Trump's executive orders and the implications for social media

@Setanta,

Quote:

the Congress has already determined 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"

In that language it implies that 'interactive computer services' are platforms, and that they ought to operate as platforms. That's why there's debate about the law being changed. That's what the whole stink is about!

When an internet communication platform applies selective rules (including banning or censorship) to certain users but not to others under purposely nebulous, non-objective 'terms of service' simply for political or ideological reasons, then uses subjective claims like 'hate speech' to rationalize it, that company is no longer a communication platform, they are now a publisher because they are making editorial decisions about what information is allowed to be disseminated and what isn't.

If these companies want protection under section 230, then they need to operate like the communication platforms the law was written for. They are currently not operating as such.

Quote:

Any claims here about political censorship, or prejudice are just as bullshit as the fat boy's claims about the fraudulent nature of mail-in voting. Anyone who persists in peddling this crapola is no centrist

Allow me to translate here:

"Everyone who disagrees with my ideology has no right to express their own views without my approval."

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Are you stating that any website should be legally obligated to allow anyone to post any content?...You seem to be taking an extreme position that no one can prevent any content from appearing on their website

No. I think I've clearly stated my position. But I'll say it again, social media platforms are a unique animal. They are by far the most efficient and widest way to reach a large group of people. Social media platforms are different than traditional websites, because thier primary function is communication. In this sense they have much more in common with cellular phone providers or internet service providers (ISPs) than traditional websites.

livinglava said:

Quote:

I can tell you as someone who tries to express non-leftist ideas among leftists, that people respond to me with hostility simply because they are intolerant of anything that dissents from their Democrat/Socialist ideological assumptions. So if I just say that police is generally a good institution regardless of what atrocities are committed by some people in uniform, they will automatically assume that I am supporting criminal police and treat me in a hostile way, even though I in no way defend criminality among police officers or among the general public.

I think this is easily the best comment in this entire thread. As we've seen with people like setanta, radical extremist progressives are among the most bigoted people you will ever meet. Instead of being prejudiced against others for things like their skin color (which of course is awful), these types of people are so incredibly intolerant and solipsistic that they really believe that people with opinions different from theirs are 'evil' or somehow immoral or even sub-human. These types of people de-humanize others that they disagree with ideologically, and even believe that others don't have a right to disagree with them at all and shouldn't be allowed the same sorts of protections of free speech that they enjoy.

In another thread Max said:

Quote:

Able2know allows some content that many people find offensive, racist or inappropriate. If the website wants to be absolutely safe, it would simply ban users like coldjoint and oralloy. They say things that the majority of Americans find offensive.

Yes it is ironic. It would mostly be conservatives that get banned. The people inside the liberal bubble are "nice", "clean", "acceptable" people who aren't the type to get sued.

Rush Limbaugh gets sued far more than Stephen Colbert does.

https://able2know.org/topic/548629-1

Although I certainly wouldn't call you a radical extremist leftist, and I definitely wouldn't put you in the same group of horribles as people like setanta, unfortunately Max, you prove livinglava correct with your words here.

According to what metric and citations are your above statements demonstrably true? How do you know what 'the majority' of Americans find offensive? What position are you in to make a statement like that with any kind of authority? By what objective standard are people inside the liberal bubble "nice", "clean", "acceptable" people anymore than conservatives?

I just did a very quick google search for "percentage of democrats to republicans in the U.S."

The results that came up all seemed to show that the country is pretty evenly split. Depending on what source you look at it leans one way or the other, but it's not heavily lopsided in either direction.

What you're demonstrating here Max (and I hate to pick on you because I like some of your posts) is a phenomenon that has become much more prevalent in the post-Trump reality of America.

People on both the left AND right can witness the same exact event but experience two entirely different versions of reality. It's like two different versions of the same America that are both detached from actual objective reality.

In the current day and age it would seem that it's the progressives that are the most fanatical and detached from the objective version of actual America. Prior to the civil rights movement the conservatives were.

Your above statements are not objective. For instance, I find Stephen Colbert incredibly offensive, but not because of his politics. I find him offensive because he masquerades as a 'comedian' when he is in fact is a political pundit. This is a bit of a side rant, but Conan O'Brien used to be my favorite comedian of all time. I literally watched his TV show every single day from the early 1990's until the mid 2010's. In the age of Trump I can no longer tolerate him, and I've lost most all respect for him. I always felt that John Stewart was the progenitor of what killed late night comedy forever, because instead of making people laugh at stupid goofy things like Conan used to, he turned it all into politics. Now all the comedians have followed suit.

