- 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 5:34 pm to Robin Masters
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:34 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Most reasonable people recognize the difference between maintaining “standards” and participating in censorship.
Then define it. Because currently under Section 230, they list standards. They are just subjective.
quote:
Are you under the impression that FB doesn’t moderate?
Where exactly did you get this impression?
quote:
I’m more concerned with the unintended consequences of allowing Big Tech to operate outside the scope of the legal system.
They currently are in regards to moderation.
If you want to start a thread about privacy laws, then yeah.
1
Posted on 7/6/21 at 5:34 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
Twitter wouldn’t be liable for what I say on my twitter just as ATT isn’t liable for what I say when I use their service.
Well, that is what happened in 1995, when a New York state judge ruled that Prodigy, an ISP, could be sued because they moderated some content, but failed to delete posts which defamed the plaintiff. Section 230 was a direct response to that case.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:08 pm to Salmon
quote:
Most reasonable people recognize the difference between maintaining “standards” and participating in censorship. Then define it. Because currently under Section 230, they list standards. They are just subjective.
The standards would be up to the individual business. PornHubs Standards would be different than Facebook’s standards.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:18 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
Not sure how Twitter and Facebook ever received this immunity in the first place. The world would be a better place without both platforms.
Ya that's true but it's too late. Social media is way too useful for economic and political institutions to manipulate the masses and control narratives for money and power. It's never going away. Salmon is right on this, it's a personal responsibility/parenting issue at this point.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:20 pm to wutangfinancial
quote:
Social media is way too useful for economic and political institutions to manipulate the masses and control narratives for money and power. It's never going away.
True, but the issue I have is those social media platforms have a monopoly and destroy any competition. The best part is they are also the most vocal proponents of net neutrality. They don't want ISPs censoring data, only they should be allowed to censor data.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:23 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
are too stupid to realize they're being duped.
They aren't too stupid to realize they support it.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:25 pm to Scruffy
quote:Why in the world would you want our government to engage in this type of regulation, censorship, and forcing of private companies to expose user identities?
Scruffy can only hope that this happens here one day.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:31 pm to Korkstand
Well, I mean, the private companies are already doing all of the above voluntarily.
Assuming you don't think correctly of course.
Assuming you don't think correctly of course.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:33 pm to Centinel
quote:Yeah that's called freedom.
Well, I mean, the private companies are already doing all of the above voluntarily.
Unless you want to argue that private corporations aren't people anymore, in which case I'm listening.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:35 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
And here we see conservatives abandon their small government values to own the libs
Asking people to play by the same rules is not abandoning small government values.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:37 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
The standards would be up to the individual business. PornHubs Standards would be different than Facebook’s standards.
So the standards are subjective? Which makes them almost impossible to regulate without absolute definitions of what is and what isn’t offensive? And then we would have the government telling us what is and what isn’t offensive?
Which has been my point all along?
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:39 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Unless you want to argue that private corporations aren't people anymore, in which case I'm listening.
They weren't people to begin with. Sorry you got your assumptions about me wrong.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:41 pm to Salmon
quote:
So the standards are subjective? Which makes them almost impossible to regulate without absolute definitions of what is and what isn’t offensive? And then we would have the government telling us what is and what isn’t offensive?
All people are asking for is uniform enforcement of the rules. Twitter hasn’t done that. If they would have evenly enforced them, they wouldn’t be in this situation, but instead the decided to be publishers, not hosts.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:44 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
All people are asking for is uniform enforcement of the rules. Twitter hasn’t done that. If they would have evenly enforced them, they wouldn’t be in this situation, but instead the decided to be publishers, not hosts.
How dare you insinuate a double standard somewhere on the Twitter machine!
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:51 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:Nah.
All people are asking for is uniform enforcement of the rules.
What I really want is deletion of Twitter and Facebook from the internet.
But, since that won’t happen, I’ll settle for all social media sites falling into one of two categories:
1. Host - no moderation, as long as what is posted falls within the laws of the host country, and given immunity under 230
2. Publisher - any level of moderation or deciding what can or cannot be put on their site, beyond the legal reference above, and afforded no immunity
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:53 pm to Centinel
quote:I'm listening.
They weren't people to begin with.
quote:You've made plenty of poor assumption about me.
Sorry you got your assumptions about me wrong.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 6:56 pm to Oilfieldbiology
People are asking for uniform enforcement of subjective rules by biased human beings.
That’s all?
That’s all?
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:05 pm to Salmon
quote:
People are asking for uniform enforcement of subjective rules by biased human beings.
That’s all?
You put it so eloquently.
Hence why the whole half-assed “equal enforcement of their rules” thing is dumb.
They subjectively define them, therefore they can say they are whatever they want.
I like my hardline “host vs publisher” definition.
It’s rigid and firm like lion.
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 7:06 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:07 pm to Scruffy
quote:
1. Host - no moderation, as long as what is posted falls within the laws of the host country, and given immunity under 230
But the express purpose of section 230 is for sites to moderate content. That is what Rep. Cox and Rep. Wyden set out to do, to encourage moderation of illicit content without penalty for the inability to moderate all content.
quote:
Publisher - any level of moderation or deciding what can or cannot be put on their site, beyond the legal reference above, and afforded no immunity
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.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:11 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:And it failed, therefore, remove the moderation completely.
But the express purpose of section 230 is for sites to moderate content. That is what Rep. Cox and Rep. Wyden set out to do, to encourage moderation of illicit content without penalty for the inability to moderate all content.
quote:Well, there are limits to editorializing, aren’t there?
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.
If a person were to write an editorial stating that you were 100% a child molester, it was a flat out lie, and the NYT put that on their editorial page, would the NYT be at fault in any way?
I’m seriously asking. I’m not a law savant.
Page 6 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News