821–830 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So can I post AI generated underage pictures of Doland Trump as an 8-year old having sex with a boar without censorship?
Is that already illegal? If so, no, if not, yes. Being offensive is not the measure for applying censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't happen with EU's internet laws. Instead, we get cookie banners all over the world. I don't think exiting a market full of money because of ideology is good business.
There's a few sites (e.g. local city news sites) that return 451 status code for EU IP addresses
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so is it ok for a telephone company to cut your line if you support the resistance?
Is it ok for them to cut my line if I don't pay the bill? They are common carriers, like ISPs , social media companies are not
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If social media wishes to be immune from lawsuits regarding the content it publishes, section 203, then it should not have the ability to censor such content for an explicit commercial revenue model. Why? This is seems like a total non-sequitur. It's pretty obvious that the individual posting illegal content is the person responsible for it and not the platform it's posted to, unless the platform is soliciting or r…
A fairly simple argument for this position is: This speech (the content posted to social media) is either speech by the poster or speech by the social media company; you can't have it both ways. If the social media company isn't responsible for illegal content, then ipso facto it must be the user's speech. But then the company doesn't have first amendment rights attached to that speech itself, such as the right again…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And suddenly you no longer live in a country that has a meaningful First Amendment. The overarching issue is that I don't see what the first amendment has to do with this at all. Corporations have zero obligations to anyone under the first amendment, which only applies to the government.
The intent of the first amendment was to preserve free speech in the public square; "what the first amendment has to do with this at all" is a desire to preserve that underlying societal principle. Section 230 was a give-away to corporations that allowed them to privatize and co-opt the public square; they reap the economic benefit of being shielded from liability for what people post, but none of the responsibility…
Social media sites are not the government -- they have their TOS like everybody else does. Love it or leave it.
It should also be noted that conservatives absolutely believe in banning speech they don't like. So it's not the principle of it, it's the power.
I don't get it. Restaurants can choose their customers based on how they behave or even how they are dressed. Why shouldn't online businesses be able to reject some of their customers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech .. That is clearly not based on facts. Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY. That is not the same as muzzling anybody. They don't knock on your door and say you better stop expressing these views or we will harm you. They don't even harass people online. They just simply choose which speech they will pass on and which not. If y…
> That is clearly not based on facts. Corporations simply have a right to choose which speech they will AMPLIFY. That is not the same as muzzling anybody. It depends, can I go to the mall and start preaching the gospel? The answer is yes - at least in NYC, SF, Chicago, etc (where these legal cases have played out). I’m legally aloud to do that; and as it’s the public square I cannot legally be removed (doesn’t mean y…
Social media is not the commons.
The internet is the commons.
Social media platforms are the stores.
Will this apply to bots? What if I have a big list of a complaints about a certain politician (use your imagination, there's more than one politician to complain about), but the "other party" doesn't follow me, in fact, I have very few followers overall. So I create a bot that spreads my opinions by replying to millions of other Tweets. Anyone who mentions the politician of interest will receive a reply from "me" (my…
Let each user block what they don’t want to see. With filters, ai, etc. Don’t have a centralized “overlord” decide what an individual is allowed to see. That should be obvious and not controversial.