Re: Re: You, despite your best efforts, do make a valid point.
Dude, everyone leaves upon the start of the new presidency. The people left were all only intended to be temporary stand-ins. This happens every time we get a new President.
Re: For starters, the flag is the symbol of a rebellion
No, it was slavery. Why would they secede from the Union over doing business with England? And why would they specifically do so right as Lincoln was made President-elect? Nothing that Lincoln supported or fought against would have impeded that, and I’ve seen no evidence that suggests that southerners thought otherwise.
You’re right about the money, though. It’s just that the issue is that slaves were basically unpaid labor, so it’s cheaper to have slaves do the work than to hire a paid worker to do the job. Not to mention the fact that the buying and selling of slaves was also a fairly lucrative business in itself. So yeah, it was about money, but not England’s money.
Also, why would the South prefer England over the North? You never explained why they would prefer to do business with England for machinery and such, nor did you offer any evidence that they did. You simply asserted it as the most likely motivation and nothing else.
Seriously, read the documents by the people who voted to secede. They explicitly point to slavery as the key motivating factor for secession. The Vice President of the Confederacy explicitly stated that the new nation was founded primarily on the issue of slavery. There is nothing about doing business with England.
As John Oliver once said (I’m paraphrasing), “If the Confederacy wasn’t formed because of slavery, someone should really tell the f*€&ing Confederacy that!”
Plus, as you admit, the rallying cry for the Confederacy was slavery. That means that the flag was intended to represent a nation that at the very least claimed to be fighting for slavery. Even if that wasn’t actually the motivating factor, the flag itself is closely associated with the “rallying cry” of slavery and was intended as such.
Guy Fawkes, on the other hand, had no connection to slavery or racism at all. He also wasn’t involved in a years-long civil war but just a small act of rebellion that didn’t even work and ended in just one night. There also wasn’t any regional issues involved. On top of that, the way the mask gets used now has pretty much 0 connection to the original use. It just gets used in association with hacking and Anonymous. With the Confederate Flag, the claimed reasons for flying it nowadays (states’ rights and southern heritage) are pretty well connected to the original use (states’ rights to own slaves and the southern heritage of slavery).
In other words, the question presented by the Section 230 Petition is […] whether a particular take down also benefits from Section 230’s statutory protections.
The answer to that question flows from the text of the statute and leaves a website’s constitutional rights uninfringed.
This confused me at first. It almost sounds like he’s saying that the answer is, “Yes, a particular takedown does benefit from §230’s statutory protections,” and if so, then I’d agree, and that answer does “flow[] from the text of the statute and leaves a website’s constitutional rights uninfringed.“
However, I’m pretty sure that he’s saying that the question can be answered using the text of the statute (true) and that the answer to that question has no impact on a website’s constitutional rights. If that’s what he’s saying, then I disagree. That would effectively be punishing a website for exercising their constitutional rights.
At any rate, a plain reading of the text of §230, the abundance of case law on the subject, and the original intent of the statute make it very clear that any moderation does not forfeit §230 protections. Also, I’m pretty sure that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to interpret a statute that doesn’t involve them in such a way as to go against what the courts have ruled about what the statute does or does not do.
I think I get what he’s saying. See, there is one part of §230 that is possibly, arguably somewhat unclear, at least at a glance: what it means to develop content in part. What he’s arguing is that moderation of content may or may not be considered developing the content that does appear at least in part. Now, he’s completely and utterly wrong about that, but that’s the most charitable reasoning I can think of.
Now, I am not that charitable, so I’d say that it’s probably just him trying to persuade those who aren’t on board with reforming §230, and he probably doesn’t care about being consistent or accurate. He’s just pushing an agenda.
Re: Re: YOU have been answered YES, WITHIN "COMMON LAW".