When I want to laugh I generally don't want to hear about politics, and I certainly don't want to hear about Donald Trump. When I want to laugh I long for the days of Johnny Carson and of course Conan ...before he sold his soul.

1 Reply

@Webb,

There is no debate about changing the law, there's just that fat **** in the White House who seems to think that executive orders are ukases. The owners of those web sites can, and undoubtedly will challenge his bullshit in court. Maybe you could go join the Plump legal team with the bullshit you're posting here. You can take you snotty, personal remarks and blow them out of your ass.

1 Reply

@Webb,

Quote:

In that language it implies that 'interactive computer services' are platforms, and that they ought to operate as platforms.

There is nothing in the word "interactive" or "computer" or "service" that implies "platform". And "platform" doesn't mean what you say it means either.

You are just making this up.

0 Replies

@Webb,

1. Your definition of "platform" is logically consistent. But, it is impractical.

You are defining a "platform" as having no ability to set standards or block subjectively objectionable content. We have this happen in comments threads and other places. These places are unusable.

2. In reality, there are websites like RedState and DailyKos which are designed for political advocacy and organizing. There are Websites like ChristianityToday and Aish that are for a specific religions point of view. There are websites for academic science and geography and saving animals.

Each of these websites has a different purpose. Each has a different set of standards for what content is permissible. Each is moderated by human beings and controlled by the owners of the site.

All of these sites serve their users. And all of these sites benefit from 230(c) protection.

3.

Quote:

These types of people de-humanize others that they disagree with ideologically, and even believe that others don't have a right to disagree with them at all and shouldn't be allowed the same sorts of protections of free speech that they enjoy.

I think LivngLava and Setanta are both full of crap. This is my subjective opinion based on nothing more than my judgement. Lots of people think I am full of crap. So what?

By definition, Free Speech must apply to everyone, other wise it has no meaning. Once you start saying that people must behave a certain way to get freedom, you aren't really giving them freedom.

Telling LivingLava that he is being ridiculous, or telling Setanta that his posts are pompous and asinine are examples of Free Speech. And Setanta telling me I am a hateful moron is also protected by Free Speech.

4. Just to make is clear.... there is no legal guarantee of Free Speech on Able2know. Able2know is a private website. They are free to allow or disallow any post or user as they see fit.

That being said, I think Able2know does a pretty good job of setting a line and sticking to it. When I see a post disappear here... I usually understand why. The Free Speech here is defined by the moderators. I am OK with that.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

By definition, Free Speech must apply to everyone, other wise it has no meaning. Once you start saying that people must behave a certain way to get freedom, you aren't really giving them freedom.

Telling LivingLava that he is being ridiculous, or telling Setanta that his posts are pompous and asinine are examples of Free Speech. And Setanta telling me I am a hateful moron is also protected by Free Speech.

4. Just to make is clear.... there is no legal guarantee of Free Speech on Able2know. Able2know is a private website. They are free to allow or disallow any post or user as they see fit.

That being said, I think Able2know does a pretty good job of setting a line and sticking to it. When I see a post disappear here... I usually understand why. The Free Speech here is defined by the moderators. I am OK with that.

As I understand it, lawsuits are used to pressure people/businesses into submission. You can stand up to the lawsuit if you want and ultimately defend it in court, but because people don't want to have to go to court, don't want to invest the legal resources in bothering with it, they end up settling and so people can get what they want by filing a lawsuit and playing a game of chicken where company/person being sued won't stand up for what's right, i.e. because they would rather have the lawsuit dropped.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Provisions were added to the Communications Decency Act (CDS) to stop these lawsuits.

You don't have to defend them in court if they get tossed out. That was the intent of Congress when they passed the bill.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Provisions were added to the Communications Decency Act (CDS) to stop these lawsuits.

You don't have to defend them in court if they get tossed out. That was the intent of Congress when they passed the bill.

I guess they have to review whether the protections are getting abused to procure one-sided editorial power.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

I guess they have to review whether the protections are getting abused to procure one-sided editorial power.

They don't have to review anything.

Private companies have one-side editorial power. Whether you agree or not, that is the way that the law was written.

