- 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 11:20 pm to crazy4lsu
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:20 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
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.
You are being obtuse.
There was a vision that once was called the internet with a free exchange of ideas.
Twitter and youtube have failed in that vision. They shouldnt be treated any different than CNN or any other media outlet.
If their removal of liability protections like India is doing forces them to change... then so be it.
That will create an opportunity for something new and better to fill the public need.
Twitter and youtube should not be granted government favoritism. They shouldnt enjoy freedoms that other publishers do not enjoy.
My rights should not be diminished because the government is in bed with twitter and youtube.
2
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:21 pm to meansonny
quote:
But they should not be treated differently in a court of law.
They are treated differently by virtue of a very particular history and for very particular reasons, which I’ve already laid out. The express purpose of the Section 230 protections were to protect online services which host third-party content for what their users do.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:22 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Of course, but how often do those suits happen and succeed?
Sandman vs CNN?
They happen often enough.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:22 pm to Korkstand
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?
If they get special advantages FROM the govt then they’re not exactly just a private business who can be sued for their actions anymore.
They want to be a private business but to also do what the fk they want without fear of legal action. Can’t have it both ways, hard as the left may try!
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:24 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
They are treated differently by virtue of a very particular history and for very particular reasons, which I’ve already laid out. The express purpose of the Section 230 protections were to protect online services which host third-party content for what their users do.
The history where the Goliath big tech didn’t even exist at the time?
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 11:25 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:24 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
The express purpose of the Section 230 protections were to protect online services which host third-party content for what their users do.
The new york times editorial page isnt afforded that same protection.
I recognize that the protections exist.
I also believe that is called corporatism. The government picking winners and losers. It disgusts me.
Others (maybe you?) like corporatism.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:25 pm to meansonny
quote:
You are being obtuse.
You are being ignorant, as the protections granted publishers extend a long way, and it is likely they would, even in the absence of direct Section 230 protections, be protected and allowed to do as they please, by virtue of the many protections afforded other content-makers in terms of speech.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:32 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:Can you list a few of these "special advantages"?
If they get special advantages FROM the govt then they’re not exactly just a private business who can be sued for their actions anymore.
They want to be a private business but to also do what the fk they want without fear of legal action. Can’t have it both ways, hard as the left may try!
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:32 pm to meansonny
quote:
The new york times editorial page isnt afforded that same protection.
I’m pretty sure the opinion page is protected from libel claims and liability claims through New York Times v. Sullivan. I could be wrong.
quote:
The government picking winners and losers.
Which might be ironic as Cox and Wyden wanted to give incentive to online services to moderate their own content, which would avoid liability claims, and ensure continued investment in the nascent industry, as well as to keep government out of the industry. If your argument is that the time for those protections has ceased, I might be convinced, but you are doing a poor job of arguing when you resort to random insinuations.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:35 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
The history where the Goliath big tech didn’t even exist at the time?
Yes that exact history, with the explicit argument being that the nature of content moderation on the internet would make it difficult for the field to grow. If you were offering a more skilled argument, then what you might suggest is that the time for the protections has passed, since all those platforms are big enough to survive liability claims, and the next stipulation should be efforts to ensure consistent and clear moderatIon.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:42 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
You are being ignorant, as the protections granted publishers extend a long way, and it is likely they would, even in the absence of direct Section 230 protections, be protected and allowed to do as they please, by virtue of the many protections afforded other content-makers in terms of speech.
Lol
Newspapers can be sued.
And they can lose.
And im ignorant?
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:47 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Which might be ironic as Cox and Wyden wanted to give incentive to online services to moderate their own content, which would avoid liability claims, and ensure continued investment in the nascent industry, as well as to keep government out of the industry. If your argument is that the time for those protections has ceased, I might be convinced, but you are doing a poor job of arguing when you resort to random insinuations.
Facebook and twitter need more investment? They need government protection?
This is the hill that you die on?
Wow
What are we? 9 or 10 pages in and you rely on this argument? Lol
Good night. You are absolutely no longer worth the time.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:50 pm to meansonny
quote:
Newspapers can be sued.
And they can lose.
Of course, but those cases are extremely difficult to win. The situation you aren’t accounting for is when another user wants to sue another user on these online services. None of those services want to be held liable for someone else’s speech, and thus will be extremely censorious. In addition, any third-party content at all could be subject to liability, including pictures, music, and other media. The repercussions would affect the entire internet.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:50 pm to meansonny
quote:
Facebook and twitter need more investment?
You utter moron. Who am I referencing in the words right before you bolded?
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:52 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Can you list a few of these "special advantages"?
And you call others ignorant.
You’re a tool.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:53 pm to meansonny
quote:It still is. You or I or anyone with the knowledge/ability can start a site right now, and anyone in the world can access it.
There was a vision that once was called the internet with a free exchange of ideas.
quote:No, they have succeeded in merging the freedom of the internet with capitalism.
Twitter and youtube have failed in that vision.
quote:Pretty sure they aren't treated differently, and the sections of CNN's site (for example) that contains user-generated content is protected.
They shouldnt be treated any different than CNN or any other media outlet.
quote:There is no law preventing something "new and better" from filling a public need. In fact it is thanks to section 230 that sites are free to mostly moderate (or not) as they see fit, so that these needs can be met.
That will create an opportunity for something new and better to fill the public need.
quote:They aren't.
Twitter and youtube should not be granted government favoritism.
quote:They don't. The thing is user-generated content is not "published" by the site operator.
They shouldnt enjoy freedoms that other publishers do not enjoy.
quote:
My rights should not be diminished because the government is in bed with twitter and youtube.
What rights of yours are diminished?
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 11:56 pm
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:54 pm to LSUAngelHere1
quote:I didn't yet, but I might.
And you call others ignorant.
quote:
You’re a tool.
So you can't list even one example?
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:56 pm to Salmon
quote:
Scruffy can kiss TD goodbye then
Yikes. Not a legal scholar, I see.
Posted on 7/7/21 at 12:03 am to Korkstand
quote:
quote:
My rights should not be diminished because the government is in bed with twitter and youtube.
What rights of yours are diminished?
The same rights that India is granting back to the public.
Posted on 7/7/21 at 12:03 am to CaTiger85
quote:
Yikes. Not a legal scholar, I see.
When a T-14 law grad like Ted Cruz can't get Section 230 correct I wouldn't sweat over non-lawyers having a tough time with it.
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News