3 ms·

YouTube and the NYT are fundamentally different businesses BECAUSE of CDA 230. You're right that YouTube will exist as long as CDA 230 exists. However, if CDA

YouTube and the NYT are fundamentally different businesses BECAUSE of CDA 230. You're right that YouTube will exist as long as CDA 230 exists. However, if CDA 230 is ever repealed, YouTube will have to change as its business model is not protected by the 1st Amendment but by an act of Congress. Ad hominem arguments are ignored.

TameAntelope 5y ago
Not an ad hominem. Your argument is bad because you don't support it with anything other than blind assertions. You also are clearly motivated by your political beliefs, which makes your selection of facts, should you choose to bring any facts to this discussion, suspect.
- matthewmarkus 5y ago
  "But Section 230 substantively protects more speech than the First Amendment, and the First Amendment will not adequately backfill any reductions in Section 230’s protections." — Your source, not mine (not that matters). Your argument seems to be that CDA 230 doesn't matter, but it is imperative that it not be repealed, which is kind of a nonsensical position.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    Thank you for demonstrating that you're not engaging in this conversation in good faith, considering I never said "CDA 230 doesn't matter", nor did any of the articles I cited say that. At this point I'm giving you a way to respond further to demonstrate how unreasonable, fundamentally, people who hold your position actually are. It's clear from what you've written that this isn't a rational position you hold, and so then anyone reading this will have to guess at why, other than rationality, would you want YouTube, Twitter, and HN to cease to exist. Your Twitter account, in your profile, should give anyone reading this all the information they need to understand your bias.
    - matthewmarkus 5y ago
      You said, "Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation." And that, "There would be one case, it would go to the Supreme Court, and would reinforce the key components of Section 230." One of your sources says: No, that is wrong. CDA 230 is a superset of First Amendment protections. I agree with your source. However, I think these additional protections are a bad idea because they absolve YouTube and the like from certain responsibilities: "Because we [YouTube] are not in a position to adjudicate the truthfulness of postings, we do not remove video postings due to allegations of defamation." [1] That absolution is ridiculous. [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6154230?hl=en&co=GENIE.CountryCode%3DUnited+States https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6154230?hl=en&co=G...
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        So you admit you lied in your prior quote of me? And no, my source agrees with me, it literally does not say what you claim. Considering you have a track record of lying about citations, this is unsurprising. Anything else you feel like lying about? Would prefer more lies that are immediately and obviously false, such as the Notre Dame article not agreeing that Section 230 provides a litigation shield.
        matthewmarkus 5y ago
        Ha! Are you trying to defame me by calling me a liar? I've quoted you twice and paraphrased your argument once by saying that it "seems to be that CDA 230 doesn't matter." Perhaps that was an oversimplification; however, let's be clear, CDA 230 is a stronger litigation shield than the First Amendment. For that reason, it needs to go.
        TameAntelope 5y ago
        You can easily lie while quoting someone, which you've clearly demonstrated, and your paraphrase was intentionally inaccurate so as to further your argument, at the expense of the truth. It's not defamation if it's true, which it is. You have lied (made an untrue statement with intent to deceive) about what I've written, and what's been written in cited articles, to further your argument. That, definitionally, makes you a liar (a person who tells lies). Section 230 being removed will not achieve the goal you desire, which is to hurt Google/Twitter/YCombinator. Any relevant protections that allow them to discretionarily host content that isn't produced by them without liability will remain. This is repeatedly explained in the above cited articles, as well as many additional articles easily found through a quick search of the topic. As I said before, your opinion is not based in reality, and you are tilting at windmills. I will repeat this for as long as you reply, because bullies like you need to be stood up to and told no. Besides, the two cases you keep citing are from 91' and '95. They're not relevant now because of how many of the facts are different (as I've said, YouTube and NYT are fundamentally different businesses, with or without Section 230), and could not be used as precedence even if Section 230 were repealed.

TameAntelope 5y ago

Not an ad hominem. Your argument is bad because you don't support it with anything other than blind assertions. You also are clearly motivated by your political beliefs, which makes your selection of facts, should you choose to bring any facts to this discussion, suspect.

matthewmarkus 5y ago
"But Section 230 substantively protects more speech than the First Amendment, and the First Amendment will not adequately backfill any reductions in Section 230’s protections." — Your source, not mine (not that matters). Your argument seems to be that CDA 230 doesn't matter, but it is imperative that it not be repealed, which is kind of a nonsensical position.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Thank you for demonstrating that you're not engaging in this conversation in good faith, considering I never said "CDA 230 doesn't matter", nor did any of the articles I cited say that. At this point I'm giving you a way to respond further to demonstrate how unreasonable, fundamentally, people who hold your position actually are. It's clear from what you've written that this isn't a rational position you hold, and so then anyone reading this will have to guess at why, other than rationality, would you want YouTube, Twitter, and HN to cease to exist. Your Twitter account, in your profile, should give anyone reading this all the information they need to understand your bias.
  - matthewmarkus 5y ago
    You said, "Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation." And that, "There would be one case, it would go to the Supreme Court, and would reinforce the key components of Section 230." One of your sources says: No, that is wrong. CDA 230 is a superset of First Amendment protections. I agree with your source. However, I think these additional protections are a bad idea because they absolve YouTube and the like from certain responsibilities: "Because we [YouTube] are not in a position to adjudicate the truthfulness of postings, we do not remove video postings due to allegations of defamation." [1] That absolution is ridiculous. [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6154230?hl=en&co=GENIE.CountryCode%3DUnited+States https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6154230?hl=en&co=G...
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      So you admit you lied in your prior quote of me? And no, my source agrees with me, it literally does not say what you claim. Considering you have a track record of lying about citations, this is unsurprising. Anything else you feel like lying about? Would prefer more lies that are immediately and obviously false, such as the Notre Dame article not agreeing that Section 230 provides a litigation shield.
      - matthewmarkus 5y ago
        Ha! Are you trying to defame me by calling me a liar? I've quoted you twice and paraphrased your argument once by saying that it "seems to be that CDA 230 doesn't matter." Perhaps that was an oversimplification; however, let's be clear, CDA 230 is a stronger litigation shield than the First Amendment. For that reason, it needs to go.
        TameAntelope 5y ago
        You can easily lie while quoting someone, which you've clearly demonstrated, and your paraphrase was intentionally inaccurate so as to further your argument, at the expense of the truth. It's not defamation if it's true, which it is. You have lied (made an untrue statement with intent to deceive) about what I've written, and what's been written in cited articles, to further your argument. That, definitionally, makes you a liar (a person who tells lies). Section 230 being removed will not achieve the goal you desire, which is to hurt Google/Twitter/YCombinator. Any relevant protections that allow them to discretionarily host content that isn't produced by them without liability will remain. This is repeatedly explained in the above cited articles, as well as many additional articles easily found through a quick search of the topic. As I said before, your opinion is not based in reality, and you are tilting at windmills. I will repeat this for as long as you reply, because bullies like you need to be stood up to and told no. Besides, the two cases you keep citing are from 91' and '95. They're not relevant now because of how many of the facts are different (as I've said, YouTube and NYT are fundamentally different businesses, with or without Section 230), and could not be used as precedence even if Section 230 were repealed.