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

a reply to: DBCowboy

No, right now, the government is not allowed to prosecute websites. They are not allowed to step in. That's the point. Remove that protection and they can. They can prosecute a website owner for illegal content they themselves choose to host, that's it. Remove section 230 and hell, you can kill any website you want just by posting some bomb making instructions or something. Take a screenshot, fbi it up, boom, website owner's responsible.

You are removing the power of website owners to freely host what they want, the power for.users to have responsibility for the things they say and the power for website owners to properly report users for their own illegal content.

Instead website owners become responsible for other people's content.

Why should springer or the other ats owners be responsible if I posted a bunch of illegal stuff on here?

a reply to: Gryphon66

It seems logical to me that if something like this happened then some time in the future they'll make it illegal to have anonymity on the Internet. It could be pushed to block individuals from accessing the Web too.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ats has specifically stated it's t&c's
Big difference

Conspiracy talk, even for fun will be over.

You don't see the difference here?

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: DBCowboy

No, right now, the government is not allowed to prosecute websites. They are not allowed to step in. That's the point. Remove that protection and they can. They can prosecute a website owner for illegal content they themselves choose to host, that's it. Remove section 230 and hell, you can kill any website you want just by posting some bomb making instructions or something. Take a screenshot, fbi it up, boom, website owner's responsible.

A good argument, but right now, social media platforms are pushing/promoting a political ideology and are being protected BY Section 230.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

All i said was that ATS is at least consistent.. Not thrilled about any censorship, but Twitter blatantly goes after the right and only the right...

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: DBCowboy

No, right now, the government is not allowed to prosecute websites. They are not allowed to step in. That's the point. Remove that protection and they can. They can prosecute a website owner for illegal content they themselves choose to host, that's it. Remove section 230 and hell, you can kill any website you want just by posting some bomb making instructions or something. Take a screenshot, fbi it up, boom, website owner's responsible.

You are removing the power of website owners to freely host what they want, the power for.users to have responsibility for the things they say and the power for website owners to properly report users for their own illegal content.

Instead website owners become responsible for other peopl'es content.

Have you read it?
Does it specifically state "only illegal content"
I thought this was written as
"Allows websites to be sued for content posted"
As in, you post something about someone, you are liable


Thanks

a reply to: Klassified

Trump is such a dipstick. The yearly NDAA bill is veto proof. There is no way congress won't override Don the Con's veto. Also, vetoing the NDAA sure will tick off alot of Georgians.

a reply to: jhn7537

Optics...

You don't have the vision to call such a thing since there's millions of twits twittering daily.

Meanwhile these tech companies are actively censoring things in authoritarian nations and have no choice. There's irony in that somewhere

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ats has specifically stated it's t&c's
Big difference

Conspiracy talk, even for fun will be over.

You don't see the difference here?

Twitter also publishes "T&Cs"

We use their platforms, we follow their rules.

If we don't like how they run their platforms, we don't use them.

It's not magic.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Here is the thing. then Trump will sue them for doing so. This will force them to either shut down OR beg for a new 230 where they will stop trying to act as publishers.

a reply to: jhn7537

Well, the point about Twitter "going after the right" is an opinion ... but, again, Twitter is an American company providing a platform for social media.

There are arguments about the choices ATS makes, at times as well, although I would be the first to admit it's a matter of degree, scope and quantity.

I'm sorry, I mean no disrespect to you, but to me, if you don't want to use Twitter, don't use it. It's ... simple.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Sure and we here at ats push our own agenda, other websites push their agendas, it's the way the world is.

The problem with things like facebook and the big social media is the sheer size of them and way they've become the defacto platform for a large number of people.

It's a problem for sure, I posted a thread on some of that bull# yesterday.

But making the owner of a website responsible for content is not going to stop facebook censorship.

How is it supposed to do that? It just gives social media even more of an excuse to remove even more things and will stop alternatives.

Right now, there's plenty of alternatives cropping up to the big platforms. It's not like people that get deplatformed just shut up, they move.

These alternatives will be the first to go if section 230's repealed. Facebook et al. Will be fine. They'll end up turning into the perfectly conforming, clean bubbles of approved corporate ideology they've always dreamed of.

They'll weather the fines and legal challenges while all their competition drops like flies.

a reply to: dug88

You've given me something to think about.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's not magic?

ATS doesn't censor political parties.
What is your point here

originally posted by: dug88
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.

It’s a fundamental problem with society now: people won’t take responsibility for themselves.

If your door example is meant to be analogous to comments by users on websites, it only shows how stupid we have become. If a person doesn’t like the comments, don’t read them. If you do, and you’re hurt or offended, that’s your problem.

People need to start taking responsibility for themselves and for the way they think. But they won’t: that’s obvious with those who support the left. They have completely given up their responsibility to actually think. They are so lazy and spineless and stupid that they would rather the media and their corrupt politicians tell them what and how to think. It is disgusting.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's not magic?

ATS doesn't censor political parties.
What is your point here

I'm not sure I can make it more clear than I have.

ATS removes posts. Twitter removes posts.

If removing posts is censorship, then both ATS and Twitter censors.

It's logic.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Lmao, what are we 4 year olds now?
Nana na boo boo!

Show me in the t&c's where Twitter bans conservative posts.

Ats bans t&c violations, like they should

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lmao, what are we 4 year olds now?
Nana na boo boo!

Show me in the t&c's where Twitter bans conservative posts.

I made it as simple for you as I can. You respond with logical fallacies.

If you'd like to review ... here are the Twitter Terms of Service

Best.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Yeah, section 230 forces people to take responsibility for the things they post. Removing it forces that responsibility onto the owner of the website. Which seems more reasonable?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: jhn7537

Well, the point about Twitter "going after the right" is an opinion ... but, again, Twitter is an American company providing a platform for social media.

There are arguments about the choices ATS makes, at times as well, although I would be the first to admit it's a matter of degree, scope and quantity.

I'm sorry, I mean no disrespect to you, but to me, if you don't want to use Twitter, don't use it. It's ... simple.

I don't use them.. Well, I was banned because I said AOC was borderline r*tarded, and i still stand behind that statement... But regardless of my opinion, it does seem that only people on the right are upset by Twitters actions.. Maybe they are censoring the left too, but the left isn't making these loud claims like people on the right. I haven't seen too many high profile Twitter members from the left being blocked/censored, maybe I missed it and maybe some ATS members can share those examples with me...

i'm thankful we are getting more options, like Parler... but in the context of what Twitter does, they are essentially a monopoly in their arena, just like Facebook and a few other giant tech companies..