3 ms·

Your entire argument is based on denying the antecedent[0]. Because hosts can't be legally required to have strict moderation has nothing to do with the idea t

Your entire argument is based on denying the antecedent[0]. Because hosts can't be legally required to have strict moderation has nothing to do with the idea that they are legally compelled to host anything. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

ameister14 8y ago
You've misunderstood my argument. My argument is as follows: Publishers are required to strictly moderate their content. Online publishers are protected from these requirements. The reason that online publishers are not required to have strict moderation is because it is not possible to have strict moderation. If it is possible to have strict moderation, then their protections should be removed and online publishers should be required to have strict moderation. By applying strict moderation, you are showing that it is possible to apply strict moderation. Therefore, you should be treated as a publisher and made to comply with all other regulations relative to that status.
- lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
  You're still making the same fallacy just moving it around. The ability to apply strict moderation -> the ability to moderate at all; however this is not necessarily true in reverse. You can moderate your forum and still be unable to comply with the law to the standard publishers can.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    That's not the same fallacy at all. I'm not sure it means what you think it means. You're saying that moderation is possible without strict moderation. I'm not disputing that, but instead saying that strict moderation is possible, implied by the complete banning of a particular opinion. If I'm incorrect about the possibility of strict moderation, it doesn't mean that logically there is a fallacy. If I am correct, there is still no fallacy.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > strict moderation is possible, implied by the complete banning of a particular opinion. A blanket policy doesn't prove that strict moderation is possible. Web hosts tend to have blanket policies prohibiting illegal content, and did both before and he whole time since CDA § 230 was adopted, without legislators or courts finding any inconsistency; to the extent impossibility of strict moderation is a necessary element of the justification of the provision, the mere possibility of stating a blanket policy does not, clearly, suffice to defeat it.
      - ameister14 8y ago
        It's not about the blanket policy itself, but about the efficacy of its enforcement. If it's possible to enforce such a ban, then it should be possible to enforce bans on obscene content.

ameister14 8y ago

You've misunderstood my argument. My argument is as follows: Publishers are required to strictly moderate their content. Online publishers are protected from these requirements. The reason that online publishers are not required to have strict moderation is because it is not possible to have strict moderation. If it is possible to have strict moderation, then their protections should be removed and online publishers should be required to have strict moderation. By applying strict moderation, you are showing that it is possible to apply strict moderation. Therefore, you should be treated as a publisher and made to comply with all other regulations relative to that status.

lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
You're still making the same fallacy just moving it around. The ability to apply strict moderation -> the ability to moderate at all; however this is not necessarily true in reverse. You can moderate your forum and still be unable to comply with the law to the standard publishers can.
- ameister14 8y ago
  That's not the same fallacy at all. I'm not sure it means what you think it means. You're saying that moderation is possible without strict moderation. I'm not disputing that, but instead saying that strict moderation is possible, implied by the complete banning of a particular opinion. If I'm incorrect about the possibility of strict moderation, it doesn't mean that logically there is a fallacy. If I am correct, there is still no fallacy.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > strict moderation is possible, implied by the complete banning of a particular opinion. A blanket policy doesn't prove that strict moderation is possible. Web hosts tend to have blanket policies prohibiting illegal content, and did both before and he whole time since CDA § 230 was adopted, without legislators or courts finding any inconsistency; to the extent impossibility of strict moderation is a necessary element of the justification of the provision, the mere possibility of stating a blanket policy does not, clearly, suffice to defeat it.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      It's not about the blanket policy itself, but about the efficacy of its enforcement. If it's possible to enforce such a ban, then it should be possible to enforce bans on obscene content.