Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
14
... LastLast
  1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by bungeebungee View Post
    @Theodarzna @Machismo

    The platform or publisher debate has been heating up over the past five years or so. The US uses a two book model, so it isn't enough to look at just what laws appear to say (book 1 -- the law as written). One must also look at how courts have interpreted those laws through their decisions (book 2 -- case law), with special attention to how binding a case is (Federal case but different circuit for example). In both situations, discussion about intent or what the state of the law should be may also play a role.

    Westlaw and Shepard's are probably overkill for forum posting, but I suggest checking Findlaw as a reasonable start. Here's one of their attempts to lay things out in broad strokes: https://technology.findlaw.com/moder...sites-and.html
    Except those laws have been beaten to death, and shows that they are not liable for what other people post. That's it, there is no "platform versus publisher" debate, because it's not actually a thing at all.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Drusin View Post
    I'd rather all my porn be on xvideos because that's where my playlist is at. Even when I can't find anything to watch on xvideos I'll tend to stay there vs going to pornhub or xhamster because if I find something I like on another website I can't add it to my xvideos playlist


    Never been to one, I don't know that they don't.


    I don't know that they don't want to host that content. I don't know if ISIS propaganda is legal or not, I'd assume it is. I think the only illegal content to view is ChildPorn though I believe some states have beastiality laws, don't remember.

    I'd like to inform you that you're going to be wasting your time trying to guilt trip me.

    Oh but Drusin, what if they host revenge rape videos and videos of cats getting their heads exploded with M80s?
    Don't care, I don't like the content but that doesn't mean I want the content to be gone.

    I don't like any censorship but all I can do is voice my opinion and vote. I'm no militant censorship activist.
    You are dodging, because you know your stance is absurd. The fact that you refuse to address it directly makes my point for me.

    See, you keep saying what those sites want to do,m when you specifically are saying you want to force them to not do what they want.

    It's not about guilt tripping you, it's about proving you to be a hypocrite, which I just did.

  2. #222
    Scarab Lord bungeebungee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Dongbei, PRC
    Posts
    4,886
    @Machismo I think I'll go with Findlaw on this one.

    But what are the legal obligations that arise out of the use of social networks, both for the user and the sites themselves? The law in this area is still relatively unsettled and constantly changing, but some recent developments have created intriguing precedent, and legislation in motion promises to keep things interesting for the foreseeable future.
    "No one -- however smart, however well-educated, however experienced -- is the suppository of all wisdom"

    Quote Originally Posted by Katie N
    Wtf? No weapons? xD What is this? Restricted training environment?
    Commenting on "anything goes" for martial arts and self defense

  3. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by bungeebungee View Post
    @Machismo I think I'll go with Findlaw on this one.
    And that has already been covered... it's still not a platform versus publisher thing, that's the fucking point. The obligations are specifically listed in the law itself.

    Do you know what is not mentioned? anything about a "platform."

    Great, you should go with Findlaw, because they don't push the platform versus publisher bullshit.

  4. #224
    Scarab Lord bungeebungee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Dongbei, PRC
    Posts
    4,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo
    The obligations are specifically listed in the law itself.
    Sigh, laymen.

    There is no "law" in the sense you seem to want it. There are various state and federal laws that may apply, and those are further modified by applicable case law, and even those are not a sure thing because that's what lawyers get paid for ... to take all those things into account, take into account the judge they are appearing in front of, take a read on the jury and take that into account, and after all of that to make the best possible case for their client.
    "No one -- however smart, however well-educated, however experienced -- is the suppository of all wisdom"

    Quote Originally Posted by Katie N
    Wtf? No weapons? xD What is this? Restricted training environment?
    Commenting on "anything goes" for martial arts and self defense

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by breslin View Post
    Given that our friends on the left wing have made it clear that White Nationalism and Right Wing extremism is on the rise, do you think companies like AT&T and Verizon should do more to combat them? Why should we allow a hateful bigot to operate a mobile phone or have access to the internet? It seems like curtailing access to these would combat this massive problem.
    Any of the terrible communist dictatorships, past or present, would welcome your mentality. Congrats, you're terrible.

