Small adjustment...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.
eric76 said:
If the sore loser were to do away with Section 230, would he do away with TexAgs forums as well?
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.
eric76 said:
If the sore loser were to do away with Section 230, would he do away with TexAgs forums as well?
eric76 said:
If the sore loser were to do away with Section 230, would he do away with TexAgs forums as well?
Huh? Just what are you talking about?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.
Why would that make any difference?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.
What is Conservative about exempting web forums from being liable for the views of their users?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.
That does not compute.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????
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.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
These calls to strike 230 must be resisted regardless of whether they are from Trump or from Biden or from anyone else.titan said: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.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
What's up with this?
eric76 said:These calls to strike 230 must be resisted regardless of whether they are from Trump or from Biden or from anyone else.titan said: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.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
What's up with this?
Such websites are deplorable.Conservative Ag said:eric76 said:These calls to strike 230 must be resisted regardless of whether they are from Trump or from Biden or from anyone else.titan said: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.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
What's up with this?
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.
That's dodging the real question here. Banning conservative views is different from copyright infringement.eric76 said:That does not compute.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????
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.
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.
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.waco_aggie05 said:
Instead of repealing the whole section, can they not just declare Twitter and Facebook as publishers vs platforms? Who determines classification?
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.Maacus said:That's dodging the real question here. Banning conservative views is different from copyright infringement.eric76 said:That does not compute.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????
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.
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.