Edited Date/Time
11/22/2019 8:04pm
interesting speech here, basically calling google, facebook twitter youtube etc the worlds biggest publishers and they should be responsible for censoring what is posted on their site,
i'm not sure where i sit on this, yes bad ideas and misinformation are getting spread easier than ever before, but free speech is still a very important issue, because who decides who what is bad and misinformed?
i'm not sure where i sit on this, yes bad ideas and misinformation are getting spread easier than ever before, but free speech is still a very important issue, because who decides who what is bad and misinformed?
Start the engine pass it on.....
Bitch on a pension suck my dong
Too tired to look everything up right now , but I believe it's a bill on section 230. You can't claim to be be an open platform , and then " ban / edit " other people's opinions. If you do ??......then you are considered something else , and responsible for what people post on your platform. You can't claim to be an open platform , if you decide to start silencing people. In that case , you are just a publisher.
Soo....
A.).......Monitor your site and delete everything you disagree with / may get you in trouble.
Or
B.) ......Let it be an open platform , do not delete / silence anyone's opinions , and you won't be held responsible.
Like I said , companies like Facebook , YouTube , Twitter ect , will be sued into oblivion unless they choose what side of the fence they sit on. For them , there is only one answer , and that it's impossible to monitor every single reply.....to everything. So either let people say what they want to say , or get your ass sued in court. And yes , they will lose.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Facebook has been going through a lot of shit through the courts , and YouTube just got sued for 140 million , and lost. It all boils down to free speech. It will trickle down to " open forum / discussion " websites in the future , that don't have anything to do with politics. Which is exactly what this place is. So who knows. Again , I'm no expert , just trying to explain what I've seen / heard on the subject.
Censoring the content can lead to a massive manipulation of information.
Most of the noise here revolves around political speech. Even with Cohen's objections it always devolves back to politics because of the loose definition of hate speech. GuyB has fairly attempted to stay clear from the fray by prohibiting politics altogether. That in itself brings some grief to him by those that think it's unfairly applied but my guess is that those complaints are worth it. Banning politics would kill Twitter. Not sure about Facebook or Youtube.
Freedom of speech is an illusion in any of the developed world anyway, it simply wouldn’t work.
What I'm trying to say is Vital MX is where you should come for moto news.
Pit Row
How would you see a solution for this? Can you put it in the posting guid lines and still be open? Or is that already publishing and controlling?
If I kick you out of my house because you start talking crazy political stuff and are ruining the party, I didn't trample on your First Amendment rights. If anything and above all, I exercised my private property rights.
Now think, instead of being in my house, you are on my website.
If on the other hand, they are not just platforms, if they are ‘Publishers,’ then the situation changes. (by definition, a publisher is someone who curates and distributes content, like a newspaper.) A publisher has full legal responsibility for the material that is posted.
Currently, these companies are defining themselves as online platforms which people can use to come together and share ideas. This sounds to me like they are ‘platforms’ (it’s right there in the definition). This means that they can’t be held accountable for the content published on their sites. This also means that they are NOT publishers and therefore should NOT be curating content.
This is how the law is written. Those big social media site haves been getting away with it for years , and now , someone finally said " Enough! ". If you own a site / social media / news outlet.........you either claim responsibility for everything and monitor / correct / edit things.......OR ....you use it as an open platform and have discussions / debates / civil discourse ( Up to a point ) and NOT be responsible.
And NO......you can't do it your own way , dip in from both sides ,and claim you're something else. Well , you can , but you'll get sued right out of business.
Who decides that point? Is it the owner of the platform? The government? The participants? Who?
I like Ebs house analogy. You own the house and who you let in, which means you can kick them out whenever you like. But if a riot kicks off in there that doesn't necessarily mean the finger should be pointed at the owner of the house.
The biggest problem with social media is the anonymity, that comes with it. John Smith isnt going to tee off on everyone if he knows his boss, his in laws and his nan are watching. But Asskicker69er is gonna come out swinging everytime with no repercussions. Thats not facebook or twitters fault
If we had to fact check/monitor/correct/edit everything that was posted on the forum side, there wouldn't be time to post anything on the edit side. There'd also be about a third as many posts left.
The portion that I think is bad on the social media side is so much stuff gets presented as fact that wouldn't have passed the sniff test in the old days. I think people are a lot more gullible/suggestable than they used to be.
It's not the debate which matters though........it's the power of those social sites , that seem to shut down those debates and certain groups of people and their opinions. The debates and civil discourse is what makes us " Think "........and we either change that person's mind , or maybe put a thought in their head , or just strait get told to screw off. In my mind , this is what drives all of us to be better. When you shut out certain groups / belief's , it undermines the entire system.
I think I've only actually understood about 1% of what this whole bill 230 actually is. But I find it fascinating , because of what it actually means. Everything is digital now days........and this can / will shape how we all speak with one another in the future.
Like I said a few replies ago , as a whole , we will never have a hard , written in the sand line. I mean an actual line! There are probably a million different lines that could be drawn.......so what do you do? My opinion , you get rid of every single line , unless it actually causes someone else actual " Physical harm ". NOT verbally.......Physically! That is the only way to police it , with a hard , drawn out line , and when it gets crossed , you deal with it.
What happens in the real world , should be applied to media. In real life , someone verbally assaults you , you don't have the right to beat the shit out of them. "Physically "....yes , you do / can. Verbally , no you can't. In real life , you can walk away. On message board / social media site......just don't reply. " The words " Hate speech " , and that person's understanding of it ( which everyone is different )....is just that , speech / words.
In short......anything you read online is not considered a threat , unless someone follows through with it. " Hate speech " is all in the eye's of the beholder.
Again , I find it interesting on where all this leads. Because it will truly shape the way we all speak to one another. It might not be tomorrow , next week or next year , but sooner or later , that line will be drawn. Many fronts , many wars.
I genuinely don't believe that banning opinions we don't like is a long term fix to ridiculous shit like holocaust denial and political extremism on the right or left.
Post a reply to: Sacha Baron Cohen vs Social Media Companies,