Leaked Draft Shows potential Internet Censorship in the US.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

should facebook no longer be allowed to delete isis accounts because thats censoring a ideology 

Do they incite people to violence? 

[Majinhoju]

Twitter and Facebook are still private companies.  What they choose to allow still affects their business.  Having the government step in also dictates how they run their business.  I doubt LTT would want the government to tell them that their Community Standards needs to be revised.

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

Do they incite people to violence? 

they can do that off site and just use facebook to reach out 

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Correct, publishers are not forced to publish things they do not agree with. They are also subject to libel, incitement, and harassment lawsuits of anything they DO publish.

Again, what does this have to do with "political" bans?

5 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

I ignored the rest of your post because it's complete bullshit as shown by the latest banning of McConnell's account.

No, what is bullshit is you taking one seemingly unmotivated ban (though I have a hard time trusting anything you have to say on the matter since right wingers lie constantly about who is banned and why) and saying that it's somehow a case of libel or harassment...? What kind of mental gymnastics do you need to do to get that disconnected from reality?

 

Big corporations need to be more responsible for their behavior but this is the completely wrong way of going about it.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

they can do that off site and just use facebook to reach out 

Then just keep an eye on them. Monitoring who they get is a better approach then it is to ban them. If the community wants to ban them let it be done democratically. 

[Sauron]

10 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Access to the internet and to talk to people freely should be a right.

I agree, we're talking about social media though.

10 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Which is why the election should be wholly funded by public money and donations. You wouldn't be allowed to use your own funds for your campaign nor take more than X from a richer donor. 

That makes sense, though that wouldn't necessarily mean you need to get rid of political parties.

11 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I'm not advocating for removing the party system. Just getting the money aspect out of it. 

Sure, then I agree.

6 minutes ago, Majinhoju said:

Twitter and Facebook are still private companies.  What they choose to allow still affects their business.  Having the government step in also dictates how they run their business.  I doubt LTT would want the government to tell them that their Community Standards needs to be revised.

"muh small government" "muh free market"

then they push stuff like this

[Majinhoju]

5 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Then just keep an eye on them. Monitoring who they get is a better approach then it is to ban them. If the community wants to ban them let it be done democratically. 

What if it adversely affects Facebook as a company?  What if they see their revenue dropping or they fear backlash from the rest of their customers?  Why do they lose control doing what's best for their own company?  Facebook is not a democracy.

[justpoet]

I need to read through this later in detail once I have more time.  My first guess, based on the initial summary posted here, is that this is to combat the likes of facebook/youtube removing posts and shares of views they don't agree with, which would help to KEEP free speech on these kinds of platforms.  

 

My second guess though would be that this could then be twisted to allow for removal of "fake news" or "inappropriate content" as deemed by whoever is in power, which would suck.  If it is only to limit what can be removed, and worded careful to only allow for that, I'm for it.  If it is to also say (or can be manipulated legally to force) what should be removed and encourage removal of more content, then I'm against it.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Majinhoju said:

What if adversely affects Facebook as a company?  What if they see their revenue dropping or they fear backlash from the rest of their customers?  Why do they lose control of running their own company?  Facebook is not a democracy.

Their share value went UP after the latest scandal and PENALTY. At this point, nothing is going to take Facebook down. 

[Majinhoju]

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Their share value went UP after the latest scandal and PENALTY. At this point, nothing is going to take Facebook down. 

It's still up to them on how to run their business.  If they feel that certain posts are too toxic for their community then they can remove them.  Every post you make on Facebook is on Facebook owned server space.  It's not the same as speaking on the sidewalk in public.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

ok so if i own a skyscraper in times square and someone wanted to buy an ad spot and put up a giant poop picture and i say no i should get fined for censorship

 

20 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i know LTT is canadian and probably wont be affect but lets say they are in the US or similar forums in the us should they no longer be allowed to enforce their no political argument rule since its censorship?

Given the amount of power that social media networks have (this applies to news networks as well imo), they should be held to a higher standard.

 

Although I also thinks it's a dangerous line to cross -- giving the government any censoring rights.

[ravenshrike]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Again, what does this have to do with "political" bans?

Because social media is being treated as a PLATFORM, not a PUBLISHER due to Section 230. Right now, they are completely immune from libel, incitement, or harassment lawsuits. It is a government BENEFIT that the government is taking away unless they stop playing games. 

