Whitehouse Social Media plans Leaked.

[Astalnar]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...nced-dangerous

Trump being Trump /10char. He plans to let people who were appointed by elected officials control speech on the internet. Basically whatever party is in power can silence speech.

No. Trump being Trump, he plans to hold the big social media companies responsible. Contrary to your ludicrous ideas, this would actually lead to more speech, not less, because Facebook, Google, Twitter and the likes would have to decide are they PUBLIC FORUM and thus have to enable all speech, and are not liable for anything, or are they going to curate all content and thus act as a PUBLISHER.

If they decide to be publisher, they get to censor and deplatform whoever they want, but at the same time, they would be liable for anything published on their platforms.

Currently these tech giants claim to be public forums, but act as publishers. That needs to change. Silicon Valley enjoyed their wild west for far too long at the expense of others. Time to bring them to heel.

[Shalcker]

They don't exercise editorial control though.

Exactly.

You can go upload any video you want to YouTube right now. No one at YouTube is going to check your video before it's uploaded, that would be completely unreasonable and realistically impossible for them to do. There's no editorial process to upload a video to YouTube.

If you do not exercise editorial control then you do not exercise editorial control - neither before nor AFTER video is uploaded.

You get takedown notice from other entity - like from law enforcement agency on terrorist recruitment video, or from copyright holder for possible copyright infringement? You take it down then, and no sooner.

You should not make your own judgement if you call upon common carrier protections. They were intended for internet providers.

[Wyrt]

No. Trump being Trump, he plans to hold the big social media companies responsible. Contrary to your ludicrous ideas, this would actually lead to more speech, not less, because Facebook, Google, Twitter and the likes would have to decide are they PUBLIC FORUM and thus have to enable all speech, and are not liable for anything, or are they going to curate all content and thus act as a PUBLISHER.

If they decide to be publisher, they get to censor and deplatform whoever they want, but at the same time, they would be liable for anything published on their platforms.

Currently these tech giants claim to be public forums, but act as publishers. That needs to change. Silicon Valley enjoyed their wild west for far too long at the expense of others. Time to bring them to heel.

That's not how it works. Enforcing TOS is not acting as a publisher.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly.

If you do not exercise editorial control then you do not exercise editorial control - neither before nor AFTER video is uploaded.

You get takedown notice from other entity - like from law enforcement agency on terrorist recruitment video, or from copyright holder for possible copyright infringement? You take it down then, and no sooner.

You should not make your own judgement if you call upon common carrier protections. They were intended for internet providers.

Yeah, let's turn the whole internet into 8chan and other cesspits of the internet.

[Xeones]

That should only work if they exercise editorial control, not if they call upon "common carrier" protections.

Yes? Why would i care? Democrats are already chipping on the very same act.

Noone is forcing anyone to "report reality".

There is no difference between forcing twitter to publish a tweet from someone they do not wish to associate with and forcing a news paper to publish an article from someone they do not wish to associate with.

I'm pointing out how it could work against conservatives and you give me some link for a blank article from mofo jumpstarter?

As we have frequently noted on Socially Aware, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects social media sites and other online platforms…

I'm guessing there is supposed to be more but I'm legitimately unclear on your point.

[Astalnar]

That's not how it works. Enforcing TOS is not acting as a publisher.

If their TOS states they get to act as a publisher, then by all means. But that disqualifies the from protections granted to public forums. They don't get to have and eat the cake at the same time.

I guess they'll just have to change their TOS. It won't be the first time, will it?

[Wyrt]

If their TOS states they get to act as a publisher, then by all means. But that disqualifies the from protections granted to public forums. They don't get to have and eat the cake at the same time.

I guess they'll just have to change their TOS. It won't be the first time, will it?

The protections aren't for public forums. They're for websites that allow user uploaded content. At least know what the fuck you're talking about.

And that's a lot of websites. From MMO Champion to Youtube to Stormfront to Reddit.

Should MMO Champion not have TOS for their forums?

[Shalcker]

There is no difference between forcing twitter to publish a tweet from someone they do not wish to associate with and forcing a news paper to publish an article from someone they do not wish to associate with.

Twitter already published it.

Newspaper exercises editorial control before publishing.

That's crucial difference.

I'm pointing out how it could work against conservatives and you give me some link for a blank article from mofo jumpstarter?

I don't care for conservatives or democrats; i care for limits on corporate media control.

[Wyrt]

Twitter already published it.

Newspaper exercises editorial control before publishing.

That's crucial difference.

And that is why websites have protections from being liable for content posted on them.

[Shalcker]

And that is why websites have protections from being liable for content posted on them.

If they exercise editorial control, they should lose it - just like newspapers.

Mega-sites that cannot be effectively moderated can all die for all i care.

[Wyrt]

If they exercise editorial control, they should lose it - just like newspapers.

Mega-sites that cannot be effectively moderated can all die for all i care.

But they aren't just like newspapers, you just said so yourself.

[Shalcker]

But they aren't just like newspapers, you just said so yourself.

The moment they start censoring certain speech they should be considered the same as newspapers.

I absolutely cannot trust corporations with making unconstrained judgements there while being protected by law.

[Wyrt]

The moment they start censoring certain speech they should be considered the same as newspapers.

I absolutely cannot trust corporations with making unconstrained judgements there while being protected by law.

I don't think you understand what the law actually is. The law has absolutely fuck all to do with websites being able to police their own website.

[Shalcker]

I don't think you understand what the law actually is. The law has absolutely fuck all to do with websites being able to police their own website.

The law is about "their protections while doing so" part.

[Wyrt]

The law is about "their protections while doing so" part.

No. It's protections because of user uploaded content. So if someone uploads child porn or slander/libel the website isn't held responsible for it, just the individual that uploaded it.

Newspapers do not get the same protections because they don't allow user uploaded content in the first place.

[Xeones]

Twitter already published it.

Newspaper exercises editorial control before publishing.

That's crucial difference.

And the crucial similarity is being forced to host a message they don't wish to.

[Shalcker]

And the crucial similarity is being forced to host a message they don't wish to.

If they don't want to be considered publishers they shouldn't act like one.

[Wyrt]

If they don't want to be considered publishers they shouldn't act like one.

THE LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLISHERS.

FFS. Read the fucking law. It's about user uploaded content. It's not about this "publisher vs. platform" bullshit you trolls are trying to push.

[Shalcker]

THE LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLISHERS.

FFS. Read the fucking law. It's about USER uploaded content. It's not about this "publisher vs. platform" bullshit you trolls are trying to push.

How do you understand reasons why such protections are afforded to them and not to newspapers?

[Wyrt]

How do you understand reasons why such protections are afforded to them and not to newspapers?

Because websites allow user uploaded content and newspapers don't. We've been over this multiple times now.

[Shalcker]

Because websites allow user uploaded content and newspapers don't. We've been over this multiple times now.

No, that isn't initial reason why this article 230 appeared in the first place.

It wasn't about websites.

There is entire wiki article about it:
Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against Internet service providers in the early 1990s that had different interpretations of whether the services providers should be treated as publishers or distributors of content created by its users.