The Social Dilemma

[faberryman]

Of course he can say something offensive to your ears but not in the context of being the national leader.

Absolute and utter bullshit.

Here's the deal. If Congress decides to eliminate Section 230, and whoever is president decides to sign it, then I'll live with it, unless the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. I think it is a lousy idea. But there are a lot of things that government does that I think are lousy ideas, so I'll just add that one to the list.

[Alan Klein]

Absolute and utter bullshit.

Here's the deal. If Congress decides to eliminate Section 230, and whoever is president decides to sign it, then I'll live with it, unless the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. I think it is a lousy idea. But there are a lot of things that government does that I think are lousy ideas, so I'll just add that one to the list.

Section 230 is a law of the Congress, not part of the constitution.  The protection it grants against being sued can be removed. 

Where it can become a constitutional issue is if it remains, whether a litigant who sues can win a case against let's say Twitter if their action violated Section 230 in the process of free speech. So Twitter will argue that they were only exercising the right of free speech and they still should be protected.  That could happen.  That makes Congress getting rid of the Section more likely. 

Frankly, I think what Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg said a few weeks ago, that Facebook doesn't want to decide on posts one way or the other, is the best approach.  We want a free internet where everyone can say what they want.  No one's objecting to limiting pornography, foul words, and stuff like that.  We all know what we're talking about and that's political speech and positions on many of the important issues of the day.  Let's not silence one side or the other. 

[Peter McLennan]

silly.  Nothing a president says is offensive.

That’s nearly as funny as “Technology changes nothing”

[faberryman]

Section 230 is a law of the Congress, not part of the constitution.  The protection it grants against being sued can be removed. 

Where it can become a constitutional issue is if it remains, whether a litigant who sues can win a case against let's say Twitter if their action violated Section 230 in the process of free speech. So Twitter will argue that they were only exercising the right of free speech and they still should be protected.  That could happen.  That makes Congress getting rid of the Section more likely. 

Frankly, I think what Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg said a few weeks ago, that Facebook doesn't want to decide on posts one way or the other, is the best approach.  We want a free internet where everyone can say what they want.  No one's objecting to limiting pornography, foul words, and stuff like that.  We all know what we're talking about and that's political speech and positions on many of the important issues of the day.  Let's not silence one side or the other.

Fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

Let me ask you are question? Do you want to require all TV stations to broadcast whatever and whenever this deity of yours wants to say something. Because quite frankly, sometimes I want to hear what he has to say, but most of the time I don't. If I don't want to listen to him, I want to be able to watch re-runs of Bewitched or something, and I can't do that if he is required to be on every channel. Next, I suppose you are going to want a law that disables the mute button on my remote whenever he speaks, so that if I am watching the news, and they start doing a new segment where they are rolling some tape of his remarks in the Rose Garden earlier that day, I can't hit the mute button, but instead I have to listen to him or turn off the TV altogether. It is completely absurd, and authoritarian I might aid.

[Alan Klein]

Fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

Let me ask you are question? Do you want to require all TV stations to broadcast whatever and whenever this deity of yours wants to say something. Because quite frankly, sometimes I want to hear what he has to say, but most of the time I don't. If I don't want to listen to him, I want to be able to watch re-runs of Bewitched or something, and I can't do that if he is required to be on every channel. Next, I suppose you are going to want a law that disables the mute button on my remote whenever he speaks, so that if I am watching the news, and they start doing a new segment where they are rolling some tape of his remarks in the Rose Garden earlier that date, I can't hit the mute button, but instead I have to listen to him or turn off the TV altogether. It is completely absurd, and authoritarian I might aid.

TV stations are publishers. They can present whatever they want and do.  CNN tries not to show Trump rallies while Fox does.  That's perfectly OK for both of them.  However, they are not protected by section 230 like Twitter is.  Twitter is an interactive computer provider.  Like the telephone company, they should not be stopping communications among their subscribers.  If I'm calling you and want to discuss anything, they should not be interfering.  That's why they were granted protection from lawsuits, to encourage a free interchange of ideas.  If they are going to play politics, then I want their protection removed.  Then they'll be publishers like the TV stations, publish what they like, and have to deal with lawsuits. 

[BobShaw]

How did this get to 4 pages overnight?
I suggest that those commenting who have never actually seen "The Social Dilemma" documentary or had it explained by an adult should stop posting.

It is nothing about limiting your precious freedom.
Here is a comparison you may understand.

It is not about limiting a 14 old boy's freedom to take an assault rifle to a school and shoot it up.
It is about what subtle and not so subtle things influenced that 14 old boy to want to do that, or to commit suicide.

If you click on something, what supporting things are sent to you automatically? What like minded and perhaps radical people try to connect you that reinforce the pattern and lead to marginalisation?
How have you become a saleable commodity?

If you are just joining this post now I suggest you go back to the first page and only read about half way down before it became wacky.
If there is a moderator reading it is probably time to close the thread. It is now in space.