- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Twitter loses immunity over user-generated content in India
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:13 pm to LSUAngelHere1
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:13 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:You are implying that discrimination is inherently bad, but in fact it is required in order for society to function. We discriminate against criminals by putting them in prison. We discriminate against the uneducated and unskilled when we hire people. We discriminate against the under- and over-aged for various reasons. The law is littered with necessary discrimination, and the free market revolves around discrimination.quote:FIFY
Yeah that's called discrimination.
Discrimination is only bad when it comes to protected classes, and these classes are defined by aspects of people that are unchanging and/or unchangeable.
You can't put trash on someone else's property and expect that to just be ok. You will rightfully be discriminated against, and will not be afforded the same privileges as those who don't treat the property of others as a trash can.
1
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:18 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
Like when conservatives did create an alternative & 3 big techs colluded to crush it?
You mean the 3 big techs that built their own property to their current size by molding their products into what the market demanded? The 3 big techs that would like to maintain and/or grow their market share by continuing to do the things that got them there? That is, by keeping their private property as free of trash as possible?
quote:Uh yeah, I would expect any home or business owner to run their own shite as they see fit. That's the right of any free individual.
But that authoritarianism is ok?
Do you really want to lose that freedom by handing those authoritarian powers over your own property to the government?
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:19 pm to Salmon
quote:
You could challenge the terms.
You would lose, of course, because of all the reasons you have argued against.
I would lose because they have been given legal immunity.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:20 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Well the express purpose was moderation and to encourage investment. It wasn't designed to be about free speech.
BS... even they argue its to allow the public to engage.
“The Internet Association, which represents Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other major platforms, claims that Section 230 is necessary for these firms to “provide forums and tools for the public to engage in a wide variety of activities that the First Amendment protects.”
quote:
It was never an open channel, honestly, despite what Twitter might say. Social media is an advertising firm, and you are the product.
This is new to no one and irrelevant to the topic of reigning in big tech’s tyranny.
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 8:30 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:28 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Uh yeah, I would expect any home or business owner to run their own shite as they see fit. That's the right of any free individual. Do you really want to lose that freedom by handing those authoritarian powers over your own property to the government?
On other words, you love authoritarianism when it sides with you.
You said people had choices to visit alternative platforms but ignored the part about 3 big techs colluding to crush alternatives?
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 8:29 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:35 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
BS... even they argue its to allow the public to engage.
I'm paraphrasing directly from the lawmakers involved in the creation of Section 230. Facebook, Google, and Twitter didn't exist at the time the protections were included. It might protect free speech as a byproduct of trying to ensure investment and protection from liability, but it wasn't the express purpose of Section 230 to protect free speech.
quote:
This is new to no one and irrelevant to the topic of reigning in big tech’s tyranny.
It is highly relevant, and is in fact why the "digital public space" angle hasn't been defined legally, despite Thomas's use of it. They are relatively small mediums where users have to register to post. That really confines the scope of the "digital public space" arguments.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:41 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:No, I love "authoritarianism" when it comes to a private entity's control over their own property. This is also known as freedom and property rights.
On other words, you love authoritarianism when it sides with you.
Authoritarianism at the government level, as many on the right have been crying for in order to own the libs, is probably to be avoided.
But as is typical, conservatives like yourself project your own authoritarian desires onto others.
quote:They can't "collude" and crush alternatives if those alternatives were willing to put in the investment to build their own platforms. So far none has done it successfully, likely because the market for such trash is not big enough to produce a return.
You said people had choices to visit alternative platforms but ignored the part about 3 big techs colluding to crush alternatives?
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:42 pm to Korkstand
quote:
They can't "collude" and crush alternatives if those alternatives were willing to put in the investment to build their own platforms. So far none has done it successfully, likely because the market for such trash is not big enough to produce a return.
It's barely big enough for the major ones. There is only so much ad revenue to go around.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:20 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
quote:
Twitter/social media is either a public square or publisher.
A distinction that I don't think actually exists in legal terms.
It does. And social media have a specific legal exemption. They have a government shield as a public square despite running a business like the new york times op ed.
quote:
quote:
When twitter edits/deletes content arbitrarily, they are no longer a public square. They are a publisher... like the new york times or cnn. This should open twitter (like the NYT or CNN) to liability lawsuits for defamation, libel, etc..
But editorializing is directly protected by the First Amendment. Publishers can dictate what content they produce and do so.
I am for twitters right to editorialize just like i am for the new york times op ed. They are the same thing to me and should be treated the same. I am pro amendment 1a.
