- 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: Supreme Court will hear social media cases that test Section 230
Posted on 10/3/22 at 8:41 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 10/3/22 at 8:41 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
We love when policy is made by nine unelected bureaucrats in robes, don’t we, folks?
No. It's more pathetic that our Congress can't do anything because they are all on the Internet teat
0
Posted on 10/3/22 at 10:36 pm to Flats
quote:
That's why 230 doesn't need to be nuked, just applied accurately.
Applied accurately how? Every company on the planet moderates their forums and removes content that's undesirable.
Many eliminate politics and religion simply because it's so devisive.
At the end of the day though companies moderate content based on their customers, and for social media that's advertising revenue. Oddly most companies don't want to be associated to crazy shite.
The beauty of the internet though, you can always go create your own social media business. The talk on censorship is just people pissed because they can't get free media coverage.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 11:40 pm to Texaggie96
quote:
At the end of the day though companies moderate content based on their customers,
So do companies who don’t receive section 230 protection. Why are some people held responsible for what they allow on their website and some aren’t?
Posted on 10/4/22 at 4:48 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
We love when policy is made by nine unelected bureaucrats in robes, don’t we, folks?
Not setting policies, just constitutionally checking existing policies. You know since Congress is full of morons and actors.
Posted on 10/4/22 at 5:49 am to jatilen
I hope they blow those social media devils to hell and back.
Posted on 10/4/22 at 8:51 am to Flats
quote:
So do companies who don’t receive section 230 protection. Why are some people held responsible for what they allow on their website and some aren’t?
I'm not sure what you think you know, but Section 230 applies to all content providers who allow 3rd party content.
This website, Tigerdroppings.com enjoys Section 230 protection, and based on some of the shite being thrown around in this forum, they very much need it.
If a Website provides the content themselves (or through an employee or subsidiary) then they are not covered by Section 230 because they are generating the content.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 8:29 am to Texaggie96
quote:
The poliboard would literally be the first one to be dumped and the remainder would be heavily censored/ moderated to ensure no legal liability
Your understanding of the legal issues is remarkably poor. Perhaps sit this one out
Posted on 10/6/22 at 8:34 am to Texaggie96
quote:
I'm not sure what you think you know, but Section 230 applies to all content providers who allow 3rd party content.
This website, Tigerdroppings.com enjoys Section 230 protection, and based on some of the shite being thrown around in this forum, they very much need it.
If a Website provides the content themselves (or through an employee or subsidiary) then they are not covered by Section 230 because they are generating the content.
As soon as you tell me something I didn't know you'll have added something to the conversation.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 8:36 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
We love when policy is made by nine unelected bureaucrats in robes, don’t we, folks?
Boosie contributing nothing of value. Just like his everyday life.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 8:45 am to novabill
quote:
So, what do the conservatives here want the court to decide?
My “limited “ understanding of 230 is absolute protection from content on their site.
The question that arises is whether they are a “platform” or a “publisher”
If you are a platform, ie no editing of content, you would be protected. However, by picking and choosing what gets published and who is allowed on the platform you are publishing content and should be subject to liability.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News