I once said that I only supported repealing section 230 as a last resort, but that day has come. It isn't that I think it would stop censorship because that isn't why I support it's repeal.
I support repealing section 230 because it isn't serving any purpose except to allow government to dodge being held responsible for censoring the truth. It is a farce that only allows government to threaten to regulate facebook and twitter to get them to censor stuff they may not want to censor at all.
Let's end the farce and let government regulate them. At least then we will know government is forcing them to censor stuff they deny they are doing right now and government cannot threaten them with regulation anymore.
Section 230 is simply not serving the common people. It has failed and we wouldn't notice much difference if it was gone. It's only purpose is a big stick to threaten facebook so they censor what government wants them to.
@Metal-Brain
Is this the idea of blaming websites for the content being posted by random posters on said websites?
No websites should be held accountable for any post or message from its members.
Including me.
Including you.
@contenchess saidI agree, but that ship has sailed.
@Metal-Brain
Is this the idea of blaming websites for the content being posted by random posters on said websites?
No websites should be held accountable for any post or message from its members.
Including me.
Including you.
Do you support repealing section 230? If not, why?
@contenchess saidEven if they are considered public square, websites must maintain some discretion to publish whatever content is consistent with their company policies. It's a bot-infested minefield out there.
@Metal-Brain
Is this the idea of blaming websites for the content being posted by random posters on said websites?
No websites should be held accountable for any post or message from its members.
Including me.
Including you.
The web is full of disinformation. Trust the doctors for medical info. Trust the science for scientific info. Trust politicians for nothing. There are 400,000 people following the "birds are not real" reddit thread. Does that make it real?
Go on a hike. That's reality.
@wildgrass saidSo you believe that people are incapable of making decisions for themselves. If you write items, then I must believe it.
Even if they are considered public square, websites must maintain some discretion to publish whatever content is consistent with their company policies. It's a bot-infested minefield out there.
The web is full of disinformation. Trust the doctors for medical info. Trust the science for scientific info. Trust politicians for nothing. There are 400,000 people following the "birds are not real" reddit thread. Does that make it real?
Go on a hike. That's reality.
Certainly seems you are correct. I believe everything you write.
For the extremely stupid...yes that was sarcasm.
@metal-brain saidGetting ready for the return of Trump., and GOP led Congress? Your showing your true colours supporting government censorship, fits nicely with gerrymandering and voter suppression though and it works well enough for your fellow fascists in the Kremlin 👍
I once said that I only supported repealing section 230 as a last resort, but that day has come. It isn't that I think it would stop censorship because that isn't why I support it's repeal.
I support repealing section 230 because it isn't serving any purpose except to allow government to dodge being held responsible for censoring the truth. It is a farce that only all ...[text shortened]... It's only purpose is a big stick to threaten facebook so they censor what government wants them to.
@eladar saidHuh? I didn't write about my beliefs at all. You're making that up.
So you believe that people are incapable of making decisions for themselves. If you write items, then I must believe it.
Certainly seems you are correct. I believe everything you write.
For the extremely stupid...yes that was sarcasm.
In America, anyone can set up any website that hosts whatever political speech they approve of and bans whatever political speech they disapprove of.
Any law that would hinder people from doing that based on your belief or viewpoint is presumptively unconstitutional.
Conservatives have somehow wrapped their minds around the thought that the government should be controlling what Twitter publishes and calling themselves free speech warriors. It's literally the opposite of free speech.
@Metal-Brain
What are you talking about? I never heard of section 230, or 229 or 231 so what is it?
@sonhouse saidLook it up you lazy troll.
@Metal-Brain
What are you talking about? I never heard of section 230, or 229 or 231 so what is it?