Future of social media is infront of the SCOTUS this week

archives said:
You are still missing the point, right now they aren’t sued if disinformation is run over their platforms, if 230 disappears, they can be sued
Click to expand...

No i get the point exactly. I thought you guys didn't like "disinformation" and "misinformation" etc etc?
 
Uncensored2008 said:
What is on the line is the algorithms that censor conservative political views. At the point that Facebook or Twitter determine WHAT content they will carry, they become a publisher.
Click to expand...

No, you people are confusing two issues, collating the two into the same issue, they are not, not about censoring conservative views, if such actually happens, but rather the current protection social media sites get from no matter what they offer, they can’t be sued, claiming they are just passing information on to viewers
 
Yakuda said:
No i get the point exactly. I thought you guys didn't like "disinformation" and "misinformation" etc etc?
Click to expand...

No you don’t, proven by the fact I didn’t make this thread partisan, you did with the “you guys”

Last time, if the Court strikes down 230, social media sites are no longer protected against what they run, right, left, or anything, has nothing to do with conservatives being censored, really not that hard to understand
 
archives said:
No you don’t, proven by the fact I didn’t make this thread partisan, you did with the “you guys”

Last time, if the Court strikes down 230, social media sites are no longer protected against what they run, right, left, or anything, has nothing to do with conservatives being censored, really not that hard to understand
Click to expand...

Ok listen to me very carefully, my first reply to this thread was I don't give a shit I just want the rules whatever they are applied everyone. That still stands and I mean it sincerely. If we don't like a rule let's discuss it and change it but whatever is decided should be applied to everyone.

Next I have also said everyone should be responsible for what they say and do. That includes these platforms when they decide to select what will appear on their platform and what won't. I never mentioned anything about left or right content did I? The answer is no. If they get sued then they should be smarter or not decide what they will.and will not allow.

Lastly you mentioned "disinformation" which is a common leftist complaint but you brought it up not me.
 
Last edited:
archives said:
No, you people are confusing two issues, collating the two into the same issue, they are not, not about censoring conservative views, if such actually happens, but rather the current protection social media sites get from no matter what they offer, they can’t be sued, claiming they are just passing information on to viewers
Click to expand...

First off, Musk dumping the "Twitter Files" proved beyond all denial that Twitter not only designed algorithms to censor conservative views, but in fact worked with the STASI (formerly FBI) and the CDC to suppress medical and political views not in line with the democrat party.

Regardless of the disinformation you posted, the fact remains that the question before the court is are these social media monopolies forums where they form an electronic town square, or are they publishers who exercise editorial control over content?
 
Uncensored2008 said:
First off, Musk dumping the "Twitter Files" proved beyond all denial that Twitter not only designed algorithms to censor conservative views, but in fact worked with the STASI (formerly FBI) and the CDC to suppress medical and political views not in line with the democrat party.

Regardless of the disinformation you posted, the fact remains that the question before the court is are these social media monopolies forums where they form an electronic town square, or are they publishers who exercise editorial control over content?
Click to expand...
Please post this evidence, because I’ve read quite the opposite. Thanks

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/14/1142...s-to-discredit-foes-and-push-conspiracy-theor
 
archives said:
No, you are misinterpreting the rule, currently they are protected under 230 as a publisher, regardless of content, just passing on information, however if the rule is struck down, they lose this protection no matter how or what posts are offered
Click to expand...

Educate yourself ...

"This concern was raised by legal challenges against CompuServe and Prodigy, which were early service providers at that time.[19] CompuServe stated it would not attempt to regulate what users posted on its services, while Prodigy had employed a team of moderators to validate content. Both companies faced legal challenges related to content posted by their users. In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., the court concluded that because Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and was legally responsible for libel committed by its customers.[20]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230


There is a third option, ... only remove 230 immunity from mega corps with More than 50 million users.
 
archives said:
No, you are misinterpreting the rule, currently they are protected under 230 as a publisher, regardless of content, just passing on information, however if the rule is struck down, they lose this protection no matter how or what posts are offered
Click to expand...

There is a middle ground. If they aren't moderating content, and choosing what can and can't be posted on their site, then they'd be protected. If on the other hand, they are moderating content, and deciding what can and can't be posted on their site, then they don't get that protection. The exception would be for stuff that's criminal, not in keeping with the site's purpose, spam, that sort of thing. Then they're free to edit / take it down for obvious reasons.
 
Bigdog said:
Educate yourself ...

"This concern was raised by legal challenges against CompuServe and Prodigy, which were early service providers at that time.[19] CompuServe stated it would not attempt to regulate what users posted on its services, while Prodigy had employed a team of moderators to validate content. Both companies faced legal challenges related to content posted by their users. In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., the court concluded that because Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and was legally responsible for libel committed by its customers.[20]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230


There is a third option, ... only remove 230 immunity from mega corps with More than 50 million users.
Click to expand...


Oops
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The problem for tech platforms that do censor information and posts is that they are no longer bystanders but have become editors and it can be argued that makes them publishers because they select what user content can be displayed and which cannot. Further, if they are limiting some content while promoting others, it amounts to the same thing. The tech company is no longer a neutral party but an active participant in the conversation.

That wouldn't limit them to removing content that was criminal, malicious, or illegal, but rather they can't inject themselves into the conversation by censoring material they disagree with.
Click to expand...