1 Reply

RedState.com Terms of Service wrote:

Moreover, any conduct by a user that in our sole discretion restricts or inhibits any other user from using or enjoying our Services will not be permitted.

This is from RedState.com, a conservative website by any stretch of the imagination.

They make it very clear that they decide what gets posted there. I suspect you will find similar statements on most (if not all) conservative websites (or liberal ones).

The CDA protects RedState from getting sued based on content posted by users. I think this is a good thing.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
I guess they have to review whether the protections are getting abused to procure one-sided editorial power.

They don't have to review anything.

Private companies have one-side editorial power. Whether you agree or not, that is the way that the law was written.

I meant the FCC or the courts have to review the liability protections they give to media companies, as being abused to protect one-sided editorial power.

E.g. if companies are censoring content and government liability protections are enabling them to do that, that could be interpreted as the companies exercising censorial powers with governmental funding (although liability isn't technically funding, it is like funding).

So the FCC could say that media platforms can qualify for continuing liability protection by maintaining balanced/neutral editorial control, or they can exercise one-sided editorial control and no longer qualify for protection.

If the government is supporting these platforms in any way, they can't abridge freedom of speech for users, otherwise that would translate to the government abridging freedom of speech by giving them liability protection.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I just googled and found a national forum for gun owners (if you google it, you will find it too). As most sites do, they state their "sole discretion" as to what gets posted there.

Let's say one of their users posts something a little over the line. They get taken to court because it is seen as a racial threat or incitement to violence. Can I then take the people who run the forum to court?

Are you really arguing that the forum on gun rights should be held liable for what one of their users posts?

I think that is the position you are taking. And, if so, it gives people who want to take away gun rights an awfully easy way to harass conservatives who run forums.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I just googled and found a national forum for gun owners (if you google it, you will find it too). As most sites do, they state their "sole discretion" as to what gets posted there.

Let's say one of their users posts something a little over the line. They get taken to court because it is seen as a racial threat or incitement to violence. Can I then take the people who run the forum to court?

Are you really arguing that the forum on gun rights should be held liable for what one of their users posts?

I think that is the position you are taking. And, if so, it gives people who want to take away gun rights an awfully easy way to harass conservatives who run forums.

I think what will happen is that media platforms that enjoy liability protection will have to meet standards for editorial neutrality and/or balance.

Then, when they lose that protected status, they could end up getting sued for any reason.

The question isn't whether I think they should get sued or not. Obviously I would rather everyone just engage in nice friendly discussion regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. I just think that there will be lawsuits because people don't want to respect political diversity and remain polite/friendly despite political differences.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

By definition, Free Speech must apply to everyone, other wise it has no meaning. Once you start saying that people must behave a certain way to get freedom, you aren't really giving them freedom.

That's exactly my point!

Being a conservative in the year 2020 is like being a black person during the Jim Crow era.

I want you to watch this short clip

"You cannot debate against someone who despises you."

In our current age information and communication are everything. The access or denial to them restricts the success a person can achieve.

The language of section 230 describes protecting companies that act more like utilities than private companies. Again, another good example of this are the credit bureaus. They are all private companies, but everyone has to contend with them.

You can't deny that big tech as an industry is heavily, HEAVILY left leaning. There are no right leaning companies not just in tech, but in the entire world with as much money and power as companies like Google, Twitter, facebook, etc.

Almost all of the people censored or banned on big tech are done so for political or ideological reasons. They are removed because they weren't people the liberals deemed "nice", "clean", "acceptable" people by their incredibly subjective standards. These people aren't being banned for doing anything that's actually objectively harmful, with a very small number of examples to the contrary. And in fact, these companies allow violent, radical individuals and groups like Antifa that are leftists to remain on their sites without censorship.

Imagine if the water companies were all owned by one political group, and they wouldn't allow service to people they didn't like.

The objective is to demoralize, dehumanize, and also cripple the political rival financially. A business person or organization like Chic-Fila for example that holds Christian values can be hurt financially if they don't have access to social media, or if the left uses social media to create a false hysteria narrative that they are somehow 'evil'.

It's a dirty game that's being played and the rules need to be clearly, explicitly defined and applied to everyone equally.

Quote:

Name a single website that doesn't exercise editorial control

4chan, 8chan

Maybe not the type of example you facetiously asked for, but they do exist.

How about this max, name me one giant tech company run by conservatives.