Here’s the problem with that: speech that falls under
If you wouldn't say it in person, and a barkeeper wouldn't find it acceptable, then should be moderated.
is actually protected speech under common law, not banned speech. In other words, such speech is legal, which means either your answer to the previous question should have been “no” or your answer to the second question should have been “yes”. By answering “yes” to the first and “no” to the second, you have contradicted yourself.
Again, speech that is protected speech is, by definition, speech that cannot be prohibited or punished by the government. That’s why it’s protected. Whether or not it’s polite is 100% irrelevant to whether it’s covered by common law.
Re: Re: Re: Re: YES. If OK by Common LAW and Brandenburg, then Y
Neither common law nor Brandenburg (which is part of common law, BTW) outlaw uncivil or rude speech; on the contrary, such speech still receives protection under the 1A. So no, the idea that society doesn’t work unless everyone is civil is very much not included in common law; quite the opposite. Basically, you’ve just contradicted yourself.
Re: Re: Corporations don't have any right to BE big.
Because during the paper era, we didn’t have the problems of interstate and international reach and the law of big numbers, plus more judges followed common sense.
I’m okay with antitrust cases when they’re being done properly and not for selfish reasons. For example, breaking up the massive ISPs like AT&T is okay by me.
Let me ask a different question: If all the big companies get broken up into small companies through antitrust actions, why would you need to change §230, which protects companies of all sizes as well as individuals equally?
After all, you have said that the only problem with §230 is having a few large companies being able to moderate with impunity, so if there are many small companies, wouldn’t that solve the problem? Removing §230 would make life much harder for small companies, too.
Re: Re: Nice, diversion, A. Stephen Stone. Here's my answer:
No, only HOSTS are immunized. Publishers are still liable!
That’s not what §230 says. It says that ICS providers (including but not limited to hosts) are protected from being held liable as publishers of third-party content created or published using the ICS. It doesn’t say that the ICS providers are only immune from liability for third-party content if they are not publishers, nor does it say that they aren’t publishers; they just can’t be held liable as a publisher.
The Person Publishing even on an immunized HOST is STILL liable. Is that not true? What protection are you trying to claim users have?
They are still liable for content that they produced, but not for content produced by another person “publishing” on the same “immunized host”. They are also not liable for reporting content as objectionable. Basically, it works the same as it does for the “host” or other ICS provider.
Whether you are a provider or user of an ICS, §230 protects you from liability from content produced by someone else and not you along with moderation decisions/tools made by you or someone else, but you are liable for content you yourself have produced.
You say are still subject to "moderation" of all even if okay by Common Law and Brandenburg?
Yes, both the provider and the user are legally allowed to moderate even perfectly legal and lawful speech as they see fit.
MERE HOSTS are not to retain ability of PUBLISHER!
Nothing in the law says otherwise. On the contrary, §230 says that ICS providers are able to do whatever they want and they won’t be liable for moderation decisions or tools, nor are they to be held liable as publisher of third-party-produced content.
S230 is to remove the liability from MERE HOSTS (generally okay with everyone!), not to make them a new category of Immune Publisher.
Again, §230 explicitly says otherwise, so you are just flat-out wrong. Though, really, §230 just codifies the immunities and powers already possessed by real-world, physical publishers, libraries, bookstores, etc., so in that sense, you’re right in that it doesn’t make them a new category of immune publisher.
Re: No, only HOSTS are immunized. Publishers are still liable!
A person posting something on an immunized service/platform is liable for what they post, but not for content posted by other users, nor for moderation decisions they make on the service/platform.
For example, someone who posts a video on YouTube is not liable for comments posted by others on their video (or some other video) or for the content of videos created and posted by someone else, and unless they’re acting as part of the government, they can also make whatever moderation decisions they want. Similarly, people who post comments on a video are not liable for the content of comments posted by other users or for the video they commented on, nor are they liable for flagging comments or videos to be removed. That said, in both cases, the user is liable for any video or comment that they themselves post or were directly involved in creating.
