As the video points out - were the stories and links around Trumps tax returns censored because they were “hacked”/“leaked”?
MeanMrMustard
JoinedPosts by MeanMrMustard
-
67
Being Removed From Facebook and Twitter
by minimus ini have a very good friend who has been banned from facebook simply because he makes remarks positive about president trump and negative toward the democratic party.
he has tried to get back on facebook and it appears there is no way for him to return.
people are being removed from social media platforms simply because they have a different political view.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
-
67
Being Removed From Facebook and Twitter
by minimus ini have a very good friend who has been banned from facebook simply because he makes remarks positive about president trump and negative toward the democratic party.
he has tried to get back on facebook and it appears there is no way for him to return.
people are being removed from social media platforms simply because they have a different political view.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Now Trump’s campaign twitter account, the WH press secretary’s account, and the New York Post’s account - Twitter shut them all down over this.
Their reason is that it violates their hacked materials policy.
I’m not sure these materials were “hacked”, but putting that aside, if emails surfaced that Donald Trump actually had a meeting with Putin himself in, say, 2015, so you honestly think Twitter would be shutting down CNNs account for reporting “hacked materials”?
-
67
Being Removed From Facebook and Twitter
by minimus ini have a very good friend who has been banned from facebook simply because he makes remarks positive about president trump and negative toward the democratic party.
he has tried to get back on facebook and it appears there is no way for him to return.
people are being removed from social media platforms simply because they have a different political view.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
If you allow one party to say whatever they want but don’t apply the same standard to the other it’s wrong.
Are they really applying the standards differently for different "sides"? Minimus thinks so, and says it's "wrong", but other folks disagree.
Yes, they are. But is a bit trickier than that. If they define a standard as "no hate speech" - what does that effectively mean? The concept of "hate speech" is not compatible with the first amendment. I think they key here is that the standards that they are uniformly applying are, in themselves, political. For example, if there is a policy (applied across the board) that you must respect the "gender preference" of other posters, then officially you have banned posts on this topic from anyone that has a different view of gender / sex - this is a political and cultural issue.
These companies need to be held responsible.
By whom? By what authority?
It is not about regulating in an affirmative manner. It is recognizing that these tech companies market themselves to the world as "platforms" in the sense of 230. They declare themselves to be a place where free speech is important, and under that guise the take the immunity against liability that 230 grants to them. They simply wouldn't exist without this government protection. But the government protection comes at a cost: conduct yourselves like platforms.
If someone says "I don't think there are 70 genders - there are only two" and that is "hate speech" that gets taken down, that is the behavior of a publisher.
Note: It is not the act of taking down content that indicates publisher-like behavior. It is the unobjective basis on which it is taken down. And it is not the uniformity of the application, it is also the rules by which the application is applied. (i.e. - Am I allowed to say Black Lives Matter, but Blue Lives Matter gets taken down)
If you don't like what the New York times prints, buy the New York Post. If you don't like Stephen King's novels, don't read them. If you don't like Twitter's policies, don't support them.
This is conflating a few things. First, the NYT is a publisher. They can be a publisher. But if (somehow) the NYT publishes defamatory or illegal information, they are liable. They don't get the immunity. Since that is their designation (as a publisher), they have complete control of their paper. They can publish communist propaganda all day long, and nobody can force them to do otherwise. But they are responsible for the content.
Twitter, on the other hand, has declared itself to be a platform. And with that, they have grabbed the governments immunity against the content on their platform. But the rules of a platform are different. They don't have to worry about liability, but you can't also start to engage in publisher-like behavior.
Simon has no obligation to post pro-JW screeds on this site in the interest of "fairness". It's his site. He can do what he wants.
Yeah, its not about forcing someone to post information on the other side. That is not the issue here.
Twitter is a private company with certain policies and standards.
Yeah, and they can have those. No problem. Unless....(next sentence)
They choose to allow or prohibit certain users and content.
Nope, they are a platform, right? They have to have an objective criteria for kicking someone off. For example, a telephone company can terminate your service if you don't pay for it. It doesn't matter if you are white, black, brown, asian, Democrat, Republican, communist, bald, hairy, etc. You don't pay, your service gets shut off. See what I mean? In exchange for that type of platform behavior, if you happen to be coordinating a bank robbery over their service, they aren't held responsible in any way.
What law obligates them to do so according to something other than their own determination?
It is important to note: There is no obligation here. If you want to be a publisher, great! But you shouldn't get the immunity of a platform.
