Anal Check # 1: Free Speech

It also centers around publishing. As soon as you start dictating/curating what gets published, thou art a publisher and held to those standards around liability. Section 230 shielded them from liable for what other people, whom do not represent them, say or do. So when you curate what is/is not said, you are a publisher.

Nonsensical. Sec 230 provides immunity for the site for things people post. Limiting speech has no bearing on that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect...ion_and_limits

Read the case law summaries.

In the free market, you can go to a place that allows you to voice as many insane opinions as you like. Just because you can’t voice that opinion where you want is a you problem not a them problem. Originally Posted by NoirMan

That is true but they should be open, fair minded, and consistent with their rules. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Agreed.

It also centers around publishing. As soon as you start dictating/curating what gets published, thou art a publisher and held to those standards around liability. Section 230 shielded them from liable for what other people, whom do not represent them, say or do. So when you curate what is/is not said, you are a publisher. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I’m lost as to what you mean by curate or dictate. We are talking about removing statements not adding them.

I’m lost as to what you mean by curate or dictate. We are talking about removing statements not adding them. Originally Posted by NoirMan

I guess you could say censoring is the same as not adding them. Curating is closer to publishing. In other words, an editorial process which determines what gets published.

Section 230 provided protection to sites that allowed users to "publish" their own opinions without direct "curating" by the website owner. Thus the site owner is not subject for liable by the words of a potentially anonymous poster.

That differs from say the NYT, which has an editor, publisher and writer hierarchy. In my mind, once a site takes on those other roles, Section 230 should be null. When you look at how these "private" sites operate, they have algorithms and people writing them and people designing them. In essence, they have automated the functions of editor and publisher.

In a nutshell, the act of determining that opinion A gets censored but not opinion B is in essence the same as saying only opinion B is correct, assuming they both assess the same topic.

Please discuss the whittling down of this site and other sites similar to it, as it pertains to your knowledge.


Some sites have disappeared completely. Othere operate under the overhanging cloud of legal action....and also what posters post.

You go first.

Please discuss the whittling down of this site and other sites similar to it, as it pertains to your knowledge.


Some sites have disappeared completely. Othere operate under the overhanging cloud of legal action....and also what posters post. Originally Posted by VitaMan

I guess you could say censoring is the same as not adding them. Curating is closer to publishing. In other words, an editorial process which determines what gets published.

Section 230 provided protection to sites that allowed users to "publish" their own opinions without direct "curating" by the website owner. Thus the site owner is not subject for liable by the words of a potentially anonymous poster.

That differs from say the NYT, which has an editor, publisher and writer hierarchy. In my mind, once a site takes on those other roles, Section 230 should be null. When you look at how these "private" sites operate, they have algorithms and people writing them and people designing them. In essence, they have automated the functions of editor and publisher.

In a nutshell, the act of determining that opinion A gets censored but not opinion B is in essence the same as saying only opinion B is correct, assuming they both assess the same topic. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

It’s pretty clear to me that you have a misapprehension of 230.

You go first. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

You have vast knowledge of this topic, as can be read by your bloviating. We are waiting.

It’s pretty clear to me that you have a misapprehension of 230. Originally Posted by NoirMan

Clarity is still a thing. Right? We talking about:

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
Was essentially the lone survivor of the Communication Decency Act (CDA) of 1996. Later followed with FOSTA, SESTA

I tend to favor this description from eff.org:

What protection does Section 230 provide?
Section 230 says that "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." This federal law preempts any state laws to the contrary: "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section." The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to limit the reach of Section 230 to "traditional" Internet service providers, instead treating many diverse entities as "interactive computer service providers."

FWIW: Also a huge fan of Aaron Swartz - he fought the good fight but was ultimately hanged (alleged suicide)

Free speech - sure!

Anal check? WHY????

Next think we know there'll be a reprise of discussions from years ago about other guys' JUNK!

AY YIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYI

or fat guys dancing

or fat guys dancing Originally Posted by winn dixie

OP, your poll was too short. I missed it by 2 days. should've made it for 30 days.


the classic libs are still around. they're an endangered species. Bill Maher would be considered one.


If your poll was up longer, I would have voted for #2. was the ass check comment really needed?

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Or dicks.

Sorry about the time limit and I was trying to be provocative with my OP. I knew that like shit to a fly, it would attract the idiots who want to go against reality.