-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMC
Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".
If the company is going to act as editors for the content, they could be in effect taking on responsibility as publishers for the content. Imagine your phone provider started doing this, bleeping out words and ending phone calls when you say things they don't find credible or acceptable. That too is a private business.
The responsbility you're talking about is only concerning law infringement (copyright, defamation, incitement to hatred, xenophobia, pedophilia...), not political or philosophical views.
Facebook is just a website with its own TOS, like this board. Nobody forced you to register there and you accept the rules doing so. If you get banned from ST for infringing their TOS, you won't go sue their ass because you don't think they're "fair and equal"...
They're are plenty of right wing forums all over the web that will only accept people from their views. Should they been sued for not being "fair and equal"?
And let's be honest, Freedom of speech on Twitter and FB is huge.
Oh fuck, I still got caught debating about nonsensical shit.
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FrostKing
Biden revealed his immediate Executive Orders - more foreigners
:lol @ black Americans further buried down the ladder
:lol either way you lose.:tu
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ChumpDumper
:lol either way you lose.:tu
I am above you on the progressive hierarchy
Enjoy, privileged slave owner
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FrostKing
I am above you on the progressive hierarchy
If you declare your place on the progressive hierarchy, the progressives already defeated you.:tu
If you're struggling with being a white man, that's just pathetic.
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMC
Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".
If the company is going to act as editors for the content, they could be in effect taking on responsibility as publishers for the content. Imagine your phone provider started doing this, bleeping out words and ending phone calls when you say things they don't find credible or acceptable. That too is a private business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spurraider21
So if Twitter flags your post as misleading, you can sue them on the grounds that the tag is defamatory. Good luck proving that up
If Twitter becomes the arbiter of content, they could lose their exemption for lawsuits for things like defamation - they have illustrated they are willing and able to censor and tag content based on things other than legality. Your response is a strawman.
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Will Hunting
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, evaluating the case under the state's anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple and issued specific orders for the bakery. Following appeals within the state that affirmed the Commission's decision, the bakery took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.
I guess we'd have to see how this played out in court.
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JPB
The responsbility you're talking about is only concerning law infringement (copyright, defamation, incitement to hatred, xenophobia, pedophilia...), not political or philosophical views.
Facebook is just a website with its own TOS, like this board. Nobody forced you to register there and you accept the rules doing so. If you get banned from ST for infringing their TOS, you won't go sue their ass because you don't think they're "fair and equal"...
They're are plenty of right wing forums all over the web that will only accept people from their views. Should they been sued for not being "fair and equal"?
And let's be honest, Freedom of speech on Twitter and FB is huge.
Oh fuck, I still got caught debating about nonsensical shit.
Defamation isn't illegal. It's a tort. But neither is xenophobia.
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMC
If Twitter becomes the arbiter of content, they could lose their exemption for lawsuits for things like defamation - they have illustrated they are willing and able to censor and tag content based on things other than legality. Your response is a strawman.
no, they wont. they would only be liable if they are the producer of the specific content at issue. it's not an all-or-nothing "are you a publisher or a platform" question, its specific to the communication itself
just because they choose to moderate some posts (lets say, people spamming n word have their tweet deleted) doesnt suddenly mean theyre liable for everything any other user can say
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spurraider21
no, they wont. they would only be liable if they are the producer of the specific content at issue. it's not an all-or-nothing "are you a publisher or a platform" question, its specific to the communication itself
just because they choose to moderate some posts (lets say, people spamming n word have their tweet deleted) doesnt suddenly mean theyre liable for everything any other user can say
Not sure why you need strawman and bifurcation in your responses so much. The issue is being looked at now for the reasons I mentioned.
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMC
Defamation isn't illegal. It's a tort. But neither is xenophobia.
defamation is illegal. it's just not criminal.
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMC
Not sure why you need strawman and bifurcation in your responses so much. The issue is being looked at now for the reasons I mentioned.
you said twitter could lose its exemption from lawsuits under section 230, and i'm saying that it's not the case except for only the specific communication in question. ie if twitter flags a comment as false, they could be held liable if that warning label is in and of itself defamatory... but that doesnt suddenly mean theyve lost their general 230 protections
if i started a youtube channel tomorrow i'd also have protection under 230 if some shithead leaves a defamatory comment in my comment section. even if i have control over the comments through moderation, i wont be held liable for content produced by somebody else. there's nothing i could do that would cause me to lose that protection, generally.
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spurraider21
defamation is illegal. it's just not criminal.
Ok thanks Philo. I thought I covered that with "tort", but get your money's worth from your degree.
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMC
Ok thanks Philo. I thought I covered that with "tort", but get your money's worth from your degree.
