FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that social media platforms, for all of their vacuousness and malignancy, are still private companies. Accordingly, the tenets of the First Amendment do not and cannot apply to them. They have chosen to have terms of service (like all software products and even your Dear Leader's Truth Social platform) and are free to enforce them as they see fit.

The rub is that in an effort to police their content to remove indecent, damaging, and threatening posts that diminish their users' experience, they piss off liars, charlatans and fabulists who abuse their platforms with malicious intent and these liars, charlatans and fabulists are predominately "conservatives" who help bring people to the GOP base. (Refer to Trump's ~30K lies during his tenure as president (many of them on Twitter) and Bannon's unethical use of Cambridge Analytica to sway Facebook users).

That's why the GOP is constantly whining about free speech and First Amendment concerns that, in reality, simply don't apply to these private companies. The GOP's business model relies heavily upon dangerous lies and myths to rile up their base while it damages the user experience of platform users and the civic health of the nation at large. Were it the case that the Democrats relied as heavily on dangerous lies and conspiracy theories, they would be the ones whining about Twitter and Facebook censorship. But they don't.

Finn, I trust you are basically explaining to the lurkers, and have no expectation that the person addressed will do anything with your message, except to examine it for hooks on which to hang some criticism.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Finn, I trust you are basically explaining to the lurkers, and have no expectation that the person addressed will do anything with your message, except to examine it for hooks on which to hang some criticism.

That's the whole purpose of this post.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Finn, I trust you are basically explaining to the lurkers, and have no expectation that the person addressed will do anything with your message, except to examine it for hooks on which to hang some criticism.

Unfortunately, you're right. Whell has a habit of deliberately overlooking the overall thrust of a response and looking for any phrase or sentence, regardless of its importance to the overall point, with which to quibble.

[Pio1980]

Former Twitter employee tells Jan. 6 committee Trump would have been banned long ago if he were ‘any other user’

https://fortune.com/2022/07/12/donal...yee-testifies/

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that social media platforms, for all of their vacuousness and malignancy, are still private companies. Accordingly, the tenets of the First Amendment do not and cannot apply to them. They have chosen to have terms of service (like all software products and even your Dear Leader's Truth Social platform) and are free to enforce them as they see fit.

If that’s what you're saying, then you’ve got it completely wrong. Let me try this one more time.

Section 230 gives internet providers and platforms unique legal protection. They're not responsible for the content that other individuals place on that platform (with some exceptions). It’s that legal protection that's at issue, not the business's first amendment protections. Under 230, an internet platform doesn’t need those protections because they don’t publish content, they simply host it. Sure, some sites have moderated content, this site included.

But moderation outside established rules, or decisions that target specific types of content for removal, starts to look like a publisher making editorial decisions about content.

The question is: when does a social medi] site, which is a host for content, no longer become a platform or host and become a publisher? If you’re a publisher, no section 230 protections are available, and publishers are responsible for the content they publish.

Sure, publishers have 1st Amendment protection from govt censorship. That means the govt can’t require a publisher to remove content. Publishers are NOT a immune from liability for damages that might arise from content posted on their platforms, or editorial decisions that arbitrarily remove content.

In fact, Facebook has argued at times that it’s a platform, and also argued that it’s a publisher. Which is it, and what liability should or should not accrue to Facebook for its editorial decisions?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

If that’s what you're saying, then you’ve got it completely wrong. Let me try this one more time.

Section 230 gives internet providers and platforms unique legal protection. They're not responsible for the content that other individuals place on that platform (with some exceptions). It’s that legal protection that's at issue, not the business's first amendment protections. Under 230, an internet platform doesn’t need those protections because they don’t publish content, they simply host it. Sure, some sites have moderated content, this site included.

But moderation outside established rules, or decisions that target specific types of content for removal, starts to look like a publisher making editorial decisions about content.

The question is: when does a social medi] site, which is a host for content, no longer become a platform or host and become a publisher? If you’re a publisher, no section 230 protections are available, and publishers are responsible for the content they publish.

Sure, publishers have 1st Amendment protection from govt censorship. That means the govt can’t require a publisher to remove content. Publishers are NOT a immune from liability for damages that might arise from content posted on their platforms, or editorial decisions that arbitrarily remove content.

In fact, Facebook has argued at times that it’s a platform, and also argued that it’s a publisher. Which is it, and what liability should or should not accrue to Facebook for its editorial decisions?

I know all that too, but Section 230 cannot overrule the First Amendment, nor can it validate wingnut concerns about Twitter/Facebook "censoring free speech." Regardless, these platforms don't discriminate against conservatives (Conservative rabble-rousers like Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino are consistently among the most active Facebook pages). They moderate malicious, violent and dangerous posts. It just so happens that conservatives lead in these categories too, helping to facilitate or inspire anything from mass murder to a violent insurrection against our government.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I know all that too, but Section 230 cannot overrule the First Amendment, nor can it validate wingnut concerns about Twitter/Facebook "censoring free speech." Regardless, these platforms don't discriminate against conservatives (Conservative rabble-rousers like Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino are consistently among the most active Facebook pages). They moderate malicious, violent and dangerous posts. It just so happens that conservatives lead in these categories too, helping to facilitate or inspire anything from mass murder to a violent insurrection against our government.

You're not getting it. Last time.

It's not about the first amendment. It's about liability protection under 230 for internet platforms. Lose that, and they become liable for what is posted on their platforms, and potentially what they remove. That makes their business model rather dicey.

OK, back to whatever irrelevant point you were trying to make above.

[Rajoo]

Congressman Under Investigation For 'Sex Trafficking' Caps Off Twitch's Worst Week Ever

How could things get any worse for the social media platform that generated $2.6 billion in revenue last year? Enter Matt Gaetz.

“I’m joining Twitch to bring my America First message to a new generation of viewers,” he announced on Twitter Thursday. “Twitch will join the lineup of platforms I livestream on, including Rumble, GETTR, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.”

As Motherboard reports, Gaetz briefly streamed with a setup that “looked like Boomer-auctioneer-turned-sportscaster” for only six viewers. After he went offline, however, the chat continued filling as people came by to dunk on him.

“I honestly didn’t think it was possible for you to become any more creepy than you already are,” read a comment by lazy_lightning_73. “But then I learned you joined Twitch one day after Bloomberg published a report about how child predators are using Twitch to track and engage with kids and teens.”

https://kotaku.com/twitch-matt-gaetz...tor-1849570942

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You're not getting it. Last time.

It's not about the first amendment. It's about liability protection under 230 for internet platforms. Lose that, and they become liable for what is posted on their platforms, and potentially what they remove. That makes their business model rather dicey.

OK, back to whatever irrelevant point you were trying to make above.

I know that too. What then explains the Right and their obsession with calling it a First Amendment free speech issue? You yourself in this very thread have referred to it as censorship and muzzling free speech, both implicating First Amendment free speech provisions.

An analog to your (and other conservatives') free speech claim would be a theater operator kicking out a couple of loudmouth conservatives who simply refuse to stop talking loudly during a feature movie. The (implied) terms of service for entering a movie theater is to keep quiet when the movie is playing. Giving you the boot for being a loudmouth who is harming others' viewing experience isn't a free speech issue nor is it discriminatory to conservatives. It's simply folks unwilling to play by the rules and getting kicked out for it (I guess this jibes with conservatives believing that rules, written or unwritten, simply don't apply to them (Trump being the epitome of this)).

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Unfortunately, you're right. Whell has a habit of deliberately overlooking the overall thrust of a response and looking for any phrase or sentence, regardless of its importance to the overall point, with which to quibble.

Through my years on this site one constant has been Mike's bad faith mode of discussing issues. In short, he's a liar like his orange daddy.