The same things apply to the providers of the ICS being used with the exact same limitations. They are liable for content that they themselves create or are directly involved in creating, but not for content created entirely by users or other third parties, and they are not liable for removing or hiding content they or their users deem objectionable, nor for providing tools to users to do the same thing.
Re: Re: No, only HOSTS are immunized. Publishers are still liabl
What protection are you trying to claim users have?
Users are protected from liability for things published by other users. In fact, they receive all the same §230 protections that ICS providers receive, really.
“A library can’t be held legally liable for the content of a book that contains defamatory statements.”
Again, I don't necessarily disagree with THAT aspect of S230.
Okay, well libraries (at least private ones) are also not legally liable for removing certain books from the shelves and refusing to lend them, either, nor for refusing to stock those books in the first place. Nor are they liable for putting books in different sections based on their content and whether or not they believe it’s appropriate for certain readers. That’s part of the other aspect of §230. (The other part is giving users the tools to do moderation themselves, but it’s difficult to fit that into the analogy, and if you agree with the rest of §230, this part basically follows as a logical addition.)
You and Maz, though, believe that MERE HOSTS are still Publishers. They're NOT. They're mechanism, like a physical printer. And they're stifling those who wish to Publish.
Actually, they’re more like a printing house, which—by the way—have the right to make decisions on what they’re willing to print, or the owner of a billboard that they rent out, who has the same rights, or, as mentioned, a library (same). But even if you were right (which you’re not), that could only possibly be relevant to whether or not the 1A comes into play. It’s completely and utterly irrelevant to the questions of property rights and §230. But, again, you’re wrong, and these ICS providers are the ones publishing your content, which makes them publishers, and even if they weren’t considered publishers, removing speech from a place you own is itself protected by the 1A.
HOSTS are playing Censoring Library (up to Royal Keeper of the Morals), NOT the even-handed ones that you try to portray.
You haven’t provided sufficient evidence that they are not even-handed.
Again, nothing in §230, the 1A, or property rights require even-handedness by anyone other than the government, which private corporations are not. Private corporations still get the protections from those laws whether or not they discriminate against certain legal content or viewpoints, and they still get the protections from those laws to engage in such discrimination. Furthermore, unless they have a contract that explicitly says otherwise, no US law bans or limits the rights of private corporations or human persons to engage in viewpoint discrimination on their property, nor could their be under, once again, the 1A and basic property rights.
Re: Re: No, only HOSTS are immunized. Publishers are still liabl
By strange NON-coincidence, prior browser session stopped working after the one comment in this Maz piece. This happens often […], and yet no one else ever reports such!
That tells me that you have a shitty browser, low-end computer, or bad internet connection. The fact is that there is no way for a website to stop a browser session from working on purpose for only certain users based solely on viewpoint. If you’re the only one who has this problem, then it’s far more likely that there’s something wrong on your end than that you’re being targeted.
[…](as does trouble getting in, never come out of the alleged Moderation)[…]
That’s because rather than being patient and waiting for your comments to work their way through moderation, you just spam the same thing over and over again until one of them finally makes it through. Once that happens, there is 0 reason to remove your duplicate posts from the filter as they would add nothing you haven’t already said to the thread. This has been explained to you in the past. Whether or not you believe that is not our problem.
Look, just wait awhile to see if your comment ever makes it through before trying again. That’s what the rest of us do on the odd occasion that one of our posts gets stuck in the filter, and it generally works out fine.
Techdirt does viewpoint discrimination, just HIDES it.
Assuming without conceding that’s true, it’s irrelevant. Neither the 1A, §230, nor property rights (all of which are what protect ICS providers from liability for third-party content and moderation decisions) do not in any way prevent providers from engaging in viewpoint discrimination.
That's on top of Editorial control of adding a warning and requiring a click to see my comments -- which makes Techdirt the Publisher, another point of contention.
