No, it wouldn't? Charleston was the site of a right-wing protest, co-opted by neo-Nazis, and then counter-protested by left wing people.
I mean there was the congress Baseball incident I dunno how long ago that was though.
abcnews.go.com
You can remove the more troublesome people but pulling out everything you deem connected to it just for being connected isn't allowed as such.
Ah well well see what comes of the action then.
Nothing. Trump will whine about it, get bored with it, get re-pissed and whine about it again. He can't win this fight.
No, the rules are companies can take down any content they don't want on their service. They aren't publicly owned, they are private entities and this can police themselves and their users.
Pretty much nothing since democrats control the house, which controls the purse strings and at least the draft version of the executive action had a section that said if it wasn't funded it wouldn't be implemented, on top of another section that said anything in the action that was against the law wouldn't be done, and there is no law for pretty much all of it.
The exact wording on the actual bill that gives the protections from what I remember actually does say that to get the protections companies have to not be seen to be taking an ideological position otherwise they get classes as publishers and lose the protection as they're seen to be curating too much etc.
Well who knows but Trump is pretty petty so do people really want to hold out on something that really would benefit both sides potentially for the future by making sure neither side can control things when Trump will just refuse to sign or do other things going forward?
That's actually untrue, companies can be as biased as they want.
No, in the end even trump doesn't actually want this to mean anything since it would actually mean that twitter would pretty much have to ban him for his content.
Not quite true
en.wikipedia.org
So they have to be able to prove they're acting in good faith which would mean not deliberately targeting one side or the other.wikipedia said:
It could do but it could also mean others not getting banned etc.
"Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section 230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service provides that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action. "
No, not really.
However the information also has to be from a 3rd party so fact checking done by twitter themselves wouldn't count as a 3rd party as such.
I really don't get what you are arguing for. I mean the best case scenario for what trump seems to want is that websites are suddenly treated as publishers, meaning they can be sued for things users put on them, meaning that a fuck ton more bans would be coming for almost everything because the sites would have to be extremely careful about what users published on them. Although it is more likely sites would just stop allowing user content since there is too much liability.
Best case Scenario
So are you saying that people that witch hunted others and blatently spread false information like alex jones should be back on social media?
You are really reaching if you think Kathy Griffin is the equivalent of trump, plus if she thought she might have had it, she thought she might have had it. As for the second one, that is the kinda thing that you seem to be infavor of, like right now something like that crosses some lines for terms of use, but it seems like you want more people to be able to advocate murder and such because it is freedom of speech.
That just makes no sense.
I mean there are media organisations and writers still on twitter who went after others or who spread false information. And they don't have the known reputation Alex Jones has of being a bit of a lunatic.
No because Trump hasn't directly advocated for killing some-one yet.
Courts cost money.
I just wanna highlight this bit, because it seems like I've seen this fallacy a lot here.
Yeah he actually kinda has. Generally not directly but he has.
You are assuming they would even need to directly fight it.
Because I still don't think you people understand what you are saying. People aren't removed for just their political opinion, they are removed for other shit, like spreading false information, or targeting groups of people, or promoting nazi shit. I would bet money you can't find examples of someone legit being kicked off twitter for just saying they are a conservative. The only other option is really pretty much getting rid of moderation, like the early internet before Section 230, where it was in the websites best interest to not moderate anything since if they did any of that it would be like a book publisher editing a book so they would have knowledge of the content of that book and couldn't claim not to know what was in it and therefore were legally held as an accessory. So its one way or the other, almost no moderation or lots of moderation. Would be kinda nice if there was no moderation, I have a few porn thread ideas.
What do you mean, "you people"?
And how does one determine what is "false information"? If I say "there are only two genders", is that just my political opinion, or is that "spreading false information"? Who decides? Apparently Twiter decides. Because, as we can see from this instance of "fact-checking", Twitter itself is assuming the role of what is "false" or not.
See, this is another example of the same fallacy.
Yes yes I know the movie.
Well, lets take trump, nothing of his was removed, he was just fact checked. I doubt you will find someone being removed for just claiming there are 2 genders, they were probably using that to try to directly harass another user if someone was actually removed for that and wasn't just saying they would be removed or something stupid.
Did you not read? That is how the internet worked before section 203.
So not giving a detailed description and asking some-one to do it as a possible way to kill some-one just kinda if you take a likely bad faith interpretation of his tweets?
To unlock her account she did.
True but far be it from me to suggest Trump is smart here but would you want to be the democrats here giving Trump a great potential election run up?
Well plenty of people have spread false information. There's plenty of targeting groups that happens and yeh ban the Nazi shit but twitter dragged their feet for years on the ISIS shit despite some of the ones on there using the sites to convince people to come and join them
Thing is you just moved the goal posts slightly.
Yes, that's how it usually is abused. Asserting an "incorrect political opinion" is considered "harassment" and dealt with as such.
I'm sure Nazis thought the same thing. Anyone who spread dangerous lies that went contrary to The Party needed to be censored. See, this is a dangerous road to go down. Once someone takes it upon themselves to be the arbiter of truth, they have tremendous power. This power could swing elections, get people killed, or worse.
Nobody's argument is that 203 should be repealed, so I maintain that this is a false dichotomy.
abcnews.go.com
So? Isn't that how we want moderation to work?
Because that seems to be what you are saying, that people are being censored 'just' for being conservative as opposed to something like "I don't want these darkies in my country." Which would probably be against tos.
Would it be better for conservatives to bully transgender or non-binary people into suicide?
You do realize that trump is currently doing this right? Like, a lot. When he calls something fake news hes telling people that they should only get their info from him and everyone else is just lying to them.
Actually its not, we have an example of what happens when section 230 protection is removed. Do you remember the FOSTA-SESTA act, that makde it so that websites would be responsible if third parties were found to be using them for posting ads for prostitution including consensual sex work. From that we saw sites removing casual hook up sections, such as craigslist removing it.
