YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation

Post by matthewmarkus » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 1:40 AM UTC

TameAntelope wrote: post #733

matthewmarkus wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube and the NYT are fundamentally different businesses BECAUSE of CDA 230. You're right that YouTube will exist as long as CDA 230 exists. However, if CDA 230 is ever repealed, YouTube will have to change as its business model is not protected by the 1st Amendment but by an act of Congress. Ad hominem arguments are ignored.

Not an ad hominem. Your argument is bad because you don't support it with anything other than blind assertions. You also are clearly motivated by your political beliefs, which makes your selection of facts, should you choose to bring any facts to this discussion, suspect.

Post by matthewmarkus » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 1:57 AM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #736

matthewmarkus wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to compel speech. I want to reattach a cost or liability to YouTube that was removed via state power. Remember, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. "held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content created by its users because it exercised editorial control over the messages on their bulletin boards in three ways: 1) by posting Content Guidelines for users, 2) by enforcing those gu…

So effectively you just want people with money to have the ability to disseminate their speech, since they're the only ones who would be able to share their content via any of these platforms if Section 230 were repealed.

Post by MisterBastahrd » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 2:20 AM UTC

matthewmarkus wrote: post #743

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So effectively you just want people with money to have the ability to disseminate their speech, since they're the only ones who would be able to share their content via any of these platforms if Section 230 were repealed.

No. There is a valley of nuance between Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. [1] and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. [2]. All of this nuance was being worked out in the courts via common law principles before Congress short-circuited the process with CDA 230, which turned out to be one of the things that helped facilitate the rise of the Big Tech oligopoly that Congress now decries. [1] https://en.wikipedia.…

Post by TameAntelope » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 3:10 AM UTC

matthewmarkus wrote: post #741

TameAntelope wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an ad hominem. Your argument is bad because you don't support it with anything other than blind assertions. You also are clearly motivated by your political beliefs, which makes your selection of facts, should you choose to bring any facts to this discussion, suspect.

"But Section 230 substantively protects more speech than the First Amendment, and the First Amendment will not adequately backfill any reductions in Section 230’s protections." — Your source, not mine (not that matters). Your argument seems to be that CDA 230 doesn't matter, but it is imperative that it not be repealed, which is kind of a nonsensical position.

Post by rpmisms » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 4:00 AM UTC

GauntletWizard wrote: post #718

rpmisms wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some interest in politics, and I've decided that I'll be open about public vs personal views. For example: "I personally believe X, but my constituents overwhelmingly support Y, so I will be voting for Y."

You should also be open about when you choose to disagree - "I know my constituents believe Y, and I see their arguments. I have spent much time evaluating it and assigned some of my best staff to make arguments for and against, and will be voting X."