I don’t think I like anybody that much 
1 Like
Why does every pat analogy involve penises?
Im sorry l came to this thread 
2 Likes
Which hand were you using?
Pat’s keeping track of these things.
1 Like
Oh please, do educate us on the course of jurisprudence and how companies behave when they register as one thing and behave as another. Why should companies behaving like publishers should be afforded the protection of platforms? Please, give us the legal break down on how these laws work. Since you exclaimed your expertise on the matter, please explain how section 230 works and why twitter and Facebook should continue to enjoy those protections when they editorialize and censor, which is a clear violation of 230 protection. I look forward to you legal breakdown on the matter.
I know it will be a long post, but I will read your full legal explanation.
It’s a new day when the conservative is calling for regulation and the liberal is calling for cronyism.
No, he won’t.
Take a joke, dude.
You need to tell one first.
Right hand for your dwelling. But it’s your house, you can change it to left… 
No, they aren’t - stop making shit up and trying to pass it off as fact. There is no liability to a user on censorship grounds, and your explanation is fiction. There’s no cause of action the NYP can file against Twitter for having their stories “censored”.
We also know this because right-wingers mad about “censorship” (like Josh Hawley) proposed a bill to create an avenue to liability - or more specifically, changing the law to condition social media getting Section 230 immunity only if they maintain political neutrality. If you’re right - liability already exists - there’d be no need to change the law to add it.
I realize life is easier in your make-believe world (Obamagate! NYP gonna sue Twitter for censorship!), but none of us are buying your nonsense.
1 Like
For the 1,000th time, you didn’t read the articles you cited. They both talk about what the law currently is and how conservatives want to change it to social media to prevent “censorship”. As the law stands now, though, there is cause of action to sue Twitter for “censorship”. That might change if the law is changed, but not today - which is what you said (in error) above.
EDIT: from your own article:
The executive order, which Trump signed two weeks ago calls for federal regulators to review whether part of the Communications Decency Act known as Section 230 should be revised or completely abolished. On Tuesday, Republican Sens. Marco Rubio, Kelly Loeffler, Kevin Cramer, and Josh Hawley backed the order and pushed federal regulators to act.
If the act provided for the liability for censorship you say it has, there’d be no need to revise or abolish it.
Embarrassing.
1 Like
Wasn’t Twitter declining in popularity for 6 straight years? Now with everyone having to be at home for various periods of time some sites might be having resurgence but various articles were talking about the issues Twitter was having maintaining users. But it’s also this huge monopoly that makes it so no one can speak anywhere? I don’t get that. All sorts of places exist to put viewpoints out there. Should every individual one be forced to have no rules?
I thought the right was the party of less regulation let private businesses act in their own self interest?
1 Like
That was always a ruse, it turns out. They championed “liberty” and “freedom”, claiming it was an unassailable principle, but despite the rhetoric, it was never unassailable, it was situational and conditional. They abandoned it as soon as they became a victim of it.
The moment liberals got power under that regime of freedom - primarily through the rise of media in the internet space through market power - and conservatives felt threatened (some real, but mostly imagined) suddenly “liberty” and “freedom” were jettisoned in favor of using the (previously illegitimate) power of the state to make rules to enforce “fairness”.
Thus, turning the Right into the very creatures they despise and claimed over and over were going to destroy America - people who prefer legislating fairness over freedom. You know, liberals.
Hilarious? Tragic? Who knows. No one should take the Right seriously any more.
4 Likes
Dude, Trump is now screaming about repealing the section.
Now, I haven’t been bothered to read it because this legal shit gives me a headache and I’m not familiar with US law anyway, but I think you may find want to look at the entire act AND the entire section instead of just the definition, including the parts like “exceptions”.
EDIT:
Saw this after posting. See?
2 Likes
I realize that nuance is above your paygrade, but I will try. You’re completely missing the point. It’s about crossing thresholds. twitter and Facebook, for instance, are listed as platforms where they host but do not control third party content. Publishers provide their own content and can host third party content, but control the information.
The argument isn’t about 230 reform specifically. It’s about whether or not they have crossed the threshold from platform to publisher. The difference is nuance, because platforms can apply rules to their site, but must apply it equally. But they are doing more than just manipulating information provided, they are editorializing that information by their own hand. That arguably makes them publishers not mere hosts of 3rd party information. Thus, this shift, if challenged can move them from platform to publisher and hence forth not qualify them for section 230 protection at all.
I guess understanding such nuance, even if I sung it, wouldn’t make it past your ear-hole. I am not sure if I can make the words small enough for you.
Dude, 230 does need reform, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about the fact that their manipulation of information and editorializing of information moves them from a platform to a publisher, where there is no 230 protection.
All we need is a court challenge.
Only, they aren’t editorializing and you don’t know what that means.
You’re going to be very upset to know that they amended the law to make sure immunity attached even to a provider’s moderation of content. It was done in the wake of a case that found against a provider and held it liable because it became a “publisher” by moderating content:
Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. - Wikipedia.
That amendment? Section 230:
In other words, through Section 230, Congress acted to prevent precisely what you try and claim should happen - holding a provider liable for drifting into “publishing” by moderating content. That happened in the Prodigy case, and that is exactly what Congress intended to make sure didn’t happen again.
1 Like
And I’d love to see it if there’s a possibility of this happening. I was the one whining when twitter folded so soon in the other thread, remember lol? Boring as fuck.
That shit is talking about indecency and offensive commentary. It’s not talking about selective suppression, manipulation and editorializing content. You are conflating cuss words and porn with selective application of rules and editorializing. These are not the same things. Winning a case on cussing doesn’t mean that they cannot ever cross that line in other ways. Nobody is, or has ever argued that platforms cannot moderate offensive commentary. The argument is about manipulating content to push a narrative that the company holds.
Bring me a case where it covers selective editing, unequal application of rules and editorializing content, content manipulation to forward a point of view held by the company. That’s not ‘moderating content’ its manipulating content to push an agenda. Technically, a platform cannot do that according to any rules and remain a platform. And that has yet to be challenged.