• Welcome to SVTPerformance!

Donald Trump Signs Exec Order to Curb Big Tech’s ‘Unchecked Power’

Discussion in 'Politics Forum' started by quad, May 28, 2020.

  1. 598

    598 Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    842
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    Location:
    Frankfort IL
    Id like for some one to explain to me why almost every source of news is left leaning to pure left, because they surely didnt all start that way. Advertisers cant use Right leaning for fear of boycotts from the cucks? It always seems to go back to the money.
     
    tones_RS3 likes this.
  2. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    listing publishers that do exactly what publishers do and then pointing out that they do it more than twitter and facebook, who also do it by to some extent, doesn't help your case.

    in fact, some might say that proves the point.
     
  3. quad

    quad Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    4,364
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Location:
    Detroit
    Because it is not natural. I have pointed this out before to others. In nature there is always a normal distribution curve in anything. Small, average, large. Passive, moderate, aggressive. Ugly, normal, beautiful. Dislike, acceptance, adoration! Etc.

    However with the fake news and celebrities / politicians there is no normal distribution curve when it comes to Trump. There is just a universal hatred of Trump. You have your small deviations like Fox News or James Woods. But for the most part there is a universal dislike of him and his policies because they fear what he represents: a return to Nationalism. Their God is Globalism / Multiculturalism. And he threatens that.

    Interesting to note though that the public's perception about Trump is more normal. About 50% support him and 50% don't, to varying degrees.

    The elites and mainstream media's views do not echo the public's.
    It is unnatural and for this reason it is clear there is an agenda at play.

    normal-distribution-probability.jpg
     
    dynasty_v6 likes this.
  4. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    So to be clear according to you a nirvana media landscape is one in which

    1. There are more not less frivolous libel lawsuits a la your Project Veritas example; and,

    2. There is more not less bias.

    Interesting. Not all people need government regulation to tell them how to process information but you do you.
     
  5. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    Dude put the crack pipe down this has nothing to do with organizations that already classify themselves as publishers.
     
  6. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    The classification is not up to the organization.

    230 determines that if the content is "generated" by the platform then it is a publisher. Platforms do not generate content, they only serve as a clearinghouse for user generated content. At least that is the idea.

    The 230 crybaby argument is that even though the platform does not actually generate the content it has some determination as to what gets on the platform and is thus "publishing." Moderating is editing and editorial decisions are the threshold for "publisher" according to this line of thinking.

    Thus, the 230 crybabies moan that platforms are really publishers because bIAs!!!! The solution? Regulation. In case you did not know more regulation = more censorship, not less.

    So, according to your circular logic the only way to decrease censorship is to increase censorship.

    I assumed that you knew all of this.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2020
  7. SID297

    SID297 OWNER/ADMIN Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    49,835
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach, SC
    This all turns on the definition of 'good faith.' Everything else is secondary.

    Also, consider that the party who is being censored may not be the one who will ultimately have an actionable claim if §230 protection is lost by a platform.
     
  8. tones_RS3

    tones_RS3 I like members members. Established Member

    Messages:
    16,010
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Location:
    MA
    Speaking of which,...........I got like 3 or 4 messages this morning from Cuckbook saying that my posts were offensive/goes against community standards. What a world we live in today. Wow.
    LMFAO
    I could give a **** about Cuckbook. Instagram is way better. Mostly all photos and no ****ing nonsensical bullshit.
     
  9. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    incorrect. when you crowdsource data and then choose what data stays or goes based on your personal preference you've become an editor, and thusly, are no longer just a platform.

    incorrect, again. editing and moderating based on personal preference instead of according to CODIFIED ToS and actual legal standards are what makes a platform ineligible for 230.

    how is the federal government saying twitter is ineligible for 230 protections MORE regulation?

    the only thing circular is you ignoring the question above.
     
  10. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    I do not follow. Explain.

    Except when this is not the case. "Immunity" is not the correct phrase to use in describing 230 safe harbor.
    HASSELL v. BIRD | 247 Cal.App.4th 1336 (2016)... | 20160607019| Leagle.com

    Further, your claim applies to "publishers" as well. If you defame me in the comments section of the NYT there is no distinction in recourse available to be of it were a "platform."
     
  11. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    how is the federal government saying twitter is ineligible for 230 protections MORE regulation?
     
  12. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    You will have to quote me where I stated anything but the opposite of this.
     
  13. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    I understand the point but it is incorrect. The 230 determination is not based on editing, it is based on content creation. Your argument assumes moderation = content creation which is a false assumption.