All websites outside a few on the dark web moderate their content and delete stuff that breaks their rules. Right leaning ones like Truth Social tend to have more rules than ones like Twitter or Facebook.

So congratulations on being duped as what you call a problem is not a problem and will ALWAYS happen. You will never have any sites (outside the dark web) that would rule infractions, including things like blatant slander. That will not change, ever.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Or, they rule that section 230 only applies if the company allows content without interference. If the company isn't acting as a censor or editor, they aren't a publisher, they're merely providing a platform for speech.
Click to expand...

NO. Free speech does not protect anyone from being sued. You have the right to say it, but then i can sue you for it. Sites that end up with slanderous information on them today get notices from lawyers that they must take it down or they will be sued. Once you are notified something is slanderous you cannot just turn a blind eye and claim 'free speech'.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Or, they rule that section 230 only applies if the company allows content without interference. If the company isn't acting as a censor or editor, they aren't a publisher, they're merely providing a platform for speech.
Click to expand...

NO. Free speech does not protect anyone from being sued. You have the right to say it, but then i can sue you for it. Sites that end up with slanderous information on them today get notices from lawyers that they must take it down or they will be sued. Once you are notified something is slanderous you cannot just turn a blind eye and claim 'free speech'.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
That's what the court will decide. Can a platform determine content and still be a forum, or does the exercise of editorial control over content make the platform a publisher?

A forum will have a set of published rules that are applied to all. A publisher exercises editorial discretion over what is carried, as Twitter, Facebook, CNN, and the Los Angeles Times do.
Click to expand...

Still doesn’t understand it, currently, one can not sue social media sites regardless of what they run, they are protected under 230. If the Court rules against this protection, social media sites can be sued for what they offer

This ”issue” about censorship conservative posts has nothing to do with the ruling, nor will it be effected by the ruling, do you think Musk, without the 230 protection, is going to be in a hurry to run Alex Jones’ shit when one suing Jones, as we’ve seen the Sandy Hook parents did, can then also include Musk in the lawsuit?
 
Yakuda said:
No it is the issue. They should be careful. And if they lean heavily one way then we will know their stance and people can decide to participate or not. Everyone should be responsible for their choices.n
Click to expand...

Still missing it, reading it all with partisan glasses
 
Uncensored2008 said:
First off, Musk dumping the "Twitter Files" proved beyond all denial that Twitter not only designed algorithms to censor conservative views, but in fact worked with the STASI (formerly FBI) and the CDC to suppress medical and political views not in line with the democrat party.

Regardless of the disinformation you posted, the fact remains that the question before the court is are these social media monopolies forums where they form an electronic town square, or are they publishers who exercise editorial control over content?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant

And, no, it is not, plus if the Court strikes down 230, these sites will be extremely cautious on what they allow and don’t allow
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The problem for tech platforms that do censor information and posts is that they are no longer bystanders but have become editors and it can be argued that makes them publishers because they select what user content can be displayed and which cannot. Further, if they are limiting some content while promoting others, it amounts to the same thing. The tech company is no longer a neutral party but an active participant in the conversation.

That wouldn't limit them to removing content that was criminal, malicious, or illegal, but rather they can't inject themselves into the conversation by censoring material they disagree with.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I've been using Twitter. Usually I see hateful tweets from Trumpkins. No censorship.
 
archives said:
But if the Court rules against the tech companies, dumps Section 230, they can be held legally responsible for anything they post, anything they allow posted, which they aren’t at the moment.

If what you think now censorship is prevalent what do you think is going to happen when they have to increase scrutiny inorder to prevent million dollar lawsuits?
Click to expand...

Good point. There goes Internet freedom of speech... even worse than it is now.
 
Bigdog said:
Educate yourself ...

"This concern was raised by legal challenges against CompuServe and Prodigy, which were early service providers at that time.[19] CompuServe stated it would not attempt to regulate what users posted on its services, while Prodigy had employed a team of moderators to validate content. Both companies faced legal challenges related to content posted by their users. In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., the court concluded that because Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and was legally responsible for libel committed by its customers.[20]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230


There is a third option, ... only remove 230 immunity from mega corps with More than 50 million users.
Click to expand...



Both of the cases you posted are irrelevant, both 30years old, and were used at the time to create 230, not what the Court has facing them this week

“The future of the federal law that protects online platforms from liability for content uploaded on their site is up in the air as the Supreme Court is set to hear two cases that could change the internet this week.

“The cases will decide whether online platforms can be held liable for the content spread on their platforms.”

“The law explicitly states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” meaning online platforms are not responsible for the content a user may post.”

“Tech companies argue that Section 230 protects them from these types of lawsuits because it grants them legal immunity from liability over third-party content that is posted on their platform. The case will decide whether platforms can be held liable for spreading harmful content to users”

https://time.com/6256887/supreme-court-section-230-internet/

Try to keep up “big chiwawa”
 
T. A. Gardner said:
There is a middle ground. If they aren't moderating content, and choosing what can and can't be posted on their site, then they'd be protected. If on the other hand, they are moderating content, and deciding what can and can't be posted on their site, then they don't get that protection. The exception would be for stuff that's criminal, not in keeping with the site's purpose, spam, that sort of thing. Then they're free to edit / take it down for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

No, if 230 is eliminated, they lose this protection no matter how or what posts are offered
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top