5 ms·

Democrats have threatened it as well: "Democrats Want To Hold Social Media Companies Responsible For Health Misinformation" Co-sponsored by Democratic Senators

Democrats have threatened it as well: "Democrats Want To Hold Social Media Companies Responsible For Health Misinformation" Co-sponsored by Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the Health Misinformation Act targets a provision in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from being held liable for what their users post in most cases. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019346177/democrats-want-to-hold-social-media-companies-responsible-for-health-misinformat https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019346177/democrats-want-to-... It's obvious government infringement on free speech from both sides when you take off your red or blue colored glasses.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
Republicans have threatened it as well: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/5020/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/502... S.5020 - A bill to repeal section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Sponsor: Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] you're now free to respond to the substance of the post you replied to: it was, in fact, a GOP controlled Senate which performed the action in question
- stale2002 3y ago
  Ok, so then we can agree that the gov definitely is engaging in illegal violations of first amendment rights! Looks like you agree with the judge here from the article.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    Looks like you've still failed to articulate the credible implied threat Facebook felt from the Biden administration's requests, or how that ties in with the GOP-controlled senate bringing the CEOs before them: did they do that because the Biden administration ordered them to, as a result of Facebook ignoring one of the requests? It's a laughably bipartisan conspiracy theory, and thus nobody would actually feel threatened by it.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      It's been articulated, you just choose to ignore it.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        ah yes, that classic proof, "I already proved it!" [with no citations, while entirely failing to respond to any clarifying questions] can be applied in all cases!
        Clubber 3y ago
        First you said articulated, not proof, so you're moving the goalposts to be argumentative and aren't discussing in good faith. Second, you seem to be under the impression that unless everyone caves to coercion 100% of the time, then it isn't coercion, which is obviously a fallacy. Just because someone doesn't pay when they are blackmailed doesn't mean they weren't blackmailed. Both political parties threatened to rewrite section 230 on multiple occasions. This would effectively bankrupt most social media companies. The fact that you are unable or unwilling see this as coercion is your blind spot, not everyone else's.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        You are the one claiming there was a credible threat, so it's upon you to show it. Empirically, Facebook's denials when it suited them suggests they did not feel any such threat. The fact that they sometimes agreed is not an affirmative indication of such a threat, as they could have easily done so on the merits of the requests. The fact that the proposed action would require Biden to collude with the GOP congress to censor speech the GOP congress supports most heavily and would never censor, combined with the knowledge of reality that such collusion would never happen, suggests that the threat could not exist even theoretically. So, now's your chance to put forward an alternative case for there being a credible threat, rather than just an angry dude impotently swearing at social media with no actual power to repeal section 230 short of said implausible collusion. After all, Biden political appointee or not, he and I have exactly the same power to convince the GOP to censor the speech in question: None. Are my angry requests to Facebook similarly plausibly "threatening"? Obviously not.
- Clubber 3y ago
  Someone asked what the implied threat was to social media companies if they didn't comply with takedown request from the government. I said they (the government) threatened to revoke section 230. Someone replied with "well it was the GOP controlled congress," of which I replied that the Democrats also threatened revoking section 230. Just to back this up, the ACLU also warned against the dismantlement of section 230 as a serious threat to freedom of speech, and I agree with them on this topic. Here: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-warns-harm-free-speech-online-if-supreme-court-dismantles-section-230 https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-warns-harm-free-spe... And Here: https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-the-end-of-the-internet-as-we-know-it https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-th... And Here: https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-letter-congress-opposing-amending-or-repealing-section-230 https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-letter-congress-opposing...
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > they (the government) They here refers to the Biden administration, unless you're alleging the Biden administration conspired with a Republican Congress to coerce social networks into silencing posts that Republicans themselves were in favor of it's laughable on its face that this is a plausible threat, and the fact that Facebook totally ignored the "demands" when it suited them indicates empirically that there was no such implied threat they felt pressured by indeed, Facebook, with knowledge of US partisanship, and a hand in increasing it, was best suited to dismiss such a bipartisan conspiracy theory aimed at silencing such speech a Republican Congress would never dream of silencing

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

Republicans have threatened it as well: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/5020/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/502... S.5020 - A bill to repeal section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Sponsor: Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] you're now free to respond to the substance of the post you replied to: it was, in fact, a GOP controlled Senate which performed the action in question

stale2002 3y ago
Ok, so then we can agree that the gov definitely is engaging in illegal violations of first amendment rights! Looks like you agree with the judge here from the article.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  Looks like you've still failed to articulate the credible implied threat Facebook felt from the Biden administration's requests, or how that ties in with the GOP-controlled senate bringing the CEOs before them: did they do that because the Biden administration ordered them to, as a result of Facebook ignoring one of the requests? It's a laughably bipartisan conspiracy theory, and thus nobody would actually feel threatened by it.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    It's been articulated, you just choose to ignore it.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      ah yes, that classic proof, "I already proved it!" [with no citations, while entirely failing to respond to any clarifying questions] can be applied in all cases!
      - Clubber 3y ago
        First you said articulated, not proof, so you're moving the goalposts to be argumentative and aren't discussing in good faith. Second, you seem to be under the impression that unless everyone caves to coercion 100% of the time, then it isn't coercion, which is obviously a fallacy. Just because someone doesn't pay when they are blackmailed doesn't mean they weren't blackmailed. Both political parties threatened to rewrite section 230 on multiple occasions. This would effectively bankrupt most social media companies. The fact that you are unable or unwilling see this as coercion is your blind spot, not everyone else's.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        You are the one claiming there was a credible threat, so it's upon you to show it. Empirically, Facebook's denials when it suited them suggests they did not feel any such threat. The fact that they sometimes agreed is not an affirmative indication of such a threat, as they could have easily done so on the merits of the requests. The fact that the proposed action would require Biden to collude with the GOP congress to censor speech the GOP congress supports most heavily and would never censor, combined with the knowledge of reality that such collusion would never happen, suggests that the threat could not exist even theoretically. So, now's your chance to put forward an alternative case for there being a credible threat, rather than just an angry dude impotently swearing at social media with no actual power to repeal section 230 short of said implausible collusion. After all, Biden political appointee or not, he and I have exactly the same power to convince the GOP to censor the speech in question: None. Are my angry requests to Facebook similarly plausibly "threatening"? Obviously not.
Clubber 3y ago
Someone asked what the implied threat was to social media companies if they didn't comply with takedown request from the government. I said they (the government) threatened to revoke section 230. Someone replied with "well it was the GOP controlled congress," of which I replied that the Democrats also threatened revoking section 230. Just to back this up, the ACLU also warned against the dismantlement of section 230 as a serious threat to freedom of speech, and I agree with them on this topic. Here: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-warns-harm-free-speech-online-if-supreme-court-dismantles-section-230 https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-warns-harm-free-spe... And Here: https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-the-end-of-the-internet-as-we-know-it https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-th... And Here: https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-letter-congress-opposing-amending-or-repealing-section-230 https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-letter-congress-opposing...
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > they (the government) They here refers to the Biden administration, unless you're alleging the Biden administration conspired with a Republican Congress to coerce social networks into silencing posts that Republicans themselves were in favor of it's laughable on its face that this is a plausible threat, and the fact that Facebook totally ignored the "demands" when it suited them indicates empirically that there was no such implied threat they felt pressured by indeed, Facebook, with knowledge of US partisanship, and a hand in increasing it, was best suited to dismiss such a bipartisan conspiracy theory aimed at silencing such speech a Republican Congress would never dream of silencing