 

9 minutes ago, Sauron said:

(though I have a hard time trusting anything you have to say on the matter since right wingers lie constantly about who is banned and why)

And thus you explicitly show why talking to you on this topic is a worthless endeavor.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Because social media is being treated as a PLATFORM, not a PUBLISHER due to Section 230. Right now, they are completely immune from libel, incitement, or harassment lawsuits. It is a government BENEFIT that the government is taking away unless they stop playing games. 

 

2 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

And thus you explicitly show why talking to you on this topic is a worthless endeavor.

Ok, so I guess you don't have a point, just a whole lot of feels. Thought as much.

[poochyena]

23 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Again, not the same reach

and I asked you, where is the line?

 

24 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

your employer should not be able to fire or bench you just because you made your voice heard. 

So if you hire a contractor to fix your house, and his truck is covered in Nazi signs and he is covered in Nazi tattoos, you shouldn't be allowed to fire him?

[Majinhoju]

So if I'm understanding this concept correctly.  If I don't want to be sued for what users post on my social media platform I have to give up my right to police my own content, leave up pretty much all posts in the name of free speech regardless of the possible impact it could have on my business or existing customers?  

[ravenshrike]

7 minutes ago, poochyena said:

So if you hire a contractor to fix your house, and his truck is covered in Nazi signs and he is covered in Nazi tattoos, you shouldn't be allowed to fire him?

Have you already signed a contract? The actual analogy would be, can the phone company deny service to someone because they're talking Nazi ideology in a conference call? The answer is no. Section 230 treats the internet like the phone company but gave them limited editorial control over their content in good faith. Google et al have decided that they would like to censor those whom their political ideals find anathema. They have only themselves to blame.

[ARikozuM]

10 minutes ago, poochyena said:

and I asked you, where is the line?

I can't figure that one out by myself. It's something that the community must come to agreement on. 

10 minutes ago, poochyena said:

So if you hire a contractor to fix your house, and his truck is covered in Nazi signs and he is covered in Nazi tattoos, you shouldn't be allowed to fire him?

TIL that I can walk into a McDonald's as a customer and fire every worker that doesn't look as I'd like them to. 

Spoiler

I hope you realize the absurdity of your argument. I'm not the contractor's employer.

 

[poochyena]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I can't figure that one out by myself.

Then stop acting like you have.

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

TIL that I can walk into a McDonald's as a customer and fire every worker that doesn't look as I'd like them to.  

Customers can't fire McDonalds employees.

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I hope you realize the absurdity of your argument. I'm not the contractor's employer.

If you hire the contractor to perform a job, you are. contractors and regular employees are different legally, but both involve hiring them with the ability to fire them.

[Drak3]

27 minutes ago, Majinhoju said:

So if I'm understanding this concept correctly.  If I don't want to be sued for what users post on my social media platform I have to give up my right to police my own content, leave up pretty much all posts in the name of free speech regardless of the possible impact it could have on my business or existing customers?  

Yes. You are granted a great deal of immunity from civil lawsuits in exchange.

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Yes. You are granted a great deal of immunity from civil lawsuits in exchange.

facebook after they get flooded with nazi content and every normal person deletes their account: "this is the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals"

[Drak3]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

facebook after they get flooded with nazi content and every normal person deletes their account: "this is the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals"

Or, what realistically happens:

Normal people continue being normal people, as Nazism is not ANYWHERE nearly as prevalent as propagated.

[spartaman64]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Or, what realistically happens:

Normal people continue being normal people, as Nazism is not ANYWHERE nearly as prevalent as propagated.

this will basically make facebook into 8chan and you know what goes on on 8chan

[Majinhoju]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Or, what realistically happens:

Normal people continue being normal people, as Nazism is not ANYWHERE nearly as prevalent as propagated.

It's still up to Facebook to decide the risk of allowing Nazi content on their platform.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Majinhoju said:

It's still up to Facebook to decide the risk of allowing Nazi content on their platform.

Then they don't deserve immunity, as they're no longer a neutral platform.

 

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

this will basically make facebook into 8chan and you know what goes on on 8chan

1. No, it won't.
2. 8Chan is not, and never has been a Nazi safe haven. /Pol has been hone to extremism from both sides.

[spartaman64]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Then they don't deserve immunity, as they're no longer a neutral platform.

 

1. No, it won't.
2. 8Chan is not, and never has been a Nazi safe haven. /Pol has been hone to extremism from both sides.

well you know as soon as communist views starts spreading on facebook its going to get shutdown and the government will probably cite national security risks