5 ms·

> You're saying stuff that you wish was in the law. I'm telling you what the law was before Section 230 was written and why it was written. I'm telling you mor

> You're saying stuff that you wish was in the law. I'm telling you what the law was before Section 230 was written and why it was written. I'm telling you moreover that Section 230 is a bad law as it carves out a media via between being a common carrier and a publisher but does not lay out any substantive requirements for obtaining this, resulting in providers censoring people arbitrarily. > Every social platform has a terms of service and usually, community guidelines. Beyond that who defines and decides this? Social platforms routinely have terms of service that are vague, ambiguous, and which are routinely misinterpreted to flag communications that are otherwise lawful as being "hate speech" or some other such violation so they may be removed, with absolutely no penalty to the service provider for falsely flagging such speech. > You want the government getting involved in this? How is that better for "free speech"? Do I want the government getting involved in compelling service providers to honor their terms of service, not fraudulently claim communications violate the same, and avoid editorializing? Yeah, I do. > I'd prefer to let the free market decide, personally. The free market does not allow you to break the law with impunity. > It's weird to see conservatives argue against that. Good thing I'm not a conservative... but if I were, would that really change anything? It's amazing that arguing in favor of the freedom of speech is suddenly a conservative position these days.

triceratops 4y ago
> arguing in favor of the freedom of speech There's plenty of free speech online. You aren't entitled to free speech on others' property. Fix net neutrality first if you want true free speech. And I definitely don't want the government to decide if something is "hate speech" or not. That's a slippery slope to actually losing freedom of speech.
- EarlKing 4y ago
  > There's plenty of free speech online. You aren't entitled to free speech on others' property. ...neither are others allowed to fraudulently claim speech acts violate their terms of service. > Fix net neutrality first if you want true free speech. Por que no los dos?
  - triceratops 4y ago
    "fraudulently" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. "Fraud" as a crime has a high bar. I understand that you want things to be a certain way. But you can't just make stuff up and expect others to accept it. > Por que no los dos? Which political party repealed net neutrality? Which political party's supporters also strongly dislike Section 230? We ain't gettin' "los dos" - what's Spanish for "neither"?
    - EarlKing 4y ago
      > Which political party repealed net neutrality? Which political party has held the house and the senate and done nothing to reverse it? Honestly, people who pretend that bourgeoisie issues are somehow the province of just one party are worse than wrestling fans -- they at least know wrestling is fake.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Which political party has held the house and the senate and done nothing to reverse it? None. The Democratic Party has done a lot to undo the effect of that repeal, notably: (1) Passing net neutrality laws in several states shortly after the FCC repeal, some—like California’s—significantly stronger than the ones that the FCC has passes and then repealed, (2) Dropping federal opposition in court to those state laws shortly after Biden took office.

triceratops 4y ago

> arguing in favor of the freedom of speech There's plenty of free speech online. You aren't entitled to free speech on others' property. Fix net neutrality first if you want true free speech. And I definitely don't want the government to decide if something is "hate speech" or not. That's a slippery slope to actually losing freedom of speech.

EarlKing 4y ago
> There's plenty of free speech online. You aren't entitled to free speech on others' property. ...neither are others allowed to fraudulently claim speech acts violate their terms of service. > Fix net neutrality first if you want true free speech. Por que no los dos?
- triceratops 4y ago
  "fraudulently" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. "Fraud" as a crime has a high bar. I understand that you want things to be a certain way. But you can't just make stuff up and expect others to accept it. > Por que no los dos? Which political party repealed net neutrality? Which political party's supporters also strongly dislike Section 230? We ain't gettin' "los dos" - what's Spanish for "neither"?
  - EarlKing 4y ago
    > Which political party repealed net neutrality? Which political party has held the house and the senate and done nothing to reverse it? Honestly, people who pretend that bourgeoisie issues are somehow the province of just one party are worse than wrestling fans -- they at least know wrestling is fake.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Which political party has held the house and the senate and done nothing to reverse it? None. The Democratic Party has done a lot to undo the effect of that repeal, notably: (1) Passing net neutrality laws in several states shortly after the FCC repeal, some—like California’s—significantly stronger than the ones that the FCC has passes and then repealed, (2) Dropping federal opposition in court to those state laws shortly after Biden took office.