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

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
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.

*shrugs*

Chin up!

Your Biden will be in after a couple months and then they can censor with impunity.

The coming economic slaughterhouse will make something like this seem so minuscule it won't matter at all 🦇🦑

a reply to: DBCowboy

It would also make ats responsible for the dumb # we say. Goodbye independent websites.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: tanstaafl

You ever read twitters t &c?

Nope... why, do you have a point to make?

Opens the door for media malpractice insurance policies 🦇🦑

a reply to: FauxMulder

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

Ultimate responsibility rests with the person saying it. ATS does moderate some stuff within its community standards. It is a big messy legal situation on the internet with so many different jurisdictions involved.

If ATS should happen to get a legal summons over something on these boards, the topic will either get moderated out of discussion or make for an interesting thread.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Bingo. Enumerate the rules, and then enforce them. Quit this nonsense enforcement of opinions of 25 year old undergrad students working for the platform.

The best solution here is for platforms to stop manipulating and censoring content and conducting psychological warfare operations. Let people view/read/post whatever they want. If it's illegal (threats to harm a person, calling for illegal activity, illegal pornography etc.) then remove it, report it to the relevant authorities, and deal with it accordingly; otherwise, give people the freedom they deserve. As it currently is, these big tech platforms like Facebook, Google, YouTube etc. hold information gateway monopolies and then use their influence to manipulate what people see, know, think, believe, etc. In doing so, they have a massive amount of control over the entire country. And whenever one method of manipulation or censorship gets criticized, they just dance around it and figure out a way to do it in a more "politically correct" manner, as if any form of it is even acceptable in the first place. The phrase "give an inch and they'll take a mile" is very relevant here. "Well, ok, we did shadowban people for having political ideas we disagree with, but from now on we promise the people who decide which users get shadowbanned will be 'diverse' so that the censorship - ahem, I mean, content moderation - is fair..."

End censorship or get shut down and prosecuted.

a reply to: trollz

End censorship or get shut down and prosecuted

Is this what people really think is going to happen if section 230 gets repealed?

Reality will be more like:

'Oh facebook got caught censoring someone, here's a million dollar fine'

Facebook: 'durr uh ok here'

'Someone on this small community forum said something'

Forum 'it's cool we banned them'

'Nope, someone took a screenshot, that's hate speech as website owner, we are seizing your domain and shutting down your servers unless you pay this million dollar fine'

Small website owner: 'uhhhh...ummm...#...well bye bye website'

a reply to: DBCowboy

Maybe biden will bring back net neutrality?

Who am I kidding though. Only someone that actually cared about freedom would care about net neutrality.

a reply to: tanstaafl

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.

If you haven't read the t&c then how do you know that they are not doing this?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DBCowboy

Maybe biden will bring back net neutrality?

Who am I kidding though. Only someone that actually cared about freedom would care about net neutrality.

Net neutrality is government mandated.

How authoritarian.

originally posted by: trollz
End censorship or get shut down and prosecuted.

originally posted by: dug88
Is this what people really think is going to happen if section 230 gets repealed?

I wasn't saying I think that's what's going to happen, I was saying I think that's what should happen.
When US-based content platforms engage in censorship, they should be shut down. Censorship is never ok and should never be allowed.

Here's my radical suggestion: as Americans, why don't we take responsibility for ourselves and stop asking the Nanny State and all those Big Bad Ol' Corporations to do it for us?

If Twitter pisses you off, don't use it. It's not magic.

a reply to: trollz

They should I agree, but countering that by allowing anyone and everyone to censor anything they don't like through litigation is far worse. That's like fighting fire by pouring jetfuel on it.

In the end it just means hosting providers are just going to leave america and another industry will be gone. Why would any company host a website in america if you guys did that? I know I sure as hell won't be choosing an american hosting company if it's repealed, ever.

I wouldn't want my website to fall under that jurisdiction if those are my liabilities. # that #.

I don't know if the word "censorship" is any longer accurate when used to describe what the big tech platforms are doing.
It seems to me "reality manufacturing" is a more fitting term.

Its not just elections-they are trying to present a manipulated version of reality in order to make it how they say it is.

Are we really that intelligent as a species when all it takes for predatory mega corps to change our perception of reality is for them to make us stare at little tiny dots of light on a screen?

I would argue that would make us a very stupid species.

a reply to: Klassified

This could turn ATS Mod into a full time job, paid.

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.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

Looks like you'll be the new owner of ATS!

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: trollz
In the end it just means hosting providers are just going to leave america and another industry will be gone. Why would any company host a website in america if you guys did that? I know I sure as hell won't be choosing an american hosting company if it's repealed, ever.

I wouldn't want my website to fall under that jurisdiction if those are my liabilities. # that #.

Listen, 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. There is a MASSIVE difference there. Obviously Facebook shouldn't be shut down and the CEO arrested if some idiot posted a pornographic picture of a child on it.
Like I said before, it's simple - if illegal content is posted on a content platform, the content platform should remove it and notify the relevant authorities. Now, if they become aware of illegal content on their platform and do not take reasonable measures to deal with it, then yes, they can be held accountable to whatever extent is appropriate.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with:
1 - Expecting content platforms to remove and deal with illegal content posted on their platforms, as this is already expected and done;
2 - Expecting content platforms to allow people to use them without being censored and intentionally manipulated.

All I'm saying is if platforms engage in censorship, they should be shut down.