Actually, it’s not. §230 protections don’t go away just because the ICS provider is also a publisher. On the contrary, it explicitly says that the provider is not liable as a publisher of third-party content, and that moderation decisions and/or the provision of tools for users to make moderation decisions neither remove those protections nor make the provider liable for those decisions/tools.
That’s where the contention is: if an ICS provider acts as a publisher of third-party content, does that remove §230 protections? A plain reading of the law and just about every non-overturned court decision on §230 say no, it does not.
You are assuming that President Trump will go quietly rather than declaring martial law in order to create the necessary conditions for a free and fair presidential election
When you have to declare martial law in order to win, you’ve lost any right to claim the high ground. This also assumes that the military will listen to such a clearly illegal order, which is even less likely.
one that does not suffer from such fatal deficiencies as the current one that ended up handing probably the worst candidate in American history the victory,
I.e. President Trump
by allowing millions of fraudulent votes to be counted.
[asserts facts not in evidence]
Where a "fraudulent" vote is defined by being cast by a person that would in a proper election have been successfully blocked from voting by one of the many great ways this has been done in history by our proud ancestors.
You mean like a poll tax? Or racist tests? Or because of your gender? Yeah, those were the days. Seriously, have you completely forgotten our history? We blocked lots of people from voting for completely arbitrary reasons unrelated to ensuring a fair and free election. We also didn’t require state IDs back then, and we trusted the officials who did verification of the signatures the first time around. In fact, mail-in and absentee ballots preceded photo ID laws. We also took weeks to count all the votes and transmit them to the legislatures to appoint electors.
Basically, if I was feeling uncharitable, I could reasonably interpret your statement as saying that any vote cast by anyone other than a white, male, property-owning citizen aged at least 21 years is “fraudulent” by your own definition without excluding any mail-in or absentee ballots, including ones that arrived after Election Day. However, I am feeling charitable, so I’ll just assume you were being careless when you chose to define “fraudulent”.
On the post: FTC's Misses Opportunity To Understand Social Media; Instead Goes For Weird Fishing Expedition Against Odd Grouping Of Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: So your key assertion of "First Amendme
How mature.
On the post: FTC's Misses Opportunity To Understand Social Media; Instead Goes For Weird Fishing Expedition Against Odd Grouping Of Companies
Re: Re: You, despite your best efforts, do make a valid point.
Dude, everyone leaves upon the start of the new presidency. The people left were all only intended to be temporary stand-ins. This happens every time we get a new President.
On the post: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
Re: "Your" side is trying to make US of A flag a racist symbol t
[citation needed]
On the post: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
Re: For starters, the flag is the symbol of a rebellion
No, it was slavery. Why would they secede from the Union over doing business with England? And why would they specifically do so right as Lincoln was made President-elect? Nothing that Lincoln supported or fought against would have impeded that, and I’ve seen no evidence that suggests that southerners thought otherwise.
You’re right about the money, though. It’s just that the issue is that slaves were basically unpaid labor, so it’s cheaper to have slaves do the work than to hire a paid worker to do the job. Not to mention the fact that the buying and selling of slaves was also a fairly lucrative business in itself. So yeah, it was about money, but not England’s money.
Also, why would the South prefer England over the North? You never explained why they would prefer to do business with England for machinery and such, nor did you offer any evidence that they did. You simply asserted it as the most likely motivation and nothing else.
Seriously, read the documents by the people who voted to secede. They explicitly point to slavery as the key motivating factor for secession. The Vice President of the Confederacy explicitly stated that the new nation was founded primarily on the issue of slavery. There is nothing about doing business with England.
As John Oliver once said (I’m paraphrasing), “If the Confederacy wasn’t formed because of slavery, someone should really tell the f*€&ing Confederacy that!”
Plus, as you admit, the rallying cry for the Confederacy was slavery. That means that the flag was intended to represent a nation that at the very least claimed to be fighting for slavery. Even if that wasn’t actually the motivating factor, the flag itself is closely associated with the “rallying cry” of slavery and was intended as such.
