"public forum" my friend... they aren't that!
Just curious...which poster on this website has posted stuff that openly supports and encourages Antifa? The only mention of Antifa I’ve seen on this website is conservatives propping it up as some big threat to society and liberals responding with confusion/indifference since Antifa is such a tiny group of people who don’t matter.
what is your understanding of "public forum" and how it relates to their ability to be held liable for first amendment violations?
if you repeal 230, or refuse to offer those protections to facebook/twitter/youtube, all you're going to see is a VAST increase in censorship (as they are now facing liability for posts of their users), and it STILL wouldn't be a first amendment issue, because it is STILL not state/government censorship (which is the only kind protected by the first amendment)
i mean, here's section 230 in its entirety... i dont know what you're trying to drive at, koriwhat
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Jesus, dude... A search results page for a "banning conservatives" search doesn't prove that conservatives are being banned for their political beliefs.
"Look, here's proof that wizards and goblins exist! https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wizards+an...st&t=hp&ia=web"
Show me a reliable article that proves sweeping bans against conservatives for their *political affiliation.*
If it helps, racism is not a political affiliation. Physical threats are not political affiliations. phobia, disinformation, and bigotry are not political affiliations. Breaking the code of conduct is not a political affiliation. What you suggested is that social networks are banning conservatives simply for being conservative.
not sure who here on the board if anyone. and antifa isn't tiny.
if they stuck to their principles of being an "open forum" then none of this would matter. take away 230 and i hope censorship sky rockets and all the platforms burn to the ground. it would be a dream come true.
a) and none of that would implicate first amendment rights of users, regardless of whether 230 is there nor not. as long as you recognize that, we're on the same pageif they stuck to their principles of being an "open forum" then none of this would matter. take away 230 and i hope censorship sky rockets and all the platforms burn to the ground. it would be a dream come true.
b) their protections under 230 aren't contingent on them being an "open forum." to get protections under 230, all they have to be is an "interactive computer service" which the code defines as:
(2)The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational ins utions.
nothing about being an "open forum" or "public forum"
there's a lot of smoke and mirrors. some(right) are banned for going against the ToS while others aren't(left). you go against the ToS then ok but why not apply it equally? they kind of just started doing so but not really. once again, smoke and mirrors.
then you have those who speak about certain issues and they're demonetized, silenced, or banned altogether.
there's numerous paths the tech giants go down to silence their opposition.
you can claim whatever you'd like but hearing it straight from dorsey and his lawyers mouth was all the proof i needed. they were the first to really expose themselves while the others sit in their ivory castles lying through their split tongues.
I don't know about this forum, there is some sentiment of "They're punching Nazis? Okay cool" on Twitter that I don't think is entirely accurate or justified. They tend to create chaos when none is necessary.
I don't really know much about Ngo, but he sounds like more of a ish provocateur than an all-out Nazi... and while I don't lose a lot of sleep when people who try to incite violence have violence thrust upon them, I don't think these guys help themselves (or anyone) when they take the bait.
I don't support that but that has no systemic impact. It's like Trump trying to leave a few drops of water on the kitchen floor and Warren is trying to flood.the kitchen.
How many people are in Antifa total?
I thought you didn't want censorship.if they stuck to their principles of being an "open forum" then none of this would matter. take away 230 and i hope censorship sky rockets and all the platforms burn to the ground. it would be a dream come true.
How big is Antifa member-wise?
I'm not denying Antifa exists, I'm denying how influential it is.
Your example even is kinda my point. They tweeted a few things that aren't accurate or justified. Fine. How is that "creating chaos"?
The Antifa rallies I've seen on youtube look like nothing more than a bunch of manchildren in their late 20s/early 30s who live at home and haven't had anything to do since Occupy Wall Street was a thing.
Wtf knows but videos definitely tell a different story of their size than y'all claim. This isn't just a Berkley or Portland thing either but worldwide too. , we got antifa hacks in ATX for s sake.
I'm don't... as for social networks, I'd like them to be a thing of the past going forward. Y'all make them out to be something good but they aren't and we all know that.
So you don't know how many people make up the "hordes" and you're praying for the end of social media on a social media site.
Police bad now. Blue lives don't matter anymore?
I was addressing your question about support for Antifa. To some extent, the violence is celebrated on Twitter, but I would never call it significant or "mainstream."
What I'm saying was inaccurate is the idea that Antifa is only about punching Nazis. Ngo is a , but not sure he's a Nazi.
And the chaos I'm talking about isn't the tweets. An example is a rally in Dallas over confederate monuments that was completely peaceful until a few masked idiots started throwing at cops. It was like they wanted things to get out of control. They're small in number but their contribution to the narrative is significant.
"not sure he's a nazi"
I've literally never heard of him before this week, so I can't say for sure. As someone who's up on his conservative -slingers from retweeting them and posting them for hours every day, I'm sure you know more about him. You should appreciate that I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt."not sure he's a nazi"
you know who the nazis were though right? it wasn't just an ideology but also a ethnicity thing too and Ngo doesn't fit the bill. you probably should know the difference when talking about this subject.
asian gays are the new blonde blue eyed whites of the 1940s!"not sure he's a nazi"
Their fascism is starting to bloom folks. Of course this forum will deny it. Just like they were pretending open borders wasn't a common position for Dems just a few months ago. Now we have an entire stage of Dem candidates campaigning for defacto open borders. This will inevitably catch them by surprise.
prosecuting people for making fun of congress would not only be illegal, but (for once in this thread) would also shift us toward fascism. in that video, she did go onto clarify that she was referring to people making threats and attempting to intimidate congress. now, random twitter posts likely wouldn't qualify as a legitimate threat that could be prosecuted
Small steps. This what happens when you start embracing censorship. Elizabeth Warren was asking big tech to censor citizens the other day. Apparently it's unacceptable to make fun of politicians. It will get worse. The boat isn't turning around.
There are currently 11 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 11 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote