To elaborate on my previous comment since apparently it can't be edited, what I mean is I'm not sure what sites meet your level of excellence. That page links out to quite a few of the sources they use when compiling the article.
Which facts are you unable to verify from a "reliable" source?
Well there might be a motive for them not to be neutral given their history.
They had next to no market share until the DOJ during Obama's administration practically handed them assets from their competitors in the name of competition and then essentially gave them some business. Shortly after which Dominion acquired Diebold and Smartmatic which is where all the accusations of corrupt software is coming from.
I don't follow your logic. Basically the only way a platform would lose section 230 protection is if the owner of the platform started censoring people they didn't like in opposition to whatever guidelines they had. Is that what Mastodon is doing?
No, I just want everyone to play fair.
When they start colluding together to kick people off what is essentially the primary communication systems of the world it starts to be concerning. Saying build your own software platform is one thing that is easy enough, but when they start saying build your own server farm, and then build your own payment processing service I start to get worried. What is next, build your own Internet and your own ISPs?
I think the U.S. constitution was smart to restrict the government from censoring the people, but I don't think the writers ever envisioned a corporation could possibly one day have equal or more control over free speech than a government. It seem like that is dangerously close to being the case.
I imagine it would be around the idea that if you create a communication platform then the actual platform isn't an extension of your own speech. So an owner can create an account and join in the conversation but the owner couldn't claim blocking other people is a form of their own free speech.
That's not to prohibit preset rules on the platform though. If an owner started misapplying their posted rules to one group and not another then they would lose the 230 protection. That is also not to say that if something slipped through their filters they would be considered as biased if they remedy the issue once it is pointed out. Losing section 230 protection also wouldn't automatically mean they were breaking a law, but it would open the door to them being held responsible to what others post. As long as they fairly apply their own rules then Section 230 protects them.
"Do right for right's sake"
So playing devil's advocate for a minute. Without a real God that created humanity and provided absolute truth on how to interact with each other for a properly functioning society, then how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it. For example is sex outside of marriage right and if so (going against "God" given rules), how do we know it's not actually causing tiny undetectable ripples of damage to society that combine with other tiny ripples (like envy, gluttony, pride, etc.) which eventually lead to waves of broken adults later on. Perhaps our feeble efforts to relax the long established written religious rules of conduct because "God doesn't exist" is the reason for 99% of society's current ills.
This is basically like the cities claiming individual network channels like USA, SyFy, AMC, Hallmark, and others should have been paying them for franchises.
If they want franchise fees they need to go after the ISPs and cell phone companies that are using the physical land. Even that might inadvertently spur on a rush to services like StarLink when they are more available.
I'd say section 230 does not need to be thrown out. If anything it could be slightly modified to say the protections there apply to sites wanting to operate as a "public square". If a site decides they want to prohibit speech which isn't actually illegal then they are acting as a publisher and section 230 doesn't protect them.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by DataMeister.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Personally, I think election fraud _is_ the
To elaborate on my previous comment since apparently it can't be edited, what I mean is I'm not sure what sites meet your level of excellence. That page links out to quite a few of the sources they use when compiling the article. Which facts are you unable to verify from a "reliable" source?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Personally, I think election fraud _is_ the
No. You'll have to find your own facts if the real ones aren't sufficient for you.
Re: Re: Re: Personally, I think election fraud _is_ the issue he
Here's a good starter.
https://defyccc.com/shocking-history-of-dominion-voting/
Re: Personally, I think election fraud _is_ the issue here.
Well there might be a motive for them not to be neutral given their history. They had next to no market share until the DOJ during Obama's administration practically handed them assets from their competitors in the name of competition and then essentially gave them some business. Shortly after which Dominion acquired Diebold and Smartmatic which is where all the accusations of corrupt software is coming from.
"reflective of a slow but steady culture shift away from the kind of curiosity and integrity that initially made Google so interesting."
After being a Google fan since they were just a search engine I think this is what disappoints me the most about Google in the last decade.
Re:
I don't follow your logic. Basically the only way a platform would lose section 230 protection is if the owner of the platform started censoring people they didn't like in opposition to whatever guidelines they had. Is that what Mastodon is doing?
Re: Re: Re:
No, I just want everyone to play fair. When they start colluding together to kick people off what is essentially the primary communication systems of the world it starts to be concerning. Saying build your own software platform is one thing that is easy enough, but when they start saying build your own server farm, and then build your own payment processing service I start to get worried. What is next, build your own Internet and your own ISPs? I think the U.S. constitution was smart to restrict the government from censoring the people, but I don't think the writers ever envisioned a corporation could possibly one day have equal or more control over free speech than a government. It seem like that is dangerously close to being the case.
Re:
I imagine it would be around the idea that if you create a communication platform then the actual platform isn't an extension of your own speech. So an owner can create an account and join in the conversation but the owner couldn't claim blocking other people is a form of their own free speech. That's not to prohibit preset rules on the platform though. If an owner started misapplying their posted rules to one group and not another then they would lose the 230 protection. That is also not to say that if something slipped through their filters they would be considered as biased if they remedy the issue once it is pointed out. Losing section 230 protection also wouldn't automatically mean they were breaking a law, but it would open the door to them being held responsible to what others post. As long as they fairly apply their own rules then Section 230 protects them.
Re: Re:
I'm not saying a site can't have rules of conduct, just like one can't run around a public square naked or get up in someone's face and shout at them. But, I think there should be rules or guidelines to prevent companies who have presented themselves as a public forum from biasedly subverting their own rules, especially if they are large enough to sway public opinion. https://100percentfedup.com/if-twitter-is-banning-people-for-inciting-violence-they-might-want-to-take-a-look-at-this-video/
Re: "Be assured that you do not believe in God"
"Do right for right's sake" So playing devil's advocate for a minute. Without a real God that created humanity and provided absolute truth on how to interact with each other for a properly functioning society, then how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it. For example is sex outside of marriage right and if so (going against "God" given rules), how do we know it's not actually causing tiny undetectable ripples of damage to society that combine with other tiny ripples (like envy, gluttony, pride, etc.) which eventually lead to waves of broken adults later on. Perhaps our feeble efforts to relax the long established written religious rules of conduct because "God doesn't exist" is the reason for 99% of society's current ills.
Yeah, that is stupid.
This is basically like the cities claiming individual network channels like USA, SyFy, AMC, Hallmark, and others should have been paying them for franchises.
If they want franchise fees they need to go after the ISPs and cell phone companies that are using the physical land. Even that might inadvertently spur on a rush to services like StarLink when they are more available.
I'd say section 230 does not need to be thrown out. If anything it could be slightly modified to say the protections there apply to sites wanting to operate as a "public square". If a site decides they want to prohibit speech which isn't actually illegal then they are acting as a publisher and section 230 doesn't protect them.