:lol you said it wasnt illegal
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spurraider21
you said twitter could lose its exemption from lawsuits under section 230, and i'm saying that it's not the case except for only the specific communication in question. ie if twitter flags a comment as false, they could be held liable if that warning label is in and of itself defamatory... but that doesnt suddenly mean theyve lost their general 230 protections
if i started a youtube channel tomorrow i'd also have protection under 230 if some shithead leaves a defamatory comment in my comment section. even if i have control over the comments through moderation, i wont be held liable for content produced by somebody else. there's nothing i could do that would cause me to lose that protection, generally.
Rationalize it all you want. Then comment once they've lost their immunity. I've learned that arguing with you is pointless since you don't respond to what was said, and instead paraphrase with strawman comments that are easier to attack.
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMC
Rationalize it all you want. Then comment once they've lost their immunity. I've learned that arguing with you is pointless since you don't respond to what was said, and instead paraphrase with strawman comments that are easier to attack.
you're just not liking the answers i'm giving.
there's simply no scenario the entity of twitter loses all 230 protections (no matter how flagrant any particular abuses are) absent an amendment of the statute. they just might not have immunity as to specific content at issue if it is found they were the ones who published said content. just because they have the ability to moderate comments doesnt mean they are going to start being treated as publishers of every tweet
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spurraider21
you're just not liking the answers i'm giving.
there's simply no scenario the entity of twitter loses all 230 protections (no matter how flagrant any particular abuses are) absent an amendment of the statute. they just might not have immunity as to specific content at issue if it is found they were the ones who published said content. just because they have the ability to moderate comments doesnt mean they are going to start being treated as publishers of every tweet
"Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it. However, if you selected the third-party information yourself, no court has ruled whether this information would be considered "provided" to you. One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator "furnished it to the provider or user under circumstances in which a reasonable person...would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet...."
This is what I am referring to, this scenario. By selectively blocking or tagging posts as suspect, the service could be seen as selecting the content they accept, ergo pushing their own messages via filter. I think it would have to get down to specific cases and be illustrated that some censored/tagged comments were no more alarming than some others from the other side that were not tagged or censored. I think they could lose their immunity if they are producing a political message through censorship. Do they have the right? Sure, but that doesn't give them immunity.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...30-legislation
So this would be the only issue, not a 1st Amendment issue.
But no, you're responding to your own paraphrasing and strawman arguments unless you quote me directly.
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trill Clinton
You ain't black (literally).
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spurtacular
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMC
"Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it.
However, if you selected the third-party information yourself, no court has ruled whether this information would be considered "provided" to you. One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator "furnished it to the provider or user under circumstances in which a reasonable person...would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet...."
This is what I am referring to, this scenario. By selectively blocking or tagging posts as suspect, the service could be seen as selecting the content they accept, ergo pushing their own messages via filter. I think it would have to get down to specific cases and be illustrated that some censored/tagged comments were no more alarming than some others from the other side that were not tagged or censored. I think they could lose their immunity if they are producing a political message through censorship. Do they have the right? Sure, but that doesn't give them immunity.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...30-legislation
So this would be the only issue, not a 1st Amendment issue.
But no, you're responding to your own paraphrasing and strawman arguments unless you quote me directly.
i never mentioned the first amendment, you're strawmanning now
and the language you quoted comes from the trump admins' proposal to amend the statute, which is specifically the caveat i gave in the post you just quoted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spurraider21
you're just not liking the answers i'm giving.
there's simply no scenario the entity of twitter loses all 230 protections (no matter how flagrant any particular abuses are) absent an amendment of the statute. they just might not have immunity as to specific content at issue if it is found they were the ones who published said content. just because they have the ability to moderate comments doesnt mean they are going to start being treated as publishers of every tweet
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMC
It's not a 1st Amendment issue. It's a "can they be sued for their content" issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spurraider21
So if Twitter flags your post as misleading, you can sue them on the grounds that the tag is defamatory. Good luck proving that up
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spurraider21
i never mentioned the first amendment, you're strawmanning now
and the language you quoted comes from the trump admins' proposal to amend the statute, which is specifically the caveat i gave in the post you just quoted
:lol Philo
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMC
:lol Philo
Right. I never brought up first amendment. Thanks for confirming
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spurraider21
Right. I never brought up first amendment. Thanks for confirming
But I did and it's what you first responded to :lol
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMC
But I did and it's what you first responded to :lol
So in that first post, you said it’s not a first amendment issue, it’s whether they can be sued. I then directly went into a discussion about the parameters by which they can be sued. Then after a long back and forth (where 1a didn’t come up) you randomly spit out that it’s not a first amendment issue
-
Re: Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spurraider21
So in that first post, you said it’s not a first amendment issue, it’s whether they can be sued. I then directly went into a discussion about the parameters by which they can be sued. Then after a long back and forth (where 1a didn’t come up) you randomly spit out that it’s not a first amendment issue
Its what he does.
Disingenuous.