2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
again, you can.
But then sec 230 can be re-written excluding you from immunity for civil liability of all content posted on your plaftorm.
The state can also decide that some companies are big enough that they have a duty to provide service even to people who post "bad things" according to their ToS but that's another topic. It should hold in court to allow the companies to remove all content that is against the ToS but not allowing anyone from being banned from facebook for example.
What a "basic
what exactly are you proposing to reform about section 230? most people who propose reforms to it have really dumb ideas.
again, you can.
But then sec 230 can be re-written excluding you from immunity for civil liability of all content posted on your plaftorm.
The state can also decide that some companies are big enough that they have a duty to provide service even to people who post "bad things" according to their ToS but that's another topic. It should hold in court to allow the companies to remove all content that is against the ToS but not allowing anyone from being banned from facebook for example.
What a "basic
I’ll let the actual lawyers weigh in. I don’t know enough about this topic to have much of an opinion.
what exactly are you proposing to reform about section 230? most people who propose reforms to it have really dumb ideas.
To rewrite it covering only platforms that don't curate content.
Like, take a platform where you can upload videos: you either allow the totality of videos which are legal under the law in the USA (which don't violate any of the legal exceptions to unrestricted free speech) to be uploaded, or if you ever put down content you lose sec 230 protection from civil liability for the whole platform.
Details might vary about how to write the law to include any form of algorithmical or manual demotion of the content as equivalent as "putting down content". Demonetization probably can't enter the picture though.
So something like not only you can't censor pro nazi content (unless it touches illegal areas like direct promotion of specific violence and so on). You can't even shadow ban it and so on.
I mean you can, but you lose sec 230 protection.
You can (and you actually have to) remove content that violates the law though, but iirc sec 230 already prescribes that.
Right, but my point is their opinion on what’s lawful speech or not is going to align with ideology.
And he says users should be allowed to have an unmoderated stream of content, meaning the site will have to host it.
Child pornography and promoting terrorism are already illegal though. Plus those are things that everyone agrees with although I'm sure there are some grey areas with the latter (and possibly the former as well).
To rewrite it covering only platforms that don't curate content.
Like, take a platform where you can upload videos: you either allow the totality of videos which are legal under the law in the USA (which don't violate any of the legal exceptions to unrestricted free speech) to be uploaded, or if you ever put down content you lose sec 230 protection from civil liability for the whole platform.
Details might vary about how to write the law to include any form of algorithmical or manual demotion of
so conservatives are advocating for YouTube to host speech that is pro pedophilia? Wouldn’t this basically force every platform that hosts any type of video text or images to become a political platform against their will?
Child pornography and promoting terrorism are already illegal though. Plus those are things that everyone agrees with although I'm sure there are some grey areas with the latter (and possibly the former as well).
Right, I’m suggesting that they will attempt a broad interpretation of those things when they want to and very narrow when they don’t. Obviously anything trans related to kids will fit their definition but probably not gross child beauty pageants. Proud boys stuff interpreted as charitably as possible and BLM, climate protestors, etc as domestic terrorism.
As I’ve said many times in the past and will say many times in the future, it’s deeply ick and wildly disturbing that you spend so much time litigating American politics (most assuredly more posts per day on the topic than anyone who posts in this forum, in fact) despite having no connection to it on any level than your imagination
So if I have a recipe blog with a comment section and someone posts “jews run the media, heil hitler, blacks should be slaves to the superior race” I can’t delete it now or I lose my civil immunity protections?
I remain always curious why an Italian who lives in Italy should have an allowable opinion we’re here to listen to on American legislation
You live in another continent, aren’t a citizen, and should have a say in the legislation that govern me because…..?
You have an Internet forum account?
Of course none of us International folks have a say. The thing is this reality series called the USA is fascinating to watch . Yes Italy probably does not get affected by USA policies though a country like Canada catches a cold when the USA sneezes .
Who woulda guessed in Season 8 or is it 9 that DJT would win the electoral college and the popular vote after the Dems spent over a billion bucks trying to win.
Right, but my point is their opinion on what’s lawful speech or not is going to align with ideology.
And he says users should be allowed to have an unmoderated stream of content, meaning the site will have to host it.
Re what's lawful or not i don't understand, there are laws and you wait for a court order.
The part about the unmoderated stream is about the "for you" vs "people you follow" on twitter and equivalent variants in other social media.
It's already hosted content. It's about mandating that the option to see in strict chronological order hosted content produced by people followed by the user is present.
IE users should be allowed to opt out of curated presentation of content if they so wish (again: IF the platform wants to keep having sec 230 protections).
Trump wants to guarantee the manipulation is explicit and people can avoid it.
So the main provisions would be (to keep sec 230 protection), to stock removing content which is legally protected speech in the USA, and to offer algorithmic suggestions for content only if an opt out option exists.
Then there are the provisions related to how to deal with account banning and so on.
At the same time it is implied in the video that it's possible they will approach the topic under a "it's an essential utility" lens but it's vague so we don't know yet
Us US citizens don't really have a say either of course
so conservatives are advocating for YouTube to host speech that is pro pedophilia? Wouldn’t this basically force every platform that hosts any type of video text or images to become a political platform against their will?
If it does advocate for pedophilia in legal ways obviously yes, how is it even controversial? it's free speech only if speech you are disgusted by is allowed.
And btw, such content is *already on social media and allowed to be there*, if by that you mean content promoting
1) a reduction in age of legal consent to sex
2) to decriminalize sex with postpuberal minors if the minor doesn't press charges
3) to threat convincted pedophiles "better" in terms of shorter sentences and / or treating them as you would drug addicts vs as you would evil people
And so on.
I don't understand the latter question, we are talking in the context of having or not full immunity from civil liability for the content you platform that is generated by third parties. There is no forcing anyone to do anything unless they want a huge legal privilege to apply to them.
Of course none of us International folks have a say. The thing is this reality series called the USA is fascinating to watch . Yes Italy probably does not get affected by USA policies though a country like Canada catches a cold when the USA sneezes .
Who woulda guessed in Season 8 or is it 9 that DJT would win the electoral college and the popular vote after the Dems spent over a billion bucks trying to win.
You joking right? you think black friday in poker didn't affect italians living in italy? you think which content is distributed and how it is curated by social media in the USA doesn't affect us?
Welcome to the next 4 years of discourse I guess
Would appreciate if anyone could tell me if I missed anything of value here
Which reminds me: PB, thanks for being too chickenshit to take my pennsyvania bet
Edit: wait I guess the bet was he would take kamala to win Pennsylvania. Bummer. It’s almost like he knew he was lying
So if I have a recipe blog with a comment section and someone posts “jews run the media, heil hitler, blacks should be slaves to the superior race” I can’t delete it now or I lose my civil immunity protections?
yes that would be the idea. And given that happens already a lot (with other kinds of spam as well), so many places closed their comment sections anyway
If you're registered in one of the 7;swing states then maybe. As an Arizona resident (actually living in California) then I suppose I'd be one of those but it's not looking like my vote or lack thereof will affect the election.
Strong disagree. voting in primaries matter even in perma-blue or perma-red places, and there are the house and the senate as well.