Guy Fawkes, on the other hand, had no connection to slavery or racism at all. He also wasn’t involved in a years-long civil war but just a small act of rebellion that didn’t even work and ended in just one night. There also wasn’t any regional issues involved. On top of that, the way the mask gets used now has pretty much 0 connection to the original use. It just gets used in association with hacking and Anonymous. With the Confederate Flag, the claimed reasons for flying it nowadays (states’ rights and southern heritage) are pretty well connected to the original use (states’ rights to own slaves and the southern heritage of slavery).
On the post: FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr Again Misrepresents The Debate Over Section 230
This confused me at first. It almost sounds like he’s saying that the answer is, “Yes, a particular takedown does benefit from §230’s statutory protections,” and if so, then I’d agree, and that answer does “flow[] from the text of the statute and leaves a website’s constitutional rights uninfringed.“
However, I’m pretty sure that he’s saying that the question can be answered using the text of the statute (true) and that the answer to that question has no impact on a website’s constitutional rights. If that’s what he’s saying, then I disagree. That would effectively be punishing a website for exercising their constitutional rights.
At any rate, a plain reading of the text of §230, the abundance of case law on the subject, and the original intent of the statute make it very clear that any moderation does not forfeit §230 protections. Also, I’m pretty sure that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to interpret a statute that doesn’t involve them in such a way as to go against what the courts have ruled about what the statute does or does not do.
On the post: FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr Again Misrepresents The Debate Over Section 230
I think I get what he’s saying. See, there is one part of §230 that is possibly, arguably somewhat unclear, at least at a glance: what it means to develop content in part. What he’s arguing is that moderation of content may or may not be considered developing the content that does appear at least in part. Now, he’s completely and utterly wrong about that, but that’s the most charitable reasoning I can think of.
Now, I am not that charitable, so I’d say that it’s probably just him trying to persuade those who aren’t on board with reforming §230, and he probably doesn’t care about being consistent or accurate. He’s just pushing an agenda.
On the post: Smaller Internet Companies Say They're Open To 230 Reform... To Keep Facebook From Being The Only Voice In The Room
Re: Re: YOU have been answered YES, WITHIN "COMMON LAW".
Here’s the problem with that: speech that falls under
is actually protected speech under common law, not banned speech. In other words, such speech is legal, which means either your answer to the previous question should have been “no” or your answer to the second question should have been “yes”. By answering “yes” to the first and “no” to the second, you have contradicted yourself.
Again, speech that is protected speech is, by definition, speech that cannot be prohibited or punished by the government. That’s why it’s protected. Whether or not it’s polite is 100% irrelevant to whether it’s covered by common law.
On the post: Smaller Internet Companies Say They're Open To 230 Reform... To Keep Facebook From Being The Only Voice In The Room
Re: Re: Re: Re: YES. If OK by Common LAW and Brandenburg, then Y
Neither common law nor Brandenburg (which is part of common law, BTW) outlaw uncivil or rude speech; on the contrary, such speech still receives protection under the 1A. So no, the idea that society doesn’t work unless everyone is civil is very much not included in common law; quite the opposite. Basically, you’ve just contradicted yourself.
On the post: Smaller Internet Companies Say They're Open To 230 Reform... To Keep Facebook From Being The Only Voice In The Room
Re: "dating sites" euphemism for open solicitation of prostituti
Actually, we mean dating sites. Many dating sites were removed regardless of whether or not they were acting legally.
On the post: Smaller Internet Companies Say They're Open To 230 Reform... To Keep Facebook From Being The Only Voice In The Room
Re: Re: Corporations don't have any right to BE big.
Because during the paper era, we didn’t have the problems of interstate and international reach and the law of big numbers, plus more judges followed common sense.
On the post: Smaller Internet Companies Say They're Open To 230 Reform... To Keep Facebook From Being The Only Voice In The Room
Re: Corporations don't have any right to BE big.
