George Floyd killing and the aftermath

[Ashliana]

Actually I do. Currently the companies are able to remove whatever they want WHILE protected.

230 should be amended to protect political speech if the company presents itself as a platform. Currently they censor political speech (on both sides, though tilted). Very few companies control a global monopoly, and to state otherwise is just naïve.

What you don't get - or you all keep ignoring - is I am FOR companies protected by section 230. I am AGAINST companies that abuse the protections to regulate peoples speech, because it directly benefits their narrative and suppresses peoples right to civil discourse.

I am also against what Biden and the Democrats want to do to section 230. 230 does not need to be removed. Ensuring companies do not manipulate it is the issue.

You would think most could understand the nuance of such an idea, but apparently not.


And before you say whatever:

https://www.theverge.com/21273768/se...ree-moderation

"President-elect Joe Biden is less vocal than Trump about Section 230. But he’s also not a fan of the law. In January 2020, Biden proposed revoking Section 230 completely. “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said. “It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.”

That is AUTHORITARINISM. That shit is fucked up. I am not for that at all. So stop trying to change what I'm stating.

SIMPLE STATEMENT:

KEEP 230
ENSURE SOCIAL MEDIA SITES DON'T ABUSE THE PROTECTIONS IT AFFORDS

The Left wants to get rid of 230 so they can further control it. That's AUTHORITARINISM.


Edit: Hey Alfster... over there -------------------------> Thanks.

How nice that you now support §230. How unfortunate that you still don't understand what it allows, since no protection is being "abused." You don't have an absolute right to a private company's platform, period.

If you want to advocate a change in the law, then do so. Whining about how a company is "abusing" a law you don't understand doesn't mean anything.

[Shaps]

How nice that you now support §230. How unfortunate that you still don't understand what it allows, since no protection is being "abused." You don't have an absolute right to a private company's platform, period.

If you want to advocate a change in the law, then do so. Whining about how a company is "abusing" a law you don't understand doesn't mean anything.

You are a fucking moron. Nothing else to add.

[Ashliana]

You are a fucking moron. Nothing else to add.

Translation: "I can't refute anything that you said, but I sure hate that you said it." Y'know, since you're a fucking moron.

[Tgo01]

Translation: "I can't refute anything that you said, but I sure hate that you said it." Y'know, since you're a fucking moron.

I mean...it is kind of pointless to "refute" something when it's just so blatantly wrong. Which you are. You clearly have absolutely no idea what 230 is, the protections it provides, or how companies are supposed to operate in regards to 230.

Saying shit like "You don't have an absolute right to a private company's platform, period." flat out proves everything I just said above because that is not at all what is being discussed.

It's okay, Ashliana, not everyone has to know everything, but have some damn dignity and admit you don't know what you're talking about and are instead just repeating some talking points you heard on NPR or from Chuck Todd or something.

And once again this isn't an invitation to have an argument with me, most likely I won't be reading whatever eye bleeding response you are typing up for this.

[Ashliana]

I mean...it is kind of pointless to "refute" something when it's just so blatantly wrong. Which you are. You clearly have absolutely no idea what 230 is, the protections it provides, or how companies are supposed to operate in regards to 230.

You, Rocktar, Shaps, have repeatedly embarrassed yourselves on this topic. You don't know the first thing about the law. And not coincidentally, my stance happens to match those of the civil liberties groups that specialize in the topic, like the EFF's, ACLU's, etc.

Yours match with..? Is it bat-shit insane right-wing talking heads with no background in either law or tech? (Ding, ding, ding, ding!)

Trying to pretend you have the high ground when you couldn't actually demonstrate a single thing is hilariously stupid, though, Dreaven -- even for you. And that's saying something.

Saying shit like "You don't have an absolute right to a private company's platform, period." flat out proves everything I just said above because that is not at all what is being discussed.

You not being able to follow what's being discussed doesn't confer anything on anyone else. Neither does this particular exchange exist in a vacuum outside the related aspects of §230 that the aforementioned have been discussing, so..

It's okay, Ashliana, not everyone has to know everything, but have some damn dignity and admit you don't know what you're talking about and are instead just repeating some talking points you heard on NPR or from Chuck Todd or something.

And once again this isn't an invitation to have an argument with me, most likely I won't be reading whatever eye bleeding response you are typing up for this.

That would be a moot point, since one can't have an "argument" with someone who didn't actually lay out a position except "Look how wrong you are!" Best of luck scrounging the dregs of your syphilis-rotted brain for an argument, though. We already know you won't be coming up with one.

[Shaps]

Odd how the moron above doesn't comment on what JB and the Lefties want to do to Section 230. Or maybe it's not odd.

Nope, concluded it's not odd... morons tend to do things like that, so hence it would just be normal.

Back to ignoring "he/she who will not be named". I nearly fell into the trap of affording "he/she who will not be named" a chance to spread their insanity.

[Bhaalizmo]

Odd how the moron above doesn't comment on what JB and the Lefties want to do to Section 230. Or maybe it's not odd.

Nope, concluded it's not odd... morons tend to do things like that, so hence it would just be normal.

Back to ignoring "he/she who will not be named". I nearly fell into the trap of affording "he/she who will not be named" a chance to spread their insanity.

That's not how ignoring works.

You're bad at this.

[drauz]

Bro.. no it's not.

You're calling him a faggot in a derogatory way. You're not the first liberal to do it.. hell, Ashliana does it and he IS a faggot.

If you're going to post it.. then don't pretend it's something different when you know it's not.

LOL no, you're taking it how you want to take it.

[Shaps]

LOL no, you're taking it how you want to take it.

You should know.. it's not how it's said, it's how it's perceived.

You need to be reeducated apparently. Your acceptance of homophobic slurs will no longer be tolerated. Due to your acceptance of such terms, your bigotry is proven, and you will be punished for the hate that fills your heart.

Your reeducation Power Point will be e-mailed to you shortly. Failure to complete it, will result in fines and/or jail time.

#WOKE #CHANGE #FEELINGSMATTER #CANADA

[Ashliana]

Odd how the moron above doesn't comment on what JB and the Lefties want to do to Section 230. Or maybe it's not odd.

Nope, concluded it's not odd... morons tend to do things like that, so hence it would just be normal.

Back to ignoring "he/she who will not be named". I nearly fell into the trap of affording "he/she who will not be named" a chance to spread their insanity.

Biden's comments on 230 were stupid, but didn't address the same aspects that the right-wing has incorrectly been hyperventilating about. It's no surprise, though, since people across the aisle often don't understand what free speech is, or isn't, and similarly don't understand what 230 does, or doesn't, do.

As Bhaal said, you don't seem to know what ignoring actually is, though. Best of luck with that.