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

Faux news, among others, is reporting The Donald's promise to veto an upcoming defense bill if it doesn't nix section 230...

“Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to “Big Tech” (the only companies in America that have it—corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity. Our Country can never be safe & secure if we allow it to stand,” Trump tweeted. “Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk. Take back America NOW. Thank you!”

Of course, the pundits are promising more censorship than ever before if this happens because the likes of twitter, farcebook, and google become open to lawsuits. Jack Dorky says...

"Section 230 is the most important law protecting internet speech. In removing Section 230, we will remove speech from the internet," Dorsey said during his testimony.

Of course it is, when your among that little group that relies on it to continue publishing propaganda and censoring one side of a debate. America's only android CEO, Zuckyberg, adds...

"One important place to start would be making content moderation systems more transparent," he said. "Another would be to separate good actors from bad actors by making sure that companies can't hide behind section 230 to avoid responsibility for intentionally facilitating illegal activity on their platforms. We are open to working with Congress on these ideas and more," he said.

To be honest, I actually agree with the android CEO to some extent, but I don't think he would like my version of section 230, because he and Dorky would likely be out of business, and in my opinion that's a good thing, and good for the world, as well as a competitive market.
Article Link

a reply to: Klassified

Y'know, # it. I'm very anti-censorship but I do tire of this blatant manipulative censorship that we've seen over the last 10 years or so, so either let anything and everything be said(like I feel it should be), or just flat out censor it all. At least then we'd have "balance", so to speak.

Man, I do miss the days when people could just speak freely. So many people fought hard to break the walls of censorship throughout the years, all to reach a point where many people on one political spectrum want anything that offends to be removed. How far we've fallen.

Personally I'd rather be offended by something someone says/does than nobody being able to speak at all, but these companies have abused this protection for far too long.

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.

originally posted by: Necrobile
a reply to: Klassified

Y'know, # it. I'm very anti-censorship but I do tire of this blatant manipulative censorship that we've seen over the last 10 years or so, so either let anything and everything be said(like I feel it should be), or just flat out censor it all. At least then we'd have "balance", so to speak.

Man, I do miss the days when people could just speak freely. So many people fought hard to break the walls of censorship throughout the years, all to reach a point where many people on one political spectrum want anything that offends to be removed. How far we've fallen.

Personally I'd rather be offended by something someone says/does than nobody being able to speak at all, but these companies have abused this protection for far too long.

99% of the "censorship" most people endure is enforced through social pressure. The big difference to how it "used to be" and now is the fortitude of peoples spines.

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.

Lol!
So what's your take on section 230, BFFT?

a reply to: Klassified

Currently, Section 230 protects social media companies and gives them carte blanche to censor how ever they want. Which is their right as a private company.

Removing Section 230 would make them responsible for the content on their platforms.

They could still and would still censor how ever they wanted, but they'd be responsible for their actions.


So I guess being responsible for your own company's actions is a bad thing?


We have the left wanting to punish gun manufacturers if their product is used in a crime.

We have court cases where pharmaceutical companies were made responsible for their products.

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

So ATS will be liable for all the crazy crap we say?

originally posted by: FauxMulder
So ATS will be liable for all the crazy crap we say?

I hope so, I'm a multi-million dollar lawsuit waiting to happen.

Pretty funny to watch liberals actively censor and block and destroy anything they don't agree with, then call their opponents nazi's.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

All of your sock puppets already have a class action ready to file.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
So ATS will be liable for all the crazy crap we say?

Good for Trump.

No more BSing, he's holding GOP feet to the fire.

a reply to: DBCowboy

They could still and would still censor how ever they wanted, but they'd be responsible for their actions.

What actions? The action of censoring?
Because like you said taking away 230 will not make it illegal for them to censor.
So, still being legal to censor and now their being sued by dems because of stuff that trump has posted.
Their only choice to keep from being sued will be to not censor trump but ban him from the platform.

