Conservatives and Section 230. Is Trump stabbing the right-wing in the back?

Liberals supporting Trump on any issue thanks for the laughs.

Next any attacking of freedom of speech will run into the fact that the internet is world wide and the results would be the moving of attacks websites off shore.

See how the UK run into that fact when it came to controlling Porn in their nation.

Back stabber? Oh no, no, no!

Further though it runs along the edges or straight up is, you will not be locating any Conservative admitting such. At least not before the whimpering simpering users have drained every last shred of dignity and recalcitrant decency from their hollowed out souls, while having Trump support them in even the most limited way....
...or Trump is no longer of importance to even his most ardent supporters...

...or several years hence after Trump is dead and the former Trumper is writing their autobiography to get another twinge of fake fame (clearly after they are no longer in the day to day sphere of political glop).

An intelligent person will accept a fact, or a good ideas, no matter who it comes from. I'd like to think there are intelligent liberals.

I can list several things that Trump got right. That doesn't mean I support Trump. I suppose it does call my ideological purity and mindless acceptance of partisan dogma into question...

You’re saying that American newspapers and broadcasters don’t have freedom of speech.

Hi Izzy,

I want to be sure ...

You are not in favor of Section 230 protections for social media platforms.

Can you confirm this? (Because it shows I was right in my OP).

I want to know what you’re complaining about.

Do you think American news organisations have freedom of speech, yes or no?

I’m not an American, your domestic laws don’t affect me.

Social media platforms are fundamentally different from newspapers. Nespapers are responsible for their content. Under section 230, social media platforms are not responsible for their content.

I believe this is a good thing.

Newspapers have free speech. This is unrelated to the topic. The danger without section 230 is that there will be pressure to censor the users.

If you are here to pick a fight, I will stop responding (after I have stopped having my fun prodding you). If you are here to argue a point, than tell me what your point is?

You like to spread lies and nonsense, hate speech is a prime example you claim it’s a purely subjective term while there exist plenty of legal definitions of the term.

The long-standing problem with social media platforms is that they have allowed lies disinformation and hate speech to go unchallenged, and during times of a pandemic is highly irresponsible.

You fetishise free speech at the expense of truth.

Strange how you only consider that “conservatives,” would fall foul of existing legislation.

You don’t seem at all worried about protecting people exposing corruption and malfeasance, which is the main of of free speech after all, to hold those in power to account, but all your concern is for those who wish to spread lies and hate.

So... in this case you agree with Trump that Section 230 should be revoked.

This is exactly what I predicted in my OP.

I don’t agree with Trump on anything.

He’s not trying to shut up the far right, he’s having a go at social media oligarchs .

If I were to call you a paedophile and print your name and address I can quite rightly be prosecuted. Any platform that profits from such a posting should be held accountable.

This is an interesting point....

What you are saying is that if you post something on Able2know that crosses a legal line, and Able2know doesn't pull it down in what my lawyers consider a reasonable time...

I should be able to sue the owners of Able2know for what you post?

I disagree with this. If this were true, Able2know would be a lost more likely to take down your posts... just to be safe. I doubt Able2know has lawyers on staff checking every post for possible liability. That would be very expensive.

If I were to call you a paedophile and identify who you are, name address etc. and Able2Know allowed that to stand then yes there should be some form of legal recourse.

I think were anyone to post stuff like that here it would be taken down pretty quickly, look at how all the porn smam pmers were got of.

You don’t need to be a lawyer to know what’s acceptable.

Don't be silly.... someone facing possible legal action who doesn't get a lawyer is a fool.

The fact that you think you will probably win in court doesn't mean that you want to go in court. And, it certainly doesn't mean that you shouldn't hire a very good lawyer.

Imagine you are the owner of Able2know. You post things that I believe are unacceptable. I go to Able2know and say, if you don't get rid of this Izzy character, I am going to sue you.

The chance that I would win might be small... but the risk to Able2know and the possible legal cost is high (I don't imagine the owners of Able2know have a big legal fund). They would be foolish to not talk to a lawyer, and they might easily make the decision that letting Izzy post is not worth the risk.

Section 230 eliminates that risk. I believe that even in the case of Izzy this is a good thing.

You’re being ridiculous. If I posted illegal stuff I’d get banned, if I post stuff you find distasteful then tough.

Your wild imaginings of small social media companies being barraged by malicious law suits are just that.

Thanks to Section 230.

Section 230 was specifically written to prevent social media companies (small or otherwise) from being barraged by malicious laws suits. The small social media companies don't have teams of highly paid lawyers on staff. They need this protection more than the big ones.

It’s possible to protect small from companies from malicious litigation and guard against hate speech, lies and disinformation.

Yes, it is possible under one condition. The Goverment must have the power to restrict speech it deems to be offensive.

Once the government has the power to label some speech as "hate speech" free speech has no meaning. In the UK, 9 people get arrested a day for online speech for everything from posting rap lyrics to stupid pet tricks. Anything the government deems to be "offensive" can be censored.

In Thailand criticizing the King is offensive. In Turkey anything that offends "Turkishness" is illegal. In the UK it is anything "hateful".

The people in power define what is "hateful" and what is acceptable. That is not free speech.