5 ms·
Dude, I honestly don't think you understand what 'trolling' means. You already agreed that trolling is not illegal, why do you keep trying to use examples of il
by NOGDP 6y ago
Dude, I honestly don't think you understand what 'trolling' means. You already agreed that trolling is not illegal, why do you keep trying to use examples of illegal content to demonstrate why 'trolling' should be banned?
And what does child pornography have to do with swearing?
> Do you honestly believe that a discussion forum site that wanted a family friendly policy shouldn't be able to have any liability protections?
Again, I never said that.
- majormajor 6y agoYou keep bringing up trolling as a term in general, I tried to make it specific. The pitch being made in this subthread was "I don't think Reddit should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act." So you lose liability protection if you censor lawful content. So if you want to ban swearing, you become liable for your user's content. Which makes you a WIDE OPEN target for bad actors who could post whatever illegal content they want faster than you could moderate it. I'm trying to illustrate why I think `cwhiz took an absurd position, and am not using the term "trolling" in general now. I've given a specific example of "legal content some communities might want to prohibit" as well as "illegal content that bad actors could use to get the owner of that site in trouble in this proposed world."
- NOGDP 6y agoOkay, to make it clear - I don't think sites should lose 230 protections for having a moderation policy. I do think that the excessive manipulation and censorship of dissenting opinions on sites such as reddit is a bad thing however.
- guug 6y agoI do. If you moderate your site, you endorse its content and should be held responsible for it (i.e be treated like other publishers). If your laws permit speech you don't like, either fix your laws or fix yourself.