Reply With Quote
Relax, no one is coming for the genocide deniers.
Do you all not see the slippery slope that we're heading down? We are following Europe's lead on this, tech companies banning information based on the same laws put in place by Germany and the EC. We have already enacted some forms of internet censorship into law as well.
Relax, no one is coming for the genocide deniers.
Tech companies are not the government. You'd think most would be able to grasp even this simple point.
On what? Child pornography?
What types of communication censorship are you ok with?
Was this an answer to my question?
Read the article, it affects more than child porn. What types of communication censorship are you ok with?
Pointing to an article isn't an answer. What speech is being "censored?"
But the bills also poke a huge hole in a famous and longstanding “safe harbor” rule of the internet: Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Usually shorthanded as “Section 230” and generally seen as one of the most important pieces of internet legislation ever created, it holds 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.” In other words, Section 230 has allowed the internet to thrive on user-generated content without holding platforms and ISPs responsible for whatever those users might create.
But FOSTA-SESTA creates an exception to Section 230 that means website publishers would be responsible if third parties are found to be posting ads for pros ution — including consensual sex work — on their platforms. The goal of this is supposed to be that policing online pros ution rings gets easier. What FOSTA-SESTA has actually done, however, is create confusion and immediate repercussions among a range of internet sites as they grapple with the ruling’s sweeping language.
Where did I say I was ok with any censorship?
Thanks for making my argument for me. This is the first step at additional censorship for website (social media) publishers. Now, they can be held responsible for pros ution on their platforms...how far away is "hate speech" and who defines what is and what is not "hate speech?"
You didn't. I asked what type of censorship are you ok with?Where did I say I was ok with any censorship?
Removing the safe harbor and making ad sites responsible as publishers for sex trafficking ads is not the same as censorship. The result might be the same, but the mechanism is different and noteworthy.
Have you always beat your wife?
Holding Reddit or backpage responsible for underage/sex-trafficking advertisements doesn't strike me one way or another. The main objection against FOSTA/SESTA is that it harms consensual sex - which is a far cry from the law being a harbinger of doom for the first amendment. Claims that the bill harms free speech is like saying that there should be no laws against advertising murder for hire or a child sex ring. Policing and restricting commercial speech associated with illegal activities doesn't strike me as putting us on any kind of slippery slope towards a 1984-type future.
Maybe you can elaborate, because your claim right now -- that any speech restriction means doom -- doesn't pass the straight face test.
If only we still guaranteed that ISPs were obligated to treat the dissemination of online content equally, people who were banned from popular social and video networks could always be confident that their audience would be able to find them on other channels without obstacle. The real problem starts when government pressures ISPs to block InfoWars.com or any other sites that host their content.
That's the real slippery slope here. Interestingly, Jones' followers seem to be okay with the loss of net neutrality and are determined to focus on the platforms.
You seriously cannot help yourself, sociopath chump. If there is a lame question dangling, you'll ask it.
lol you can't define it.You seriously cannot help yourself, sociopath chump. If there is a lame question dangling, you'll ask it.
I just got done mocking you for wanting dictionary terms defined for you, and this is your comeback.
SMH Today's sociopath chump.
The entire forum waterboarded you today. At this point you're a rambling loon.I just got done mocking you for wanting dictionary terms defined for you, and this is your comeback.
SMH Today's sociopath chump.
Last edited by Spurtacular; 08-08-2018 at 11:06 PM.
Poor derp
Cucks don't have pity to give.
Lame.
You're a pitiful re .
How does it get lamer than being a cuck and a deadbeat dad?
rightwingnutjobs are ecstatic when Trash excludes/censors a) woman b) who asks tough questions.
I'm neither of those. Your fantasy obsession with people on a message board is pitiful.
Your inability to keep up with discussions here and then falling back on your obsessive shtick is also pitiful.
You're just a sad and pitiful dude.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions