- 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 7:18 pm to Scruffy
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:18 pm to Scruffy
quote:Most of us would hope that doesn't happen, because it could only be accomplished via government action.
What I really want is deletion of Twitter and Facebook from the internet.
But, since that won’t happen
quote:That looks like a recipe to make social media 10x worse than it is now. It would be entirely too expensive and a legal minefield to be a "publisher" by your definition, so we will be left with a bunch of "hosts" that will be cesspools of the worst that humans have to offer.
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 7:19 pm
1
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:26 pm to Korkstand
quote:Probably.
Most of us would hope that doesn't happen, because it could only be accomplished via government action.
quote:So, no different than currently exists, just with ALL people, even the ones you dislike.
That looks like a recipe to make social media 10x worse than it is now. It would be entirely too expensive and a legal minefield to be a "publisher" by your definition, so we will be left with a bunch of "hosts" that will be cesspools of the worst that humans have to offer.
And that is the point of being designated a “publisher”.
I want it to be expensive and a legal minefield.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:26 pm to Scruffy
quote:Yes most likely, we have laws to handle this.
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?
The point is web platforms are different, and this "publisher" definition doesn't fit.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:29 pm to Scruffy
quote:
And it failed, therefore, remove the moderation completely.
It certainly didn't fail. It actually did what it was intended to do, which was protect platforms from users doing things that could get the user and platform into hot water. The other purpose was to grow investment in the nascent industry, another point where it succeeded. It also allows the relatively liberal use of third-party content. You aren't thinking this through completely. The problem is that it is impossible to moderate the amount of content that is produced, something AOL and Prodigy found out in the 90's.
quote:
Well, there are limits to editorializing, aren’t there?
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?
Firstly, something egregious would likely get caught in editorial review. If not, the paper would probably be held liable, and would issue a correction. But the NYT is allowed to determine who publishes content at all in their forum. The slight chance of them getting sued leads to a fairly vigorous process which determines who can even publish with the paper.
quote:
I’m seriously asking. I’m not a law savant.
I'm not either. I literally read one book on this topic.
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 7:30 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:30 pm to Scruffy
quote:You are aware that there are sites that have the type of content you apparently want to see, correct? And you are aware that you are free to visit those sites and interact with those people?
Scruffy
No need to go authoritarian.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:32 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
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.
But they only got that because it was assumed that they would operate fairly as impartial, open channels of communication... not the arbiters of “truth”. That case was also before 3 individuals gained control as the world’s gatekeepers of the dissemination of information.
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 7:33 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:35 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
But they only got that because it was assumed that they would operate fairly as impartial, open channels of communication... not the arbiters of “truth”.
No, no they didn't. I'm begging you to get some background on Section 230, because the express purpose was for them to moderate content themselves. 'Truth' was never part of it.
quote:
That case was also before 3 individuals gained control as the world’s gatekeepers of the dissemination of information.
There are far more than three. Database providers are massive, pay-walled gatekeepers, who often keep publicly funded research out of the hands of the public.
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 7:37 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:39 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Yeah that's called discrimination.
FIFY
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:42 pm to Salmon
quote:
e 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?
Wrong. Any large business has a policies and procedures manual which is how THE BUSINESS defines the methods by which they operate. When a lawsuit is brought the plaintiff can demonstrate how and where the business deviated from their established policies and procedures which can determine wrongful action.
The government is not involved in the least, except as a typical role in overseeing the lawsuit.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer but I’ve been married to one for 16 years.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:48 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Wrong. Any large business has a policies and procedures manual which is how THE BUSINESS defines the methods by which they operate. When a lawsuit is brought the plaintiff can demonstrate how and where the business deviated from their established policies and procedures which can determine wrongful action.
Do you honestly think any business, or specifically in this case, a user content site, would not write their moderation criteria to be as subjective as possible?
How are you not getting this?
Take TD for example
Their terms state that we cannot post any “hateful” posts. Obviously a arbitrary and subjective term and obviously arbitrarily applied on TD.
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 7:52 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:52 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
It certainly didn't fail. It actually did what it was intended to do, which was protect platforms from users doing things that could get the user and platform into hot water. The other purpose was to grow investment in the nascent industry, another point where it succeeded. It also allows the relatively liberal use of third-party content. You aren't thinking this through completely. The problem is that it is impossible to moderate the amount of content that is produced, something AOL and Prodigy found out in the 90's.
It failed hugely bc it was never meant to be used as a means to discriminate and censor speech. Big Tech came in and decided to end the open channel of communication and instead use it discriminate against others by censoring them.
They did this shite to themselves.
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 7:53 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:56 pm to Salmon
quote:
Do you honestly think any business, or specifically in this case, a user content site, would not write their moderation criteria to be as subjective as possible?
With opened ended policies and procedures you wind up making inconsistent corporate decisions which opens you up to disastrous litigation outcomes.
This is not ground breaking stuff.
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 7:57 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:57 pm to Korkstand
quote:
You are aware that there are sites that have the type of content you apparently want to see, correct? And you are aware that you are free to visit those sites and interact with those people? No need to go authoritarian.
Like when conservatives did create an alternative & 3 big techs colluded to crush it? But that authoritarianism is ok?
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 7:58 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 7:58 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
With opened ended policies and procedures you wind up making inconsistent corporate decisions which opens you up to disastrous litigation outcomes.
Yet…none of that has happened, even with the subjective terms in Section 230.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:00 pm to Salmon
quote:
none of that has happened, even with the subjective terms in Section 230.
Because they are immune from litigation!
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:02 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
There are far more than three. Database providers are massive, pay-walled gatekeepers, who often keep publicly funded research out of the hands of the public.
**. Wrote Thomas: “One person controls Facebook . . . and just two control Google.” Three people, in other words, have the power to disappear any of us from the digital public square, even a commander in chief. The Supremes, Thomas concluded, must rein in this unaccountable tyranny. **
Add twitter that makes 4 people... not far more than 3 people being gatekeepers of the dissemination of information.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:05 pm to Salmon
quote:
Yet…none of that has happened, even with the subjective terms in Section 230.
I wonder why?
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:05 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
It failed hugely bc it was never meant to be used as a means to discriminate and censor speech.
Well the express purpose was moderation and to encourage investment. It wasn't designed to be about free speech.
quote:
Big Tech came in and decided to end the open channel of communication and instead use it discriminate against others by censoring them.
It was never an open channel, honestly, despite what Twitter might say. Social media is an advertising firm, and you are the product.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:06 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
Wrote Thomas: “One person controls Facebook . . . and just two control Google.” Three people, in other words, have the power to disappear any of us from the digital public square, even a commander in chief. The Supremes, Thomas concluded, must rein in this unaccountable tyranny. **
Add twitter that makes 4 people... not far more than 3 people being gatekeepers of the dissemination of information.
And let’s be real, the odds that Facebook, Google and Twitter organically rose to be both the most popular while somehow still beholden to globalists seems a little far fetched.
My guess is they were given the monopolies BECAUSE they are loyal (owned) by the globalists.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 8:07 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Because they are immune from litigation!
You could challenge the terms.
You would lose, of course, because of all the reasons you have argued against.
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News