Mag44 Posted December 31, 2020 Report Share Posted December 31, 2020 On 12/29/2020 at 1:47 PM, PrepGridiron said: I understand the fundamental issue with the REAL problem you identified, but hear me out. Right now, as owner of the site, I have the choice to censor any content about a particular football team, i.e., if I wanted only good comments about De La Salle (as an example), I could delete, flag, edit how I see fit and as site owner that is my prerogative. Now, I don't/won't do that because users would most likely leave and because I generally believe open dialogue serves everyone, but I have that prerogative. What you are suggesting is a line that I don't know where it exists, that is to say when does someone become a publisher through censorship of third party content? The ancillary question to that is who decides that line. Personally, I think it should be self-governed, so if someone doesn't like how Twitter or others flag certain information, then that person shouldn't use their site. And if enough people don't use their site, Twitter will have to make business choices on whether they should censor so much. One uses their site, however, because of the size of the audience on the platform and the realization that one can't just go to another platform with that same audience. I don't use FB or Twitter, however, they need to be watched more carefully and both their owners need to be sanctioned far more severly..Their political bias must be stopped.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mag44 Posted December 31, 2020 Report Share Posted December 31, 2020 On 12/29/2020 at 2:04 PM, PrepGridiron said: I don't want to oversimplify, but Section 230 allows service providers on the internet to be immune from liability for third party content. It is what protects Yelp from being sued by Acme Corp for libelous comments made by John Doe on Yelp's website. But you did oversimplify..I hope they make 230 tougher.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mag44 Posted December 31, 2020 Report Share Posted December 31, 2020 On 12/29/2020 at 4:02 AM, PrepGridiron said: I know I haven’t been around at all, but I want to say one thing that’s been on my mind. For most of you that don’t know, I have a bit of background in these things and I can tell you nearly unequivocally that if section 230 is repealed, I will shut down this site immediately. Now that may be welcome news to some, but I can assure you that it will be a dark day in the big picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mag44 Posted December 31, 2020 Report Share Posted December 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, Mag44 said: Portions shoud be repealed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted December 31, 2020 Report Share Posted December 31, 2020 Regardless of one’s position on 230, it’s still hilarious that AndyCanes faps to Rick Wilson...probably chanting “substance, substance” to himself the entire time. 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted December 31, 2020 Report Share Posted December 31, 2020 10 hours ago, PrepGridiron said: Please provide a source for this as I'd like to know if I have been previously misinformed. 230 does not allow sites to censor without penalty. Can’t find the original article in a quick search, but now it is bugging me so I will still post it when I find it but in the meantime... The source of the two lawsuits that created 230 was Compuserve (1993 found not liable because they didn’t moderate) and Prodigy (1995 found liable because they moderated). Section 230 creates the assumption that platforms will not be treated as publishers for the content created by their users. Yes you can in fact lose that immunity by exercising enough editorial control over the content to be considered a publisher ( as in badbusiness.com suit) but that was because they were also engaging in writing editorials so that’s how they lost the immunity and were determined to be a publisher. yes it may have grey areas (laws always do). But basically the entire industry uses the 230 immunity to claim “platform “ status with “moderating” (censorship) for the public good to (supposedly) eliminate criminal activity from their site. And yes so far that has kept all the big players in the immune category but now you want to argue that moderating isn’t censorship when you delete what you don’t like? anyhooo found this when I was looking for it. just some cigar talk on the subject you might find interesting. Barnes only speaks thru an agenda and Viva shoots straight and is usually not vested but in this case he is getting hammered by censorship so it might be personal for him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.