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Youtube, facebook, Twitter ect all however feed into the vast yawning chasm of data collection of the NSA. The idea that these apps aren't themselves appendages of the security state is pretty much laughable. They are hardly "Private" enterprises anymore.

    Moreover, if they are making editorial decisions about content, they are not "Platforms" in a traditional sense, but publishers instead.
    I have seen this argument pop up from such a large number of rightwingers lately that I'm really curious which conservative pundit dropped it off at the pool.

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by bungeebungee View Post
    Sigh, laymen.

    There is no "law" in the sense you seem to want it. There are various state and federal laws that may apply, and those are further modified by applicable case law, and even those are not a sure thing because that's what lawyers get paid for ... to take all those things into account, take into account the judge they are appearing in front of, take a read on the jury and take that into account, and after all of that to make the best possible case for their client.
    I know how things work, I'm simply pointing out that the entire narrative is bullshit, and not based on reality.

  8. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You are dodging, because you know your stance is absurd.
    How is my stance of "no censorship" absurd?

    The fact that you refuse to address it directly makes my point for me.
    I really have no idea what you are talking about tbh, I don't know what the "it" is.

    See, you keep saying what those sites want to do,m when you specifically are saying you want to force them to not do what they want.
    You can't argue for a company to impede on my freedom to say what I want under the grounds of I'm impeding on them to do what they want lol.

    It's not about guilt tripping you, it's about proving you to be a hypocrite, which I just did.
    If you say so, still don't see it. As far as my understanding goes I could only be a hypocrite if I told someone not to say something or not to transmit something but as far as I'm aware I'm not doing any of that.

    This is the definition I'm working under



    So, if I say that no one should be able to censor what someone says then as long as I don't censor what someone says I'm not a hypocrite. So if I go on a no censorship crusade I can rally for businesses (websites) to not have the right to remove anything all I want because I'm not preventing them from saying/transmitting anything.
    Last edited by Drusin; 2019-06-15 at 02:31 PM.
    - Bring back my damn zoom distance/MoP Portals - I read OP minimum, 1st page maximum-make wow alt friendly again -Please post constructively(topkek) -updated 2/8/2019

  9. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    Probably everybody right of center is a hateful bigot! Can't ban 150 million people.
    I'd like to see it happen too, actually. Accelerationism is the answer to modern degeneracy. Awaken more people to the totalitarian leftists and end their dreams of destroying the West in short order.
    Working on my next ban.

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by Drusin View Post
    How is my stance of "no censorship" absurd?


    I really have no idea what you are talking about tbh, I don't know what the "it" is.


    You can't argue for a company to impede on my freedom to say what I want under the grounds of I'm impeding on them to do what they want lol.



    If you say so, still don't see it. As far as my understanding goes I could only be a hypocrite if I told someone not to say something or not to transmit something but as far as I'm aware I'm not doing any of that.

    This is the definition I'm working under



    So, if I say that no one should be able to censor what someone says then as long as I don't censor what someone says I'm not a hypocrite. So if I go on a no censorship crusade I can rally for businesses (websites) to not have the right to remove anything all I want because I'm not preventing them from saying/transmitting anything.
    You are saying that anyone should be able to come into your home, and say whatever they want, and you would be legally required to let them, and couldn't kick them out.

    After all, if you did kick them out, that would be censorship.

    Yes, that is an absurd stance to take.

    Your opposition to freedom is what makes you a hypocrite.

  11. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You are saying that anyone should be able to come into your home
    I'll assume you mean someone I invited over and not some meth head breaking in

    and say whatever they want, and you would be legally required to let them
    I would anyways, no law needed

    and couldn't kick them out.
    I don't need a reason to tell someone to get out of my home but I get what you're saying.

