- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Draft copy of Trump's executive order on Big Tech has been released
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:29 am to GeauxLSUGeaux
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:29 am to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
You mean how Obama used the IRS to target conservative businesses and spy on conservative news journalists?
You comparing that to this?
Abandoning the small government principles you supposedly had because muh Obama did it too, nice.
1
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:32 am to troyt37
quote:
Except you are fighting on the side of the swamp, bruh. You are fighting on the side of monopoly, and censorship, and deceptive practice, and government protection under false pretenses, and bias. You're at war with those trying to stop all that. Get a clue.
I’m fighting on the side of keeping the government out of businesses. I’m fighting on the side that doesn’t want the government to be the arbiter of what’s true or "fair". This will backfire on y’all, it’s only a matter of when. Frickin large government conservatives, smh...
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:33 am to Contra
So basically they get protected from lawsuits for the content users post, because they are a free speech platform? And due to these platforms now editing and fact checking posts that means it may violate their status and we can remove it, which opens them to lawsuits?
Bold play. Only negative I see is if rather than backing off censorship, they just say ok remove the protected status and then we really get censorship out of “fear of lawsuits.” That’s the angle where this can backfire
Bold play. Only negative I see is if rather than backing off censorship, they just say ok remove the protected status and then we really get censorship out of “fear of lawsuits.” That’s the angle where this can backfire
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:36 am to Contra
quote:
The draft order also states that the White House Office of Digital Strategy will re-establish a tool to help citizens report cases of online censorship.
And the Conservative Karens who decried this recently will high-five themselves orgasmically.
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:37 am to oogabooga68
quote:
Private companies should behave like private companies....this will simply remove the protections they don't deserve.
What protection is that, having the government not interfere with their business policies? Hooray, glad we’re doing away with that. Red tape and regulations solves everything, super glad Trump is pushing for more of it.
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:39 am to stelly1025
quote:
So in other words they need to choose to be either a platform or a publisher and not pretend to be a platform to the public while censoring like a publisher in private.
That's fine as long as it doesn't apply to explicit content.
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:39 am to deltaland
quote:
Bold play. Only negative I see is if rather than backing off censorship, they just say ok remove the protected status and then we really get censorship out of “fear of lawsuits.” That’s the angle where this can backfire
And you can bet your arse it’ll happen. Goodbye free and open internet, hello brave new world with lawsuits and red tape and bans galore bc you posted something that might be "sensitive". Sad to see people cheering this on
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:43 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
I’m fighting on the side of keeping the government out of businesses.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but that ship sailed about 150 years ago, bruh.
quote:
I’m fighting on the side that doesn’t want the government to be the arbiter of what’s true or "fair".
See above. Member when a business had the right to refuse service to anyone? I member.
quote:
This will backfire on y’all, it’s only a matter of when.
As long as the rules are applied across the board, nobody has a gripe either way. All they have to do is decide whether they are a platform, or publisher, and act accordingly.
quote:
Frickin large government conservatives, smh...
Is it large government to want the government to stop protecting those who act as publishers, but want the protections of a platform?
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:45 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Goodbye free and open internet, hello brave new world with lawsuits and red tape and bans galore bc you posted something that might be "sensitive". Sad to see people cheering this on
That's what is happening to conservatives now, dipshit.
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:49 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:You just refuse to get it. Yes they are a private company and have the right to run their site how they please, as a publisher. If they want to be a platform they cannot censor one political side.
Oh good, big government here to save the day from private companies. Damn those libs!
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:50 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
And you can bet your arse it’ll happen. Goodbye free and open internet, hello brave new world with lawsuits and red tape and bans galore bc you posted something that might be "sensitive". Sad to see people cheering this on
Bet you were a champion of “net neutrality” too.
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:50 am to troyt37
A few TOS edits and it will be back to where it was
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:53 am to troyt37
quote:
Goodbye free and open internet, hello brave new world with lawsuits and red tape and bans galore bc you posted something that might be "sensitive". Sad to see people cheering this on
That's what is happening to conservatives now, dip shite.
Dude is really one of the lowest iq posters ever
I mean he said VA has the highest default rate for mortgages
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:54 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
And you can bet your arse it’ll happen. Goodbye free and open internet, hello brave new world with lawsuits and red tape and bans galore bc you posted something that might be "sensitive". Sad to see people cheering this on
Wrong.
Twitter labels itself, and is classified as a "Free and open platform," that is why it is protected and that is why it is the size and wields the power it does today. It is no longer a "Free and open platform," since they have decided to edit and control certain types of publicly offered content. They are now a publisher.... that is protected from legal action based on it's classification.
That is unfair.
Twitter is either going to go back to being an actual free and open platform, or they will change their model, probably be less successful because they are a publisher and people will know that....
And some other platform will rise that will actually be a free and open platform.
This will not increase censorship, this will legally bind Twitter to its ACTUAL business and operating structure and not protect them unfairly anymore.
This post was edited on 5/28/20 at 8:56 am
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:55 am to troyt37
quote:
That's what is happening to conservatives now, dip shite.
And now will happen even more, dip shite.
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:57 am to DavidTheGnome
Yep, all political discussion boards will have to call it quits. I think the Auburn exodus from their closed poliboard should've been a wake-up call, instead of hollering "those damn liberals."
Posted on 5/28/20 at 8:58 am to Contra
So let's say the law is reviewed, and tech platforms are regarded as publishers. Would that change how they are allowed to moderate their own forums?
I don't see a platform vs publisher distinction in CDA 230. Can someone help explain this distinction as it exists in law? As in, if CDA 230 allows these companies to moderate their forums as they see fit, would companies become liable for what their users post? How would this lead to less censorship? If companies are liable for what their users post, it seems likely that they would more heavily moderate these forums.
I don't see a platform vs publisher distinction in CDA 230. Can someone help explain this distinction as it exists in law? As in, if CDA 230 allows these companies to moderate their forums as they see fit, would companies become liable for what their users post? How would this lead to less censorship? If companies are liable for what their users post, it seems likely that they would more heavily moderate these forums.
Posted on 5/28/20 at 9:00 am to Contra
Who will be the first bitch to snitch on TD deleting a thread?
Posted on 5/28/20 at 9:01 am to Freauxzen
quote:
This will not increase censorship
If companies can be held liable for what their users post, this absolutely would lead to much heavier moderation of user-posted content.
Posted on 5/28/20 at 9:03 am to Tiguar
quote:
Government inspectors: "Your business claims to be selling Pizza, but you appear to be putting medications as toppings?"
DavidTheGnome: "Complimentary Xanax and Prozac with every cheese pizza."
Government: "Uh you need a legitimate prescription and a DEA license to dispense"
DavidTheGnome: "OMG! Big government! DONT TREAD ON MEH"
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News