Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[time4fun]

Meanwhile morons like you ignore the calls to murder the POTUS, attack Congressmen and so on as just peachy keen. Not to mention the calls for violence, rioting, looting, arson and murder all done on behest of BLM, Antifa and others for years now. You are serving up a heaping helping of hypocrisy and it stinks.

I don't seek repeal, I see applying it correctly and reclassifying those who edit, limit, modify and censor content like Facebook, Twitter, Google and others as publishers which is what they have become. Simply change their status, leave the law alone and let the market do it's job without the big tech using the protections as a shield to crush their competition with.

I also would like to see anti-trust law applied, hell, we broke up AT&T with less market share than FB, Twitter, Google and so on, US Steel, Standard Oil . . . all had less market share than the big tech giants but guess who is waltzing along because they have bought and paid for the Democrat party.

You just never seem to understand any topic you discuss. You're so lost in your right wing conspiracy theories that you're running around completely clueless without realizing it.

What happened with Parler happened to Parler. Not crazy people like you who were using the service. The right wing spin on this has been laughable. "This is an attack on conservatives everywhere! This was an attack on YOU!"

Parler agreed to terms of service with Google, Apple, and Amazon. And ALL of them include provisions about content that promotes violence or terrorism (Just like literally every other company who has a service involving user generated content). And the terms don't say that you can't have users who are creating that kind of content- they say that you must have a content moderation strategy that makes a good faith effort to take that content down as quickly as possible.

Parler refused to do that.

Apple, Google, AND Amazon had been warning Parler for weeks that it needed to create an effective and serious moderation policy- which is a requirement EVERY other UGC service that works with them has to meet..

Then there was a damn terrorist attack, and it turns out that people on Parler were planning their violence for it on the service. And the jackass CEO did a public interview where he said that people planning terrorism on Parler wasn't really his problem.

Apple even gave them another 24 hours afterwards to do what they promised they would do in their ToS. And the jackass STILL refused.

So riddle me this: why the hell should Parler be exempt from the ToS everyone else has to follow? Because conservatives use it? And why should Google, Apple, and Amazon be forced to be complicit in and be associated with a service that shrugs at terrorism being planned on their app?

Big Tech didn't attack anyone, least of all conservatives. Big Tech didn't target Parler because conservatives use it. Big Tech didn't screw Parler users over.

Parler did that all by itself.

And now you want the government to force a private entity to host speech it finds objectionable- which is a literal violation of the 1st Amendment. Or you want the government to retaliate against these companies for refusing to exempt a customer from terms they agreed to just because conservatives like to use it. There is no such thing as a 1st Amendment violation between two private entities. It doesn't exist because the 1st Amendment only ever applies to the government: it can neither restrict nor compel speech except in extreme situations (and no- your temper tantrum over this isn't an extreme situation). There's no censorship here because these companies aren't government entities. But what you want to happen- THAT'S actually an attack on Free Speech.

And I'm going to guess you had no idea any of that was going on. Because you're too god damn stupid to pull your head out of extreme, right wing partisan news. A willing, easily manipulated sheep is all you are.

[Tgo01]

Section 230 means a website's administrator is not liable for its content. Without it, obscenity and defamation laws alone are enough to establish Solkern's point.

The government can neither force a private website to be moderated nor force a private website to stop using a particular form of moderation (such as your "edit, manipulate, or selectively censor"). That is freedom - the government being unable to force a private entity to do or not do something.

I already corrected Solkern but I'll correct you too because I never tire of being right.

Long before 230 was even a thing the courts already ruled that there is a difference between a publisher (book publishing companies, news papers, etc) and entities that merely provide a platform and don't curate the content of others (libraries, newsstands, bookstores, dentist offices that have magazines in the waiting room, etc.) The former could be sued for defamation, the latter could not.

Reason being the guy running a newsstand on a street corner isn't going to read each and every newspaper, magazine, and book he sells to ensure only content he approves of is sold. This is much different from a book publisher which does read each and every single book they sell to ensure only content they approve of is sold.

The reason 230 came about is because when the internet was starting to get popular and was cheap enough for most regular folk to afford the courts had to decide when a service provider was acting as a publisher or if they were merely providing a platform. The courts decided if the company took a hands off approach they were a platform and thus not liable for defamation and the like, if the company was moderating the speech of others then they were a publisher and open to lawsuits.

