Will not happen

FAT SEXY said:

---

Senators like Cruz and Hawley love to ask social media heads tough questions for the cameras... and then they do nothing of substance after.

---

Small adjustment...

FAT SEXY said:

---

Senators like Cruz love to ask social media heads tough questions for the cameras... and then they do nothing of substance after.

---

Who is the majority leader in the Senate? Cruz is one of the few Republicans who are actually conservative. McConnell, Cornyn, Graham, and Romney are fake Republicans who are lying to their voters.

Joe already calling the shots???

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-president-election-section-230-communications-decency-act-revoke

eric76 said:

---

If the sore loser were to do away with Section 230, would he do away with TexAgs forums as well?

---

Trump and the Republicans couldn't do away with it when they controlled Congress and the presidency in 2017...just more talk.

Stressboy said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If the sore loser were to do away with Section 230, would he do away with TexAgs forums as well?

---

OR Maybe the sites would have to let it be a free for all and provide tools for individuals to block things they don't want to see.

I would take 4Chan on every social platform before this bull**** technocrat censorship we have.

Do you know how the world evolves? Ideas are openly debated. That's why collectivism fails everywhere it's ever been tried. Censorship is guaranteed in collectives. Once you shut down free-speech innovation dies.

---

Huh? Just what are you talking about?

How would providing tools to block things a user doesn't want to see prevent the web site owner from being sued over their user's content?

Why am I here? said:

---

That's a bit rich.

What if a foreign power has actually taken over aspects of some of these tech companies with the 230 protections. Would you be in favor of Biden ****ting it down then?

Edit: I think I misspelled shutting.

---

Why would that make any difference?

Conservative Ag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If the sore loser were to do away with Section 230, would he do away with TexAgs forums as well?

---

He's a true conservative, folks. Really. He swears.

---

What is Conservative about exempting web forums from being liable for the views of their users?

"1st liberal at Texas A&M"

What answer does one expect?

Why am I here? said:

---

How can they worry about being liable for the views of their users when they ban conservative views they don't like????

---

That does not compute.

Suppose that someone on TexAgs were to find an image on the Internet and post it on here for a "Caption This" thread. If TexAgs was liable for the copyright infringement, then TexAgs could be ordered to pay up to $30,000 in statuatory damages for just that one image.

unmade bed said:

---

Joe already calling the shots???

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-president-election-section-230-communications-decency-act-revoke

---

Well, that's startling --- Biden wants to strike 230 also?? They helped him steal the election by suppressing information and dissemination of it---and still are, as witness certain twitter shutdowns the last two days.

What's up with this?

titan said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Joe already calling the shots???

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-president-election-section-230-communications-decency-act-revoke

---

Well, that's startling --- Biden wants to strike 230 also?? They helped him steal the election by suppressing information and dissemination of it---and still are, as witness certain twitter shutdowns the last two days.

What's up with this?

---

These calls to strike 230 must be resisted regardless of whether they are from Trump or from Biden or from anyone else.

Maybe so, but it sure is startling given how much they have helped him and his party so absolutely selectively. In fact, the blackout and selective suppressions are even better proof of the conspiracies then the weird ballots in their way.

Government restrictions of the flow of information is the first step toward totalitarianism. Don't believe me? I have oodles of examples.

Open it all up and let the people decide whom to trust and whom to ignore. We aren't ****ing children.

Conservative Ag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

titan said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Joe already calling the shots???

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-president-election-section-230-communications-decency-act-revoke

---

Well, that's startling --- Biden wants to strike 230 also?? They helped him steal the election by suppressing information and dissemination of it---and still are, as witness certain twitter shutdowns the last two days.

What's up with this?

---

These calls to strike 230 must be resisted regardless of whether they are from Trump or from Biden or from anyone else.

---

No, they shouldn't. This is is a lot bigger than electoral politics. My 18 year-old nephew committed suicide in late April. He learned how to do it from a website called sanctionedsuicide. Look it up. Within state legislatures across the country, the party that opposes these changes are Democrats. Thanks for your support of Democrats, Eric.

---

Such websites are deplorable.

For those websites promoting suicide, then they should be responsible for their own content without regard to Section 230. Even with Section 230, the users of those websites could be found liable for their own posts.

Cruz' support of repealing section 230, if that is truly his position, is disappointing. Cruz knows better and is using the issue cynically, Hawley, on the other hand seems to believe in it.

I wonder how Cruz, the "Constitutional Conservative" would answer this article from Charlie Cook?

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/06/22/why-we-need-section-230/

eric76 said:

---

Why am I here? said:

---

How can they worry about being liable for the views of their users when they ban conservative views they don't like????

---

That does not compute.

Suppose that someone on TexAgs were to find an image on the Internet and post it on here for a "Caption This" thread. If TexAgs was liable for the copyright infringement, then TexAgs could be ordered to pay up to $30,000 in statuatory damages for just that one image.

---

That's dodging the real question here. Banning conservative views is different from copyright infringement.

This strikes me as similar to how the world would end if net neutrality weren't preserved.

Yet here we are.

triplemiller said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If the sore loser were to do away with Section 230, would he do away with TexAgs forums as well?

---

Trump and the Republicans couldn't do away with it when they controlled Congress and the presidency in 2017...just more talk.

---

Social media has changed drastically since 2017

waco_aggie05 said:

---

Instead of repealing the whole section, can they not just declare Twitter and Facebook as publishers vs platforms? Who determines classification?

---

This is the exact issue...FB, Twitter and Google are publishers, meaning they do have control over what is pushed by contributors, but they were exempted from liability by Section 230. And check the fine print...I think it either implies they become owners of the content, or implies it.

They like to claim they are platforms (providing a soap box to every Tom, Dick and Harry), but Section 230 enables them to control the message, as if they were owners, but still appearing to be platforms.

However, at this point they have such broad usage, that it would be difficult for people to give these tools up. I think revoking Sec 230 may not help entirely. That's what is enabling their "selective" moderation. A better course may be to get more narrowly defined protections, so that they can get their ass sued big time if they don't equitably censor content. EQUITABLY, BUT NOT FAIRLY. There is no FAIRNESS in the law, only EQUITY.

Maacus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Why am I here? said:

---

How can they worry about being liable for the views of their users when they ban conservative views they don't like????

---

That does not compute.

Suppose that someone on TexAgs were to find an image on the Internet and post it on here for a "Caption This" thread. If TexAgs was liable for the copyright infringement, then TexAgs could be ordered to pay up to $30,000 in statuatory damages for just that one image.

---

That's dodging the real question here. Banning conservative views is different from copyright infringement.

---

Read Section 230. Do away with it and the owners of the web site could be sued for the contents of the user's postings. That would certainly include copyrights. TexAgs would continue, but likely without the forums. Or every individual forum posting might require approval to be made public.

If social media sites have to require moderator approval for each posting, what's going to happen to Conservative views on the Internet?

If you want to get Conservative views across on the Internet, wouldn't it be better to encourage Conservatives to develop services that can be used to promote Conservative views?

In any event, what does Trump have to do with Conservative views anyway?

Quote:

---

Read Section 230. Do away with it and the owners of the web site could be sued for the contents of the user's postings. That would certainly include copyrights.

---

Perhaps you should take your own advice counselor.

(e)(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.