Current events discussion

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5043206-senate-democrats-abolish-electoral-college/

The new strategy

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

ABC to pay $15 million legal settlement in Trump defamation case

The money will be transferred to “a Presidential foundation and museum to be established by or for” Trump, according to the settlement terms.

www.nbcnews.com

"Stephanopoulos said in the interview that Trump "has been found liable for **** by a jury." Trump, however, was found liable in a civil case for sexually abusing Carroll, not liable for alleged ****. The nine-member jury checked the box marked "no" when it was asked whether Carroll had proven “by a preponderance of the evidence” that “Mr. Trump ***** Ms. Carroll.”



I know it's from an ultra-maga outlet and all...

 

[Old_Slapper]

I'm sure you're referring to subwoofer boxes....

or maybe he's referring to "Pink Toolboxes."

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

or maybe he's referring to "Pink Toolboxes."

Rob doesn't know about those

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

2008 technology

Some of that may even be from the 80s from what I've seen:



It's definitely crazy cool though either way

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

The purpose of 230 was to protect the platform for dumbshit being posted...once those platforms started censoring to have one over represented political leaning...they were no longer acting as a publisher...

What they did was literally fascism. It doesn't take terribly long to go from "you can't say this" or "you can't be this way or think this way" to "these people need to be re-educated or exterminated." I mean you can look at what Hillary Clinton has said, and other people about reeducating Trump supporters, and all of that, making camps.

Rep. Stefanik’s Democrat opponent slammed for proposing ‘re-education camp’ for Trump supporters

“I don’t think we really wanna call it that,” Collins told voters Wednesday. “I’m sure we can find another way to phrase it.”

nypost.com

Hillary Clinton Suggests ‘Formal Deprogramming’ For ‘MAGA Extremists’ Who Still Support Trump

“Sadly, so many of those extremists, those MAGA extremists, take their marching orders from Donald Trump, who has no credibility left by any measure," Clinton said.

www.forbes.com

You can go from formal reeducation to mass murder in no time, according to the 20th century.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

The purpose of 230 was to protect the platform for dumbshit being posted...once those platforms started censoring to have one over represented political leaning...they were no longer acting as a publisher...

Good point, if these platforms are going to edit & censor, then they are quite literally acting like a publisher.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

The purpose of 230 was to protect the platform for dumbshit being posted...once those platforms started censoring to have one over represented political leaning...they were no longer acting as a publisher...

Censoring would have turned them INTO a publisher. To avoid that liability, they would have to avoid censoring, but then they open themselves tot he legal ramifications of a wild-west where people post obscene or illegal material, and the site gets whacked for allowing it.
Catch-22

Trump's attempted repeal of 230 would simply have made the sites liable. And he did it because he was butthurt that they fact-checked and called out his tweets that were bullshit. He felt it was unfair of them to point out that he lied.
He literally says so in his Executive Order: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.go...executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

"Preventing Online Censorship", while attempting to force it in order for site owners to avoid liability for what got posted.

I'll ask the Mod to join in if they are reading the thread: If the owners of this forum could be held liable for stuff that was posted here (the law doesn't care about a "we are not responsible" disclaimer), how careful would they be about what posts make it to the pages?
How quickly would they take down posts that could result in them being held liable for what any of us said?

And Spokey, your talk about Stephanopoulos actually supports the whole censorship thing. If you read carefully, they arbitrated a settlement because George made a misstatement of fact. He stated Trump was found liable for ****. That did not occur. Had his oratory (in this case we'll call it a "post") been fact-checked, it would have been censored for being technically incorrect.
Instead, ABC settles an arbitration against them for $15M.

Imagine I sue for the libelous/slanderous/defamatory/etc. things that ThxOne has said about me here.
Do you think the owners of this site should have to pay up for allowing him to do so?

Repealing Section 230 would allow for it.
Good deal?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Censoring would have turned them INTO a publisher

Ignorant right there

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I sure have. Here are some key takeaways. I have underlined and bolded some important words for you.

"As part of its broader review of market-leading online platforms, the U.S. Department of Justice analyzed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances. Congress originally enacted the statute to nurture a nascent industry while also incentivizing online platforms to remove content harmful to children. The combination of significant technological changes since 1996 and the expansive interpretation that courts have given Section 230, however, has left online platforms both immune for a wide array of illicit activity on their services and free to moderate content with little transparency or accountability.