    After all, if you did kick them out, that would be censorship.
    It would, luckily I don't care what people say. If they say something super outlandish I might be entertained and invite them back again

    Yes, that is an absurd stance to take.
    Maybe in a world where you need reasons to kick people out of your home lol.

    Your opposition to freedom is what makes you a hypocrite.
    Can't hide behind the freedom shield if you're trying to take others freedoms When you do that you make freedom eagle sad

    - Bring back my damn zoom distance/MoP Portals - I read OP minimum, 1st page maximum-make wow alt friendly again -Please post constructively(topkek) -updated 2/8/2019

  12. #232
    Over 9000! Mistame's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    9,787
    TIL: Private businesses who "kick out" people for causing trouble are "publishers". That's some serious bottom-of-the-barrel shit right there.

  13. #233
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    59,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    TIL: Private businesses who "kick out" people for causing trouble are "publishers". That's some serious bottom-of-the-barrel shit right there.
    "If we just make up complete nonsense and never source any of it, there's gonna always be some people gullible enough to fall for it!"

  14. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You are saying that anyone should be able to come into your home, and say whatever they want, and you would be legally required to let them, and couldn't kick them out.

    After all, if you did kick them out, that would be censorship.

    Yes, that is an absurd stance to take.

    Your opposition to freedom is what makes you a hypocrite.
    This is a pretty funny argument coming from a guy that's vigorously in favor of open borders. Kicking someone out is evidently well within the rights of a corporation, but definitely not OK for a country. Any cognitive dissonance, or just a massive pile of "at least it's not the government"?

  15. #235
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    59,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    This is a pretty funny argument coming from a guy that's vigorously in favor of open borders. Kicking someone out is evidently well within the rights of a corporation, but definitely not OK for a country. Any cognitive dissonance, or just a massive pile of "at least it's not the government"?
    Are you seriously going to base an argument on a willful refusal to grasp the basic differences between the public and private spheres?

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Are you seriously going to base an argument on a willful refusal to grasp the basic differences between the public and private spheres?
    When I'm talking to a guy that just abuts every argument with FREEDOM, yeah, I'm going to elide that difference. There's no actual principle at work here, just rationalization on how the desired conclusion was arrived at.

  17. #237
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    59,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    When I'm talking to a guy that just abuts every argument with FREEDOM, yeah, I'm going to elide that difference. There's no actual principle at work here, just rationalization on how the desired conclusion was arrived at.
    I mean, I'm not gonna defend Machismo's particular stance on things; we've butted heads in the past over stuff a fair bit.

    I'm just pointing out that the core of your last comment was rooted in "why do you apply different standards to public and private entities?", and that's a question with so many obvious answers that it's irksome to even ask.

    I can't recall if Machismo actually truly supports open borders or not; if he does, I wouldn't support that. But comparing that to letting private companies control access to their own services is rankly silly.

  18. #238
    I think so, yes.

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I mean, I'm not gonna defend Machismo's particular stance on things; we've butted heads in the past over stuff a fair bit.

    I'm just pointing out that the core of your last comment was rooted in "why do you apply different standards to public and private entities?", and that's a question with so many obvious answers that it's irksome to even ask.

    I can't recall if Machismo actually truly supports open borders or not; if he does, I wouldn't support that. But comparing that to letting private companies control access to their own services is rankly silly.
    I think it's less "he believes in open borders" and more "he doesn't believe in borders."
    "It doesn't matter if you believe me or not but common sense doesn't really work here. You're mad, I'm mad. We're all MAD here."

  20. #240
    Over 9000! Mistame's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    9,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    "If we just make up complete nonsense and never source any of it, there's gonna always be some people gullible enough to fall for it!"
    It's pretty commonplace, and from both sides. I just wonder sometimes who's more stupid, the people that come up with this shit or those who believe it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •