripped to shreds by the ensuing lawsuits.

This is something like the 3rd or 4th time I have explained this to you. I used small words and simple sentences so if there is something you don't understand, you need to ask now because this will be the last. I am no longer entertaining you or back and others petulant game.

[~Rocktar~]

§230 doesn't have anything to do with "the free market." So we're back to the validity of my question -- conservative ignorance about what the law does, since you were too stupid to understand the point of the question. §230 doesn't give tech companies the ability or permission to do literally ANYTHING they didn't have the power to do prior to the law. All it does is transfer the liability for a user's statement to the user, and not the tech company hosting the user's statement. For example, who's responsible right now for your retarded statements on the PC? You. If §230 were repealed, Kranar becomes responsible. The result? Way more heavy-handed moderation, either in scanning posts constantly and taking down anything controversial, or making all comments be explicitly approved through a queue. Most platforms simply wouldn't allow public discussion, since it would be crazy risk, legally, for the platform.

Except you are wrong. Section 230 prevents free market functioning in the area of lawsuits for liability of what is transmitted, altered, edited or manipulated by the current batch of abusers. Companies like FB and Google can manipulate things all over the place like an editor and not be held accountable for it in court. You are right it doesn't remove the ability to do something, it removes the liability/responsibility for doing those things.

Also, there is no "transfer" of liability since the original author of materials was and is always responsible for what they say, Section 230 never removed or altered that.

Section 230 removed liability for transmitting material or hosting material as long as the transmitting or hosting company was not editing the material. Both FB. Google and others are clearly and egregiously editing material so they should lose those protections.

And your assertions about no conversation happening without it, well, wrong, plenty of conversations were happening online before Section 230 came along, mediums didn't limit or edit the conversations except with regard to laws like child porn and so on.

[Ashliana]

As has been explained plainly and clearly multiple times to you and others

Wrong. You've repeatedly misrepresented the law, as you literally did in this post, as we'll see.


Section 230 protects companies designated as "mediums"* from lawsuit over what they transmit over their network. In order to have that protection, they must not edit, manipulate or restrict what is transmitted because then they become a publisher and are then libel for what they transmit. So, censoring people moves them out of the medium zone and into publisher.

* Citation required. Spoiler Alert: The term "medium" doesn't appear in §230, nor is there a magical test for a company to be "categorized" as a publisher by virtue of their choice to moderate. In reality, §230 EXPLICITLY emphasizes their ability to moderate, even when the material itself is constitutionally protected.


Now, we need active enforcement of the law regarding this because right now, they are getting the best of both worlds.

This statement makes absolutely no sense and is rooted in your ignorance of the law. §230 is a clarification of liability with regard to civil suits, not magical restrictions placed on companies. There's no "enforcing" §230, it can only be "used" to dismiss an incorrectly filed lawsuit if someone tries suing a hosting platform for the content of a user.


So, if you remove those protections, Leftist pieces of shit like yourself and others can sue them for conservative articles calling you pieces of shit. And conversely Conservatives can then sue them for the complete fabrications and falsified propaganda they publish. The blizzard of lawsuits from all sides would possibly be fatal to them. So, if there were active enforcement of Section 230 rules, they would either have to stop censoring people to keep their protection or they would have to face the music like a publisher and likely get ripped to shreds by the ensuing lawsuits.

Again, this is rooted in your retarded fantasy that §230 places limitations on tech companies preventing them from moderating, which it in absolutely no way does. Repealing 230, as I said above, would place any hosting platform at risk for any objectionable content, and result in most of them not allowing user comments at all.


This is something like the 3rd or 4th time I have explained this to you. I used small words and simple sentences so if there is something you don't understand, you need to ask now because this will be the last. I am no longer entertaining you or back and others petulant game.

This is like the 3rd or 4th time it's been explained to you that you're basically just making shit up, and are too lazy to read any breakdowns (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml)of your numerous (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actually) misconceptions about the law (https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/dear-congress-platform-accountability-should-not-threaten-online-expression/).

Willful ignorance on your part does not constitute a reasoned position.

[Ashliana]

Except you are wrong. Section 230 prevents free market functioning in the area of lawsuits for liability of what is transmitted, altered, edited or manipulated by the current batch of abusers. Companies like FB and Google can manipulate things all over the place like an editor and not be held accountable for it in court. You are right it doesn't remove the ability to do something, it removes the liability/responsibility for doing those things.

Also, there is no "transfer" of liability since the original author of materials was and is always responsible for what they say, Section 230 never removed or altered that.

Kudos on contradicting yourself without skipping a beat, but alas, no, your unilateral declaration that users being liable for their content rather than social media platforms in no way "prevents free market functioning." Facebook's ability to ban you for breaking their terms of service in no way prevents you from starting a competitor to host your own shitty content.


Section 230 removed liability for transmitting material or hosting material as long as the transmitting or hosting company was not editing the material. Both FB. Google and others are clearly and egregiously editing material so they should lose those protections.

Wrong. §230 was intended to clear up differences in the outcome of the famous Prodigy case vs. the prior CompuServe case. §230 doesn't place any kind of limitation on the platform from moderating, and in reality, EXPLICITLY emphasizes their ability to moderate, even when the material itself is constitutionally protected.


And your assertions about no conversation happening without it, well, wrong, plenty of conversations were happening online before Section 230 came along, mediums didn't limit or edit the conversations except with regard to laws like child porn and so on.

Your ignorance about why §230 came into being only reflect on you. It was written explicitly to address perversions of outcomes in cases like Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, where Prodigy was moderating their boards, versus CompuServe, which didn't. Social media platforms on the scale that exist today most certainly didn't exist then, and wouldn't have been practical given the liability challenges that moderation at scale require.

[Shaps]

I highly recommend not engaging with Ashliana - my focus is much better without paying attention to their circular, illogical rhetoric.

Offering them any feedback or response only encourages their stupidity. They're just trying to drive you insane so you have to suffer in the same hell and misery they most assuredly do on a day to day basis.

Public service announcement complete.

[Ashliana]

I highly recommend not engaging with Ashliana - my focus is much better without paying attention to their circular, illogical rhetoric.

Offering them any feedback or response only encourages their stupidity. They're just trying to drive you insane so you have to suffer in the same hell and misery they most assuredly do on a day to day basis.

Public service announcement complete.

There's a reason you're not an attorney. You can't get your facts straight, and in any serious discussion, facts matter. Best of luck substantiating the assertion that my rhetoric is "circular and illogical," though. :)

I know you're bitter about your inability to argue your way out of a wet paper bag. Perhaps you should use this time for some introspection about why you embarrassed yourself by starting a discussion you were too ignorant of the subject matter of in which to actually participate. Be more selective in your topics next time.

[Shaps]

This is a perfect example.

I see who the poster is, I skip over the text. It's an amazing feeling. I'm sure it was some blah, blah, blah... but guess what? I don't care, and neither should you.

[Ashliana]

This was my best attempt to soothe my bruised ego about having to concede, since I didn't know enough about a topic I started to participate in the discussion.

https://i.gifer.com/3aqY.gif