-
67
Being Removed From Facebook and Twitter
by minimus ini have a very good friend who has been banned from facebook simply because he makes remarks positive about president trump and negative toward the democratic party.
he has tried to get back on facebook and it appears there is no way for him to return.
people are being removed from social media platforms simply because they have a different political view.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
As I understand it, CDA 230 is there to protect companies from liability for their decisions to leave up or take down content posted on their sites. I.e., as a private company they have the right to allow or disallow what other people post there, and no one has can sue them for either leaving up, or taking down, content. Obviously, there are exceptions such as child porn, sex trafficking, etc.CDA was an attempt to regulate porn on the internet. All of the law was struck down as unconsitutional, except section 230. Section 230 has been intepreted to say that internet services (everything from internet service providers to platforms like FB), are not to be viewed as "publishers" of the data, and thereby liable for the content.
I might add - pretty much everyone agrees with this distinction, and its not without precedent. A telephone service is an example of a platform service or a provider. They enjoy the same immunity from liability. If someone conducts criminal business over the AT&T network via texts, the provider is not resposibile for that activity. And the provider also doesn't engage in scanning each text in an attempt to filter content. In fact, it would be impossible to do so with any level of reliability or accuracy. This limitation was part of what spurred section 230 - that these growing internet platforms couldn't be expected to actually regulate the content - it is too much.
I also understand there are differing opinions about the meaning and extent of CDA 230.
Yes, the Supreme Count has yet to take a case regarding CDA 230. But what matters are the opinions rendered by the lower appellate courts.
I agree, the wording from 1996 is probably trying to do too much lifting in 2020. It would be good for congress, if/when it gets past its hyper-partisan divide, to consider amending it.
I believe what I provided earlier is a really good starting point. It is NOT, in any way, partisan. And the case law around the first ammendment is quite mature.
-
67
Being Removed From Facebook and Twitter
by minimus ini have a very good friend who has been banned from facebook simply because he makes remarks positive about president trump and negative toward the democratic party.
he has tried to get back on facebook and it appears there is no way for him to return.
people are being removed from social media platforms simply because they have a different political view.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Funky:
That's a surprising reaction. Isn't the conservative position that there is already too much government oversight of private enterprise? That the market will reward or punish the behavior of private corporations and government should just leave them be, and stick to national defense and maintaining civil order?
Maybe I misunderstand, I slept through a lot of classes.It is not really a call for more regulation. It is a call to remove the immunity that was granted to them by a special government program (CDA). They were given broad immunity from content liability, with the hope that the internet would grow and become a free speech area, not a political tool. They are turning against the principles that spawned their special protection.
CDA 230 could be amended to say something like : "This section applies only if the platform conforms to first amendment principles, and all established first amendment law." I'm not a lawyer - probably a better way of putting it legally.
If you want to be a platform, great - be a platform. If you want to be a publisher, great - be a publisher. But you can't be both. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
-
56
Has Anyone Gotten Disfellowshipped Here and For What??
by minimus insex issues seem to be the number one reason but apostasy is right up there too.
even if you weren’t disfellowshipped , do you know why some people you know were disfellowshipped?
?.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@scruff:
Reason: women and judo
Well now I want to know: separately? or together?
And if it was together, was this, in fact, one reason of a sexual nature?
-
4
Jail Employees Face Charges After Using ‘Baby Shark’ Song to Punish Inmates
by MeanMrMustard in.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/us/jail-baby-shark-charges.html.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
I know, right? Just how many repeat offenders would break the cycle if they knew that every Thursday they would get waterboarded with baby shark for a full 24 hours?
Meh, I suppose it is too “cruel and unusual”.
-
31
It’s Trump’s Fault!
by minimus ina plot to kidnap a governor is foiled and guess who gets blamed??
trump.. people have died because of covid.
it’s trump’s fault.. cities, businesses and property are being destroyed by antifa and black lives matter and guess who gets blamed for the destruction?
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Was it a kitten? Trump eats kittens... with Russian dressing.
-
31
It’s Trump’s Fault!
by minimus ina plot to kidnap a governor is foiled and guess who gets blamed??
trump.. people have died because of covid.
it’s trump’s fault.. cities, businesses and property are being destroyed by antifa and black lives matter and guess who gets blamed for the destruction?
-
-
MeanMrMustard
It's November 4th...one day after the election & Trump has been voted out of office...whose fault is it?
Clearly, that would be minimus' fault.
-
31
It’s Trump’s Fault!
by minimus ina plot to kidnap a governor is foiled and guess who gets blamed??
trump.. people have died because of covid.
it’s trump’s fault.. cities, businesses and property are being destroyed by antifa and black lives matter and guess who gets blamed for the destruction?
-
-
MeanMrMustard
I didn’t have a biscuit or tea today... also Trump’s fault.