    This point is not relevant. A platform can moderate for whatever reason it wants whether or not it is "codified" or not.
     
  14. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    Well I'm glad we're finally on the same page about how you don't have to add information to radically change the meaning of content but twitter DOES add to the picture, they editorialize, and with that behavior make it a pretty slam dunk thing.

    these protections are for platforms that do not edit content in order to push agendas. the landscape has changed since 1996 and these massive conglomerates hold actual power that affects actual elections. more over other nations have vested interests in these organizations. maybe 230 needs to be amended or clarified in such a way that prohibits these companies from doing so much with impunity.

    is it legal, as a tax exempt organization, to say you're tax exempt and then charge sales tax to groups you wish to discriminate against?
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2020
  15. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    It is your opinion that moderation = content creation = publishing. But it is not fact. Do not confuse the two.

    I get it that you are still pissed that Russia + Facebook stole the 2016 election. But platform size or "power" is irrelevant to the determination of platform or publisher. Only content creation is.

    Similarly size or "power" is irrelevant to your argument. MySpace once had a monopoly. The market fixed that for them. Alternatively many newspapers that are considered publishers enjoy enduring monopolies.

    I do not understand the relevance. You will have to explain why you think this is relevant.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2020
  16. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    By this logic Verizon and Comcast can filter our what and who they want with impunity.

    And we both know that isn't true.

    If you don't see the relevance of an organization posing as one thing to gain protections and giving preferential treatment to certain groups while enjoying protections based on them being good faith actors then you don't understand the situation at all.

    Twitter is a new kind of phone line. They must be impartial or they must forfeit the protections garunteed to them that assume they are impartial.

    They simply must choose which they want to be and choosing not to decide is still making s choice.

    And Facebook attempted to steal the 2016 election bit they underestimated the will of the people.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2020
  17. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    Oh and the fact that they literally publish code and lists that categorize the president as racist and God knows what else is another nailnin the coffin.

    Black lists, shadowbans , and search engine manipulation are new ways to curate content like a modern publisher.
     
  18. Klaus

    Klaus Premium Member Premium Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Location:
    minnesota
    This is fun, I enjoy the discussion.

    Apparently you are not familiar with "net neutrality." Google it if you need to get up to speed. The punchline is that data providors do in fact "filter" what/who they want with impunity by reducing service quality for certain customers but not others. This is known as "throttling." Discrimination is germane to all businesses. Get over it.

    You are confusing status of "platform" and "publisher" as synonymous with "bias OK" and "bias not OK" and the two categories have nothing to do with each other. Twitter and Facebook are not in the business of assuring your 1A rights and this would not change if they were "publishers." The NYT can choose not to publish your letter to the editor for any reason it wants.

    Again you are totally confused on the issue. Status as "publisher" or "platform" has nothing to do with partiality.

    Either the (((platforms))) are so big and powerful that they control elections or they are not. The answer cannot be both.

    Sounds scary. So there is a long list of drumpfs tweets that Twitter has pulled? Or is the correct answer is zero of drumpfs tweets have been pulled? Also if you are out of the loop Zuck has an open rebellion on his hands because his leftist employees are distraught that he is NOT censoring dear leader.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2020
    nomoretickets likes this.
  19. nomoretickets

    nomoretickets Active Member Established Member

    Messages:
    402
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Location:
    Chicago
    The real joke in all of this is that people in here still somehow think that if you reclassify tech platforms to publishers, that for some reason they will decrease regulation. If you make tech businesses a "publisher" such that they are liable for all content any user posts on their platform, they are going to drastically ramp up regulation of the content they allow users to post, because every post is a new exposure to liability. They will aggressively moderate all content. They might require prior approval before you post something, because now they are publishers and they get to decide what they publish. Trump would be banned in like a day because hes a walking ****ing disaster of defamation, and even if no one sues him directly, if there arent 230 protections, guarantee someone sues Twitter for Trump spouting off about some sort of nonsense.
     
    Klaus likes this.
  20. Makobra

    Makobra Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2018
    Location:
    Texas
    OR they comply with what a platform ought to be and are protected from suit.

    its pretty simple, if you censor you are liable for what you let through and if you don't then you're off the hook.

    it doesn't get any simpler than that. commies and cucks want to complicate the matter into something it isn't.


    the simple fact that trump managed to garner enough support to overcome the mountains of big tech and media tricks, blackouts, and exploitation just shows exactly how well liked this president is. america hating socialist pole riding idiots will hate and scheme and fight tooth and nail because to them the ends always justify the means.

    these people don't care about justice, they care about being progressive.

    screw them and the horse they rode in on.
     

Share This Page