DriveInDriѵeOut
Inordinately Right
LMFAO
The amount of Democrat self delusion in this thread is amazing. Yes it's all fake lol.
The amount of Democrat self delusion in this thread is amazing. Yes it's all fake lol.
Biden or Trump
- Thread starter Rabrown
- Start date
oldngray
nowhere special
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
A 1996 law, Section 230, protects some of the darkest corners of the Web.
Most egregiously, the law has been used to defend Backpage.com, a website featuring ads for sex with children forced into prostitution.
oldngray
nowhere special
Yeah but when twitter starts taking sides they become a publisher of content and lose those 230 protections.
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
Why should he follow in your footsteps?
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
I agree! Just like the DemWits and MSM have been doing for 4 years!
zimbomb
Well-Known Member
You do understand that without section 230 this website could not exist? Users posting possible stolen hacked personal pictures would leave the owner liable.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
Actually, because this site moderates fairly heavily, it's unlikely the section 230 protections would apply to it.
zimbomb
Well-Known Member
Actually section 230 is the fundamental protection that allows "heavy" moderation from civil liability.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
Sites that heavily moderate can be seen as publishers, and liable for what is posted on their sites. Sites with little or no moderation are protected from liability.
You are confusing the CDA with the DCMA.
zimbomb
Well-Known Member
Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
If this site was a publisher (they clearly aren't) they would be held liable to it's content. The owner would need a large legal team to operate. It would be unsustainable and no longer exist.
Last edited:
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
Do you understand that the Congress could pass a law modifying Section 230 so that when a Platform becomes an Editor (Removing content) they are subject to liability laws.
Just like media.
Didn't think you could understand!
Carry on Putz.
zimbomb
Well-Known Member
You're trolling me right?
BrownFlush
Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
They have been subpoenaed. The Cruz will be asking some questions next week so I heard.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
He ignored the referenced case law setting precedent. Overmoderation, or uneven moderation can cause a platform to become stripped of its protections.
He is also trying to deflect from the fact that you and @oldngray were referring to the cda while he was bringing up issues that are covered by the dmca.
Last edited:
zimbomb
Well-Known Member
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
Not the point I was making, but no. Just countering your mixed up point about this site not being here if it weren't for section 230, then bringing up copyright issues. The argument could be made that this site moderates too heavily, or that certain moderators target certain members for certain reasons, but I don't actually believe that. I was using exaggeration as a rhetorical device.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
Moderation has been more consistent since the monkey butt got fired. It’s still not terribly consistent though, but we aren’t to discuss moderation in the public forum.
I think platforms should be able to moderate their content however they see fit as long as they aren’t producing their own content and promoting that above users for money.