Congress decided an all or nothing approach was a bit too much and thus 230 was born which allowed internet providers to remain platforms even if they engaged in good faith moderating. Problem is internet companies haven't been acting in good faith in many years and are totally taking advantage of section 230.

In short: you are wrong as per usual.

This is now where you bring up something totally unrelated and pretend even though I have just thoroughly destroyed you once again, you claim to still be right.

Oh yeah, almost forgot your bit about "That is freedom - the government being unable to force a private entity to do or not do something" is also completely wrong because section 230 mostly deals with civil suits, internet companies can sure as shit still get in trouble with criminal laws.

[Neveragain]

Meanwhile morons like you ignore the calls to murder the POTUS, attack Congressmen and so on as just peachy keen. Not to mention the calls for violence, rioting, looting, arson and murder all done on behest of BLM, Antifa and others for years now. You are serving up a heaping helping of hypocrisy and it stinks.

I don't seek repeal, I see applying it correctly and reclassifying those who edit, limit, modify and censor content like Facebook, Twitter, Google and others as publishers which is what they have become. Simply change their status, leave the law alone and let the market do it's job without the big tech using the protections as a shield to crush their competition with.

I also would like to see anti-trust law applied, hell, we broke up AT&T with less market share than FB, Twitter, Google and so on, US Steel, Standard Oil . . . all had less market share than the big tech giants but guess who is waltzing along because they have bought and paid for the Democrat party.

How long was the telephone around before they broke up Ma Bell? You couldn't even buy your own telephone before we broke up AT&T.

The interwebs is in it's infancy, there's waaaaay to much room for growth to start throwing around monopoly laws. It will only fuck shit up before it even gets started. Twitter will phase out over time because of the direction they are going, that's what happens to vacuum chambers. It will reach a point where it's only Jack Dorsey telling himself how great his vagina looks.

It's also a bit interesting that the positions switch when it comes to the fairness doctrine.

Waffling motherfuckers.

[Latrinsorm]

Meanwhile morons like you ignore the calls to murder the POTUS, attack Congressmen and so on as just peachy keen. Not to mention the calls for violence, rioting, looting, arson and murder all done on behest of BLM, Antifa and others for years now. You are serving up a heaping helping of hypocrisy and it stinks.

I don't seek repeal, I see applying it correctly and reclassifying those who edit, limit, modify and censor content like Facebook, Twitter, Google and others as publishers which is what they have become. Simply change their status, leave the law alone and let the market do it's job without the big tech using the protections as a shield to crush their competition with.

I also would like to see anti-trust law applied, hell, we broke up AT&T with less market share than FB, Twitter, Google and so on, US Steel, Standard Oil . . . all had less market share than the big tech giants but guess who is waltzing along because they have bought and paid for the Democrat party.

For the record, anti-trust law is enforced by the FTC, which Republicans have chaired and had majority control over for years. If the reason the big tech giants haven't been broken up is because they have bought and paid for a party, that party must therefore be our Republican Party.

[~Rocktar~]

You just never seem to understand any topic you discuss. You're so lost in your right wing conspiracy theories that you're running around completely clueless without realizing it.

What happened with Parler happened to Parler. Not crazy people like you who were using the service. The right wing spin on this has been laughable. "This is an attack on conservatives everywhere! This was an attack on YOU!"

Parler agreed to terms of service with Google, Apple, and Amazon. And ALL of them include provisions about content that promotes violence or terrorism (Just like literally every other company who has a service involving user generated content). And the terms don't say that you can't have users who are creating that kind of content- they say that you must have a content moderation strategy that makes a good faith effort to take that content down as quickly as possible.

Parler refused to do that.

Apple, Google, AND Amazon had been warning Parler for weeks that it needed to create an effective and serious moderation policy- which is a requirement EVERY other UGC service that works with them has to meet..

Then there was a damn terrorist attack, and it turns out that people on Parler were planning their violence for it on the service. And the jackass CEO did a public interview where he said that people planning terrorism on Parler wasn't really his problem.

Apple even gave them another 24 hours afterwards to do what they promised they would do in their ToS. And the jackass STILL refused.

So riddle me this: why the hell should Parler be exempt from the ToS everyone else has to follow? Because conservatives use it? And why should Google, Apple, and Amazon be forced to be complicit in and be associated with a service that shrugs at terrorism being planned on their app?

Big Tech didn't attack anyone, least of all conservatives. Big Tech didn't target Parler because conservatives use it. Big Tech didn't screw Parler users over.

