Parler ?

[sl1pstream 551]

54 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Contextualize. Because it is and isn't, depending on if/how they benefit from section 230. 

Because things get deleted here as well, while they're still able to have user-generated posts because of section 230. And take you cricket nonsense elsewhere, what is that even? 

Edited June 28, 2020 by sl1pstream

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, sl1pstream said:

Because things get deleted here as well, while they're still able to have user-generated posts because of section 230. And take you cricket ####### elsewhere, what is that even? 

 

    Generally if someone does that, it means you have taken longer than 20 minutes to make a response, so they think you are scared of their amazing logic and that you have ran away to hide. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

Because things get deleted here as well, while they're still able to have user-generated posts because of section 230. And take you cricket nonsense elsewhere, what is that even? 

LOL. The difference between section 230 and not-section-230 isn't "user-generated posts". 

[sl1pstream 551]

9 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

LOL. The difference between section 230 and not-section-230 isn't "user-generated posts". 

No, it's about websites being liable for what users post. If a website is potentially liable for anything anyone posts, why would they let people post things?

Have you read anything about this thing you're arguing against?

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/28/21273241/section-230-explained-trump-social-media-twitter-facebook

 

Quote

Section 230 says that internet platforms that host third-party content — think of tweets on Twitter, posts on Facebook, photos on Instagram, reviews on Yelp, or a news outlet’s reader comments — are not liable for what those third parties post (with a few exceptions). For instance, if a Yelp reviewer were to post something defamatory about a business, the business could sue the reviewer for libel, but it couldn’t sue Yelp. Without Section 230’s protections, the internet as we know it today would not exist. If the law were taken away, many websites driven by user-generated content would likely go dark.

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by sl1pstream

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

8 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

No, it's about websites being liable for what users post. If a website is potentially liable for anything anyone posts, why would they let people post things?

Have you read anything about this thing you're arguing against?

I have, and I've been intricately involved in section 230 discussions with policymakers, warning them of both the pitfalls of interpreting section 230 to literally mean a blank slate of "free speech" on a private platform (which would far supersede outside the scope of the meaning of section 230), and precisely what can be done to hammer these companies on section 230.

 

The point of section 230 is it transfers liability to users. The basis of this is that users are creators of the content that's posted. It is not a basis for your comical "can't have moderators", but if the meaning of posts are altered, curated, deleted, etc. in a way not consistent with the meaning of those users' posts, how the site has run (indicating discriminatory conduct), etc. that effectively nullifies the section 230 protections for those posts. If it is done widespread on a userbase, the site obviously doesn't get section 230 protections at all. Thus, it is imperative that these social media companies engaging in such widespread discriminatory curating of posts lose section 230 protections. 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[sl1pstream 551]

3 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I have, and I've been intricately involved in section 230 discussions with policymakers, warning them of both the pitfalls of interpreting section 230 to literally mean a blank slate of "free speech" on a private platform (which would far supersede outside the scope of the meaning of section 230), and precisely what can be done to hammer these companies on section 230.

Commenting on one of their Facebook posts doesn't count as being "intricately involved".

It also doesn't "transfer liability". The person who actually posted the thing should be held liable.

Edited June 28, 2020 by sl1pstream

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

Commenting on one of their Facebook posts doesn't count as being "intricately involved".

 

I don't have a Facebook account. Trying too hard to get under my skin. 

 

Let me know when you have an actual substance based retort.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

thread locked pending mod review

 

upon review by site moderation, this thread will remain locked due to bickering.

do not restart this thread.

admin action has been taken.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Ban Hammer