I’m okay with antitrust cases when they’re being done properly and not for selfish reasons. For example, breaking up the massive ISPs like AT&T is okay by me.
On the post: Smaller Internet Companies Say They're Open To 230 Reform... To Keep Facebook From Being The Only Voice In The Room
Re: Re: Re: There is NO contradiction!
Let me ask a different question: If all the big companies get broken up into small companies through antitrust actions, why would you need to change §230, which protects companies of all sizes as well as individuals equally?
After all, you have said that the only problem with §230 is having a few large companies being able to moderate with impunity, so if there are many small companies, wouldn’t that solve the problem? Removing §230 would make life much harder for small companies, too.
On the post: Smaller Internet Companies Say They're Open To 230 Reform... To Keep Facebook From Being The Only Voice In The Room
Re: There is NO contradiction!
Both big host companies and smaller companies (not to mention private individuals) are protected by §230 equally.
On the post: Lindsey Graham's Latest Attack On Section 230: Reform It By 2023, Or We Take It Away
Re: Re: Nice, diversion, A. Stephen Stone. Here's my answer:
That’s not what §230 says. It says that ICS providers (including but not limited to hosts) are protected from being held liable as publishers of third-party content created or published using the ICS. It doesn’t say that the ICS providers are only immune from liability for third-party content if they are not publishers, nor does it say that they aren’t publishers; they just can’t be held liable as a publisher.
They are still liable for content that they produced, but not for content produced by another person “publishing” on the same “immunized host”. They are also not liable for reporting content as objectionable. Basically, it works the same as it does for the “host” or other ICS provider.
Whether you are a provider or user of an ICS, §230 protects you from liability from content produced by someone else and not you along with moderation decisions/tools made by you or someone else, but you are liable for content you yourself have produced.
Yes, both the provider and the user are legally allowed to moderate even perfectly legal and lawful speech as they see fit.
Nothing in the law says otherwise. On the contrary, §230 says that ICS providers are able to do whatever they want and they won’t be liable for moderation decisions or tools, nor are they to be held liable as publisher of third-party-produced content.
Again, §230 explicitly says otherwise, so you are just flat-out wrong. Though, really, §230 just codifies the immunities and powers already possessed by real-world, physical publishers, libraries, bookstores, etc., so in that sense, you’re right in that it doesn’t make them a new category of immune publisher.
On the post: Lindsey Graham's Latest Attack On Section 230: Reform It By 2023, Or We Take It Away
Re: No, only HOSTS are immunized. Publishers are still liable!
A person posting something on an immunized service/platform is liable for what they post, but not for content posted by other users, nor for moderation decisions they make on the service/platform.
For example, someone who posts a video on YouTube is not liable for comments posted by others on their video (or some other video) or for the content of videos created and posted by someone else, and unless they’re acting as part of the government, they can also make whatever moderation decisions they want. Similarly, people who post comments on a video are not liable for the content of comments posted by other users or for the video they commented on, nor are they liable for flagging comments or videos to be removed. That said, in both cases, the user is liable for any video or comment that they themselves post or were directly involved in creating.
The same things apply to the providers of the ICS being used with the exact same limitations. They are liable for content that they themselves create or are directly involved in creating, but not for content created entirely by users or other third parties, and they are not liable for removing or hiding content they or their users deem objectionable, nor for providing tools to users to do the same thing.
On the post: Lindsey Graham's Latest Attack On Section 230: Reform It By 2023, Or We Take It Away
Re: Re: No, only HOSTS are immunized. Publishers are still liabl
Users are protected from liability for things published by other users. In fact, they receive all the same §230 protections that ICS providers receive, really.
On the post: Lindsey Graham's Latest Attack On Section 230: Reform It By 2023, Or We Take It Away
Re: Re:
Okay, well libraries (at least private ones) are also not legally liable for removing certain books from the shelves and refusing to lend them, either, nor for refusing to stock those books in the first place. Nor are they liable for putting books in different sections based on their content and whether or not they believe it’s appropriate for certain readers. That’s part of the other aspect of §230. (The other part is giving users the tools to do moderation themselves, but it’s difficult to fit that into the analogy, and if you agree with the rest of §230, this part basically follows as a logical addition.)