Parler did that all by itself.

And now you want the government to force a private entity to host speech it finds objectionable- which is a literal violation of the 1st Amendment. Or you want the government to retaliate against these companies for refusing to exempt a customer from terms they agreed to just because conservatives like to use it. There is no such thing as a 1st Amendment violation between two private entities. It doesn't exist because the 1st Amendment only ever applies to the government: it can neither restrict nor compel speech except in extreme situations (and no- your temper tantrum over this isn't an extreme situation). There's no censorship here because these companies aren't government entities. But what you want to happen- THAT'S actually an attack on Free Speech.

And I'm going to guess you had no idea any of that was going on. Because you're too god damn stupid to pull your head out of extreme, right wing partisan news. A willing, easily manipulated sheep is all you are.

As always, you are wrong.

[~Rocktar~]

For the record, anti-trust law is enforced by the FTC, which Republicans have chaired and had majority control over for years. If the reason the big tech giants haven't been broken up is because they have bought and paid for a party, that party must therefore be our Republican Party.

For the record, only totalitarian Leftist shills like yourself assume that party affiliation means blind obedience. Conservative means trying to conserve what we have, not over use government to step on freedoms. It has taken a long time for conservatives to come around to the damage being done by big tech monopolies and the call for action will only rise from here.

[drauz]

Conservative means trying to conserve what we have, not over use government to step on freedoms.

[Latrinsorm]

I already corrected Solkern but I'll correct you too because I never tire of being right.

Long before 230 was even a thing the courts already ruled that there is a difference between a publisher (book publishing companies, news papers, etc) and entities that merely provide a platform and don't curate the content of others (libraries, newsstands, bookstores, dentist offices that have magazines in the waiting room, etc.) The former could be sued for defamation, the latter could not.

Reason being the guy running a newsstand on a street corner isn't going to read each and every newspaper, magazine, and book he sells to ensure only content he approves of is sold. This is much different from a book publisher which does read each and every single book they sell to ensure only content they approve of is sold.

The reason 230 came about is because when the internet was starting to get popular and was cheap enough for most regular folk to afford the courts had to decide when a service provider was acting as a publisher or if they were merely providing a platform. The courts decided if the company took a hands off approach they were a platform and thus not liable for defamation and the like, if the company was moderating the speech of others then they were a publisher and open to lawsuits.

Congress decided an all or nothing approach was a bit too much and thus 230 was born which allowed internet providers to remain platforms even if they engaged in good faith moderating. Problem is internet companies haven't been acting in good faith in many years and are totally taking advantage of section 230.

In short: you are wrong as per usual.

This is now where you bring up something totally unrelated and pretend even though I have just thoroughly destroyed you once again, you claim to still be right.

Oh yeah, almost forgot your bit about "That is freedom - the government being unable to force a private entity to do or not do something" is also completely wrong because section 230 mostly deals with civil suits, internet companies can sure as shit still get in trouble with criminal laws.

Good try. "The courts" had ruled in multiple contradictory ways, as they tend to do. Sometimes these contradictions are settled by the Supreme Court, sometimes they're settled by federal law, sometimes they're not settled at all - this is one of the middle times, and section 230 clearly and unambiguously says "No provider of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher of any information provided by another information content provider." No caveats, no provisos, no ifs ands or buts.

It then additionally talks about good faith moderation, but the presence or absence of moderation of any kind is completely irrelevant to the first, clear, unambiguous protection. Don't believe me! Ask Nemet Chevrolet, who sued a website for selectively editing reviews against them and got laughed out of court, or "thoroughly destroyed" if you will.

[Latrinsorm]

For the record, only totalitarian Leftist shills like yourself assume that party affiliation means blind obedience. Conservative means trying to conserve what we have, not over use government to step on freedoms. It has taken a long time for conservatives to come around to the damage being done by big tech monopolies and the call for action will only rise from here.

To review, you can believe the "Democrat [sic] party [sic]" is bought and paid for by tech giants, their party affiliation means blind obedience, and they (somehow?) have the power to stop anti-trust enforcement despite having no control over the FTC. That's all fine and reasonable.

When I merely point out the recent composition of the FTC and what that implies for your argument, I'm a totalitarian Leftist [sic] shill.

[caelric]

I'm a totalitarian Leftist [sic] shill.

Well, I mean, you are.