Trump says he’ll veto defense bill unless Section 230 is terminated

originally posted by: tanstaafl
So, if Twitter tells you up front they reserve the right to delete your posts for any reason whatsoever, or for political speech they don't like, then fine, you can't complain when they do it.

Let's say I open a restaurant and put a big sign on the door saying "We reserve the right to refuse diners for any reason whatsoever". Let's say a black family walks in and sits down. I, the owner of the restaurant, walk over to them and say "Sorry, blacks aren't allowed in my restaurant. I don't like black people. This restaurant is for whites only."
That's perfectly ok with you right, since the sign on the door says I have the right to deny service to whoever I want?

Your argument is basically "It's ok because they said they could".

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Klassified

Trumps propensity to using unnecessary adjectives drives me nuts. "The very beautiful Resolute desk"? It might explain why he is always commenting on peoples looks, as he seems to strain for adjectives and adverbs when wholly out of place.

Nonetheless...he'd be better served saying things like "ummm" and "uhhh" as fillers instead of needless modifiers. I wonder if when he leaves the white house, if he will end his statement with "and the air blows cold" like other used car salesmen do.

Great thoughts on the content of the OP

a reply to: trollz

This whole thread is about the removal of section 230 which allows website owners and hosting providers to not be liable for the content users post on their website.

It has nothing to do with facebook censorship, I have no idea where this idea's come from. It's #ing ludicrous. How is making website owners liable for user content going to stop facebook censorship?

That # doesn't even make the slightest amount of sense. If anything it's going to increase censorship everywhere, including there, so nobody gets sued.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: scraedtosleep

I don't think government should protect companies that infringe upon the rights of individuals.

You have a right to use other people's private property?

Ya dirty communist

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
Looks like you'll be the new owner of ATS!

Greaaaaaat. I always wanted a website that was infested with DBCowboy...

*eye roll*

I hope the gov steps in and smacks down these evil social media platforms they started.
Wait what?

originally posted by: RAY1990

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: scraedtosleep

I don't think government should protect companies that infringe upon the rights of individuals.

You have a right to use other people's private property?

Ya dirty communist

They will attack any differing opinions/questions just like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook.

It's the whole point. Hide stuff like wikileaks, Epstein, Clintons, etc.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Why can't social media platforms be made responsible for their product?

Because their product isn't a pill or something consumable, its a platform for an opinion.

Their product/platform is the equivalent of us dropping leaflets on other countries during wartime.

If someone is leveraging their product to spread misinformation, then since it is their product they can choose what to do with it.

The problem becomes with how do you define 'misinformation'. Especially when half the population defines misinformation as truth.

a reply to: mzinga

That's literally not what section 230 is about. It is about holding website owners responsible for user content. All website owners, all user content. Every comment section, every forum, every single way a user can post content to a website.

Lemme word this another way.

It'd be like if I walked up, put some messages up on your door, someone else walked past and could sue you for the # I put on there and there's no recourse you'd have. Saying, I put the things on your door would do nothing, it's your fault they're there. Too bad. Shoulda stopped it, doesn't matter you were on vacation.

originally posted by: trollz
I didn't say content platforms should be held responsible for illegal content posted by users. I said they shouldn't be allowed to censor the content.

originally posted by: dug88
How is making website owners liable for user content going to stop facebook censorship?

That # doesn't even make the slightest amount of sense. If anything it's going to increase censorship everywhere, including there, so nobody gets sued.

Are you completely unable to read?

a reply to: trollz

I think a lot of people in this thread are literally unable to read or understand exactly what it is they want removed. See:

a reply to: dug88

a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't think government should protect companies that infringe upon the rights of individuals.

In this case 'right' would be your ability to post any old bs on the Internet, on someone else's property.

You call it freedom of speech. Call it what you want but at the end of the day nobody in their right mind would allow themselves to be liable for the nonsense others say.

But you'd rather paint it as censorship, you seemingly support this bs... On one of the first websites that would disappear.

That's lol material.

a reply to: RAY1990

In point of fact, many here are endorsing a government takeover of American corporations.

And they call Democrats "socialist."

a reply to: RAY1990

The only "lol" I see is people wanting government to police free expression.

a reply to: DBCowboy

OK.

There's posts removed on ATS every day.

There's been incidents that's happened on ATS that had severe consequences.

Should the owners be liable for loss of life and earnings?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Which is exactly what section 230 stops. Website owners are allowed to host mostly free expression currently because they are not liable for the things users post. Remove section 230 and website owners become criminally liable for user content. Allowing government to step in and use the law to censor whole websites.

The only reason places like ats exist, why comment sections on news stories and every other way you can interact with a website exists only because website owners cannot currently be held responsible for that content.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Social media platforms that delete posts and control published content are Deep State.

ATS is a social media platform that deletes posts and controls published content.

ATS is Deep State.

ATS will delete posts from both sides of the aisle if they break the T&C of the site.. Sites like Twitter overwhelmingly go after conservative voices and never censor the left.. I think that's your difference.. At least ATS is consistent with their mods.. I cant say the same for Twitter, unless they're consistently censoring the right...

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: DBCowboy

Which is exactly what section 230 stops. Website owners are allowed to host mostly free expression currently because they are not liable for the things users post. Remove section 230 and website owners become criminally liable for user content. Allowing government to step in and use the law to.censor whole websites.

You're involving government into the arena of free speech.

I just never think that that is a good idea.

Basically because I don't trust the interests of government.

a reply to: jhn7537

So, it's okay to censor, just not the folks you like?

Censorship is censorship.

If removing posts is censorship, then ATS is the same as Twitter.

Facts not feelz.