Then they will ban anyone that is the reason they get sued.

What happens when a bunch of dems start suing parler?

Does ending 230 make it illegal for sites to ban or not let people join?
Does ending 230 make it illegal for sites to censor?

How does ending 230 get any of you what you want?
Assuming what you want is for every voice to be heard and not revenge that is.

a reply to: Klassified

The concept is needed. Ill take ATS as my example....there are things here said that ATS should in no way be responsible for. Primarily because we cannot police every post on this site, and rely on members to report it. Beyond that, we obviously try to remain somewhat flexible in interpretation. Times change, so interpretations change. Things said on ATS today in some cases would have gotten you banned when I first joined (pot talk for example).

The problem comes when you have places (im pointing mostly at Twitter and FB here) that move from the platform idea to the publisher idea. On ATS we have a fairly clear T&C. You stay within that, you are fine. FB and Twitter, not so much so. On FB in particular, the rules change depending on the group/page. And things that are not allowed on FB can often move around easily within groups that are private. I've seen things that I really wish I hadn't, to be honest. In other cases, I've seen things shared that got people "FB Jail", with the concept of "why am I in jail...where do you think I found this meme to begin with" being kind of ignored. To be honest, to face penalty for sharing a meme you find on FB to other FB users seems crazy. Its not like they trace back through the chain of shares on those images and apply penalty to the person you got it from.

The world would work so much better if we just went back to anonymous online usernames.

If the military doesn't get funded, does that mean we have to shut down all our overseas bases?

Move the good equipment home, sell the rest.

We could have a better military at half the cost.

I mean we have the Space Force now. The US can defend itself from within it's own borders and from space.

We can move lots of troops and equipment within hours across the world with a few cargo/transport rocket.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Removing Section 230 would make them responsible for the content on their platforms.

So I guess being responsible for your own company's actions is a bad thing?

That isn’t what it is at all, and you know that. Or maybe you don’t. This doesn’t make them responsible for their own actions. It makes them responsible for their user’s actions.

Big difference.

Being responsible for their users actions will lead them to censor anything that might get them in trouble. I get that you and others are fine with that because you believe that conservatives are being censored by social media, so you’re ok with blanket censorship as long as it includes people on the left.

Basically the thought process of a little kid breaking all the toys because they think people aren’t being fair to them.

Strange position for someone who prides themselves on free speech to take. I guess it was never really about free speech then.

*shrugs*

a reply to: scraedtosleep

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

One more thing. Defense bills usually pass with most of congress voting for them. it is possible that this bill passes with a veto proof amount.

Or that after the veto the veto is over turned.

www.washingtonpost.com... s/2020/07/23/58d4061a-cd1c-11ea-91f1-28aca4d833a0_story.html

The Senate passed its version of a $740 billion defense bill Thursday by a veto-proof majority, in the latest sign that Congress is undeterred by President Trump’s threat to reject legislation mandating that the Pentagon rename bases honoring Confederate generals.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Klassified
Currently, Section 230 protects social media companies and gives them carte blanche to censor how ever they want. Which is their right as a private company.

This is exactly wrong.

Section 230 says that as long as they are not engaging in censorship - ie, acting as a publisher - then they are protected from lawsuits for anything any of their users may post.

That is a very good thing.

I also firmly believe in a company's right to make their own rules, and enforce them.

So, a simple solution would be, require them to be very explicit about what kinds of speech are allowed or not, and provide a path for them to be sued for violating their own ToS.

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. The problem happens when they claim to allow free speech, but don't. They are lying when they say that, and they should be able to be held accountable.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Net neutrality and 230 together helped to protect freedoms on the internet.

Trump got rid of one and now he's going after the other.

Twitter and facebook can fight those law suits while still staying in business. The little social media companies like parler can't.
A the same time twitter and facebook can work with (bribe) the isp's to throttle all other social media sites but theirs.

Globilists wet dream brought to you by trump and his followers.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You ever read twitters t &c?