Actually, they’re more like a printing house, which—by the way—have the right to make decisions on what they’re willing to print, or the owner of a billboard that they rent out, who has the same rights, or, as mentioned, a library (same). But even if you were right (which you’re not), that could only possibly be relevant to whether or not the 1A comes into play. It’s completely and utterly irrelevant to the questions of property rights and §230. But, again, you’re wrong, and these ICS providers are the ones publishing your content, which makes them publishers, and even if they weren’t considered publishers, removing speech from a place you own is itself protected by the 1A.
You haven’t provided sufficient evidence that they are not even-handed.
On the post: Lindsey Graham's Latest Attack On Section 230: Reform It By 2023, Or We Take It Away
Re: Re: No, only HOSTS are immunized. Publishers are still liabl
That tells me that you have a shitty browser, low-end computer, or bad internet connection. The fact is that there is no way for a website to stop a browser session from working on purpose for only certain users based solely on viewpoint. If you’re the only one who has this problem, then it’s far more likely that there’s something wrong on your end than that you’re being targeted.
That’s because rather than being patient and waiting for your comments to work their way through moderation, you just spam the same thing over and over again until one of them finally makes it through. Once that happens, there is 0 reason to remove your duplicate posts from the filter as they would add nothing you haven’t already said to the thread. This has been explained to you in the past. Whether or not you believe that is not our problem.
Look, just wait awhile to see if your comment ever makes it through before trying again. That’s what the rest of us do on the odd occasion that one of our posts gets stuck in the filter, and it generally works out fine.
Assuming without conceding that’s true, it’s irrelevant. Neither the 1A, §230, nor property rights (all of which are what protect ICS providers from liability for third-party content and moderation decisions) do not in any way prevent providers from engaging in viewpoint discrimination.
Actually, it’s not. §230 protections don’t go away just because the ICS provider is also a publisher. On the contrary, it explicitly says that the provider is not liable as a publisher of third-party content, and that moderation decisions and/or the provision of tools for users to make moderation decisions neither remove those protections nor make the provider liable for those decisions/tools.
That’s where the contention is: if an ICS provider acts as a publisher of third-party content, does that remove §230 protections? A plain reading of the law and just about every non-overturned court decision on §230 say no, it does not.
On the post: Lindsey Graham's Latest Attack On Section 230: Reform It By 2023, Or We Take It Away
Re: You fail to grasp essentials and yet argue on.
That was the intent of §230.
Yes, it is. §230 specifically allows the provider of an ICS to provide tools for users to remove content.
On the post: Trump Appoints Unqualified Guy Who Hates Section 230 To Top Justice Department Role
Re: Re:
When you have to declare martial law in order to win, you’ve lost any right to claim the high ground. This also assumes that the military will listen to such a clearly illegal order, which is even less likely.
I.e. President Trump
[asserts facts not in evidence]
You mean like a poll tax? Or racist tests? Or because of your gender? Yeah, those were the days. Seriously, have you completely forgotten our history? We blocked lots of people from voting for completely arbitrary reasons unrelated to ensuring a fair and free election. We also didn’t require state IDs back then, and we trusted the officials who did verification of the signatures the first time around. In fact, mail-in and absentee ballots preceded photo ID laws. We also took weeks to count all the votes and transmit them to the legislatures to appoint electors.
Basically, if I was feeling uncharitable, I could reasonably interpret your statement as saying that any vote cast by anyone other than a white, male, property-owning citizen aged at least 21 years is “fraudulent” by your own definition without excluding any mail-in or absentee ballots, including ones that arrived after Election Day. However, I am feeling charitable, so I’ll just assume you were being careless when you chose to define “fraudulent”.
Next >>