by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 02, 2020 5:48 pm
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 02, 2020 5:53 pm
by King of the Incels » Tue Jun 02, 2020 5:54 pm
by Cyng » Tue Jun 02, 2020 5:55 pm
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 02, 2020 5:57 pm
King of the Incels wrote:Removing sites owners ability to censor speech is good, making them liable for the speech used is bad.
by King of the Incels » Tue Jun 02, 2020 5:59 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:King of the Incels wrote:Removing sites owners ability to censor speech is good, making them liable for the speech used is bad.
It's a one or the other thing.
If the site owner picks and chooses what is allowed on their site, they become liable for what they allow on their site.
If they allow anyone to publish there without curating, they will not be liable.
by The Two Jerseys » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:00 pm
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:01 pm
Cyng wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
What do you think should happen?
Perhaps a change of ownership. I'm not saying nationalizing, but the powers that be in california have made it very clear they don't see an issue with censoring us. We'll never have the ability to express ourselves online until they have their power taken from them.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:02 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Social media wants to have their cake and eat it too based on whichever is most convenient for them at the moment, I have no problem with forcing them to choose a position.
by Atheris » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:03 pm
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:05 pm
by Atheris » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:07 pm
by Galloism » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:09 pm
by The Two Jerseys » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:12 pm
by Confederate Norway » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:14 pm
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:14 pm
Galloism wrote:The case law behind section 230 is not easily unwound by an executive order. Really.
This executive order will be essentially disregarded by the courts at the lowest levels and all the way up, as section 230 is what it is.
The publisher/platform argument is a fun and good one we should have as a society, but whatever we decide, it has to go through Congress.
by Albrenia » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:20 pm
by King of the Incels » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:29 pm
Albrenia wrote:Won't this just force social media to ban everyone who doesn't have a nice, friendly opinion at all times OR allow any and all unmoderated content on their platform? I don't see how that's a win for free speech, more a win for making the internet either a place of boring greys or shitposting orgies.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:33 pm
Albrenia wrote:Won't this just force social media to ban everyone who doesn't have a nice, friendly opinion at all times OR allow any and all unmoderated content on their platform? I don't see how that's a win for free speech, more a win for making the internet either a place of boring greys or shitposting orgies.
by Albrenia » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:38 pm
by The Twilight Embassy » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:38 pm
by Deacarsia » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:41 pm
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Tue Jun 02, 2020 7:26 pm
by Galloism » Tue Jun 02, 2020 7:48 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Galloism wrote:The case law behind section 230 is not easily unwound by an executive order. Really.
This executive order will be essentially disregarded by the courts at the lowest levels and all the way up, as section 230 is what it is.
The publisher/platform argument is a fun and good one we should have as a society, but whatever we decide, it has to go through Congress.
The order was for the branches controlled by the executive to begin acting as though such things are publishers and to make arguments in support of that view. (Including prosecutors and so on).
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Atrito, Dunkirlothesia, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Ravemath, Sarolandia, Singaporen Empire, Statesburg, Valentine Z
Advertisement