4 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

You can take you snotty, personal remarks and blow them out of your ass.

Why you mad bro?

1 Reply

@Webb,

GMAFB

Quote:

Being a conservative in the year 2020 is like being a black person during the Jim Crow era.

Um, no. No it is not. At all. Ever. Period.

I watched your clip, it was honest and real. Here's your quote:

Quote:

"You cannot debate against someone who despises you."

You seem to think that only applies against conservatives. That's blatantly untrue. Have a discussion about abortion and you'll quickly understand a liberal viewpoint is morally and ethically wrong to most conservatives, where there is no room for any other opinion except for theirs. Hence, there's no debate, just rhetoric designed to squelch basic body autonomy.

You do crack me up. Your tirade against mega search engines follows a user's preferences as a guide and somehow you think that's a political maneuver designed specifically against conservatives. My suggestion is to learn about search engines, how they function and choose which one works best for you.

Quote:

The objective is to demoralize, dehumanize, and also cripple the political rival financially. A business person or organization like Chic-Fila for example that holds Christian values can be hurt financially if they don't have access to social media, or if the left uses social media to create a false hysteria narrative that they are somehow 'evil'.

This is true on both sides. Somehow you forget that. And btw, Chic-Fil-A isn't hurting for business, in fact, their market share has grown substantially, and is now the third largest fast food chain in America.

Quote:

How about this max, name me one giant tech company run by conservatives.

How about you do your own homework... It will give you something to do besides whine about how conservatives are treated so very poorly.

2 Replies

@Webb,

Webb wrote:

Being a conservative in the year 2020 is like being a black person during the Jim Crow era.

Here is why they don't care:

What they see is economic inequality, as well as what they call social injustice in the form of inequality between LGTBQ and heterosexuals in marital rights and other privileges.

So what that means in terms of discriminating against conservatives/Republicans is that they feel completely legitimate in doing so until all economic inequality and other inequalities, including marriage, abortion (because men don't have to be pregnant, then neither should women have to), etc.

So as long as conservatives/Republicans resist simply accepting their POV on equality, justice, etc.; they consider them enemies to justice and they refuse to listen to any political view that thinks about these issues in a different way. In fact, they consider any dissent from their way of thinking as subversive ideology.

So the question is where such intolerance can go. Obviously we are supposed to have freedom of speech/religion/thought and democracy where civil discourse includes diversity of political thought; but as long as they make achievement of their goals a prerequisite to honoring free speech/religion/thought, that will cause them to justify dishonoring it with the excuse that those they are dishonoring are enemies of what they see as the only possible form that equality/justice/freedom can legitimately take.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Um, no. No it is not. At all. Ever. Period.

Insisting on the uniqueness of various instances of oppression has no productive value except to insist on rigid hierarchies of victimhood, which has no productive purpose other than to legitimate asymmetries of entitlement and duty; i.e. to insist that some people's duty is to serve the entitlements of others because they are higher up on the victimhood pedestal.

What the poster was saying by comparing Jim Crow to current discrimination against conservatives is to point out that the same forms of power, hate, intolerance, and discrimination exist in US culture today as during Jim Crow, but they have been re-oriented to target/scapegoat conservatives because targeting/scapegoating blacks has become taboo.

The culture of scapegoating is the same as it ever was, i.e. because it's about channeling hate as part of an exercise of collective social power. The people who assent to this type of power are weak and thus fascist/socialist, and they will fall in line with hating and discriminating against whomever the scapegoat du jure is, whether it's blacks, communists, conservatives, or whatever. These same people could put their energy into solving economic problems so no one has to be scapegoated, but they don't do that because they are dependent people for whom everything is produced and sold to them and they just need to fight for the privilege of having their debts and bills paid off so that they can go on spending money without putting effort into reducing their dependency/weakness. The way they fight is by collectively persecuting scapegoats to bear the brunt of the economy's collective shortcomings.

0 Replies

@Webb,

I am not mad, nor am I angry (you're nothing to me); most of all, I'm not, and never will be your "bro."

1 Reply

@Webb,

Quote:

Being a conservative in the year 2020 is like being a black person during the Jim Crow era.

This is the stupidest thing you have said here (at least you didn't go with a claim that conservatives are suffering as much as people in a concentration camp).

1 Reply

Trump's executive orders and the implications for social media

Quick Links

My Account

able2know