I am against corporatism protecting twitter that isnt afforded to the new york times. This is basic elementary stuff. Posters are being disengenuous and dishonest. This is really simple.
quote:
quote:
The problem is that social media is enjoying government protection from liability claims without earning it (free speech)
You understand that this won't help free speech. If Twitter was liable for what their users post, they would be far more censorious.
It absolutely helps free speech.
Treat twitter and facebook like CNN and you will have a void in the market for a new business who chooses to act in the interest of the public square. Maybe Chicken will have the platform that takes over that void. Create a vacuum in a capitalist market and it will be filled.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:31 pm to Korkstand
quote:
You are implying that discrimination is inherently bad, but in fact it is required in order for society to function. We discriminate against criminals by putting them in prison. We discriminate against the uneducated and unskilled when we hire people. We discriminate against the under- and over-aged for various reasons. The law is littered with necessary discrimination, and the free market revolves around discrimination.
You’re such a disingenuous tool. Someone having advantages due to more education & work experience, with a clean criminal record is 100% irrelevant to this issue.
As hard as you desperately try to divert and deflect you fail to realize that even a public utility can’t deny you service based on any of that criteria either. But you already knew that.
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:33 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Where are people getting this publisher distinction from? Newspaper publishers have protection from Miami Herald v Tornillo, which includes editoralizing as protected speech. It's very hard for me to see how content moderation is meaningfully different from editoralizing.
I'm not directing this at you specifically, but it is interesting that this illusory 'platform v publisher' distinction doesn't extend to Comcast, which operates as an ISP and content producer.
Newspapers are not exempt from libel and personal injury lawsuits. Especially not even the op-ed.
Twitter/youtube are exempt.
They are all companies with the freedom to choose how they run their businesses. But why should my rights against libel, slander, and defamation be reduced because they are social media companies acting like newspaper editors?
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:35 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Authoritarianism at the government level, as many on the right have been crying for in order to own the libs, is probably to be avoided.
That’s cute… you must think we aren’t aware of all the communication revealing the collusion bt govt and big tech to censor speech.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:36 pm to Korkstand
quote:
They can't "collude" and crush alternatives if those alternatives were willing to put in the investment to build their own platforms. So far none has done it successfully, likely because the market for such trash is not big enough to produce a return.
Liar
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:38 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
It's barely big enough for the major ones. There is only so much ad revenue to go around.
There you go again off topic about irrelevant shite… I’d tell you about my long career in marketing and how full of shite you are but then I’d be allowing you to deflect so I won’t.
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 10:39 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:53 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
You’re such a disingenuous tool.
quote:It was an example to show that discrimination is not inherently bad. It seems you do not disagree. You just don't like it when people discriminate against you, which is understandable. You're so close, but I think still so far away.
Someone having advantages due to more education & work experience, with a clean criminal record is 100% irrelevant to this issue.
quote:What are you trying to say here? That whenever a company exercises their freedom in a way that you disagree with, we should make it a public entity?
As hard as you desperately try to divert and deflect you fail to realize that even a public utility can’t deny you service based on any of that criteria either. But you already knew that.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:54 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:Let's say that's true. Your solution is to... give government more control?!
That’s cute… you must think we aren’t aware of all the communication revealing the collusion bt govt and big tech to censor speech.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:12 pm to meansonny
quote:
I am against corporatism protecting twitter that isnt afforded to the new york times.
The NYT and Twitter are protected by the same principle in terms of editorializing.
quote:
It absolutely helps free speech.
Treat twitter and facebook like CNN and you will have a void in the market for a new business who chooses to act in the interest of the public square. Maybe Chicken will have the platform that takes over that void. Create a vacuum in a capitalist market and it will be filled.
You aren’t thinking this through.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:13 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
There you go again off topic about irrelevant shite
What?
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:16 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
The NYT and Twitter are protected by the same principle in terms of editorializing
You are confusing the 1a freedom to editorialize (which is also granted to twitter and youtube) and an exemption from liability lawsuits for injury.
This is basic stuff.
NYT and twitter are free to run their businesses as they see fit.
But they should not be treated differently in a court of law. That is called corporatism and it is as disgusting as full blown communism.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:16 pm to meansonny
quote:
Newspapers are not exempt from libel and personal injury lawsuits.
Of course, but how often do those suits happen and succeed? They don’t happen often because there is a strict process which is followed in order to publish in the first place. The same would in effect happen if Twitter was liable for the actions of its users, which is what gave us the Section 230 protections.
Page 8 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News