"One key part of that legal landscape is Section 230, which provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content as well as immunity for removal of content in certain circumstances."
"Congress enacted Section 230 in part to resolve this quandary by providing immunity to online platforms both for third-party content on their services or for removal of certain categories of content."



And here is where Trump wanted to repeal 230, which would leave site owners liable for what third-parties put on the site. He did so because he was angry (he literally tweeted it) that Twitter fact-checked something he posted :

View attachment 62072
View attachment 62073

So yeah, he wanted to repeal 230, resulting in online platforms facing legal liability for what third-parties were posting on their platforms. Perhaps so he could sue Twitter when his lies got fact-checked and flagged?

Remember when he asked for the tweet from Chrissy Teigen (where she called him a "***** *** *****") to be taken down because it was "defamatory", yet everyone is screaming that tweets of false and dangerous info about COVID were being flagged?
Go figure.

At any point did it occur to you that I posted that link AFTER I read the information from that link? That website also has "key takeaways". Did you ever take a way this thought? He wants to prevent these sites from being used by the government to censor speech. By holding them accountable so people like those on the left in government couldn't use these platforms as their very own censorship police. Or perhaps you are ok with allowing the left to do and say whatever they please but those on the right must be silenced especially if they support Trump.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Ignorant right there

Oh, definitely. I and the whole Office Of The Attorney General are confused about how it works.
You should contact them and have them rewrite their review.
They should have hired you as a consultant before the review was published, I suppose.

"In the years leading up to Section 230, courts had held that an online platform that passively hosted third-party content was not liable as a publisher if any of that content was defamatory, but that a platform would be liable as a publisher for all its third-party content if it exercised discretion to remove any third-party material."

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S REVIEW OF SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF 1996

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

At any point did it occur to you that I posted that link AFTER I read the information from that link? That website also has "key takeaways". Did you ever take a way this thought? He wants to prevent these sites from being used by the government to censor speech. By holding them accountable so people like those on the left in government couldn't use these platforms as their very own censorship police. Or perhaps you are ok with allowing the left to do and say whatever they please but those on the right must be silenced especially if they support Trump.

Except when it's HIS government, asking Twitter to take down a post where someone calls him a "***** *** *****".

His executive order was demanding censorship because he felt it was "unfair" that the privately-owned sites were hurting his feelings. Literally mad that his posts were flagged as lies, but they weren't flagging other politician's posts as lies.
His example? The Russia collusion "hoax", that turned out to be very real and was an active investigation when people were posting about it. His banned tweets were libelous and in violation of their TOS and ban-evasion rules.

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship – The White House

trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Imagine I sue for the libelous/slanderous/defamatory/etc. things that ThxOne has said about me here.
Do you think the owners of this site should have to pay up for allowing him to do so?

Repealing Section 230 would allow for it.
Good deal?

Then I would turn around and counter sue. Stop acting like you are so virtuous. You don't care about any of that censorship crap. All you care about is being able to ***** about something Trump is doing, has done, or may get away with. You are an internet troll, a liberal crybaby and a little *****. By ***** I mean dog. I know how thin your skin is and too much truth will have you bleeding out.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

And Spokey, your talk about Stephanopoulos actually supports the whole censorship thing. If you read carefully, they arbitrated a settlement because George made a misstatement of fact. He stated Trump was found liable for ****. That did not occur. Had his oratory (in this case we'll call it a "post") been fact-checked, it would have been censored for being technically incorrect.
Instead, ABC settles an arbitration against them for $15M.

It wasn't a "misstatement"...watch the interview...he was pushing a narrative...

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

It wasn't a "misstatement"...watch the interview...he was pushing a narrative...

Rob doesn't even admit or know he himself is pushing a narrative. To him this is just how everyone should feel about Trump. He literally ask everyone WHY about everything and demands facts and proof and never once questions himself as to why. Why he doesn't critique the left. Doesn't ask how amazingly all the liberal news outlets parrot the same things word for word when bashing Trump. When the Truth come out that proves Trump right, Rob doesn't accept it... he makes excuses and continues to back his party. Trump lies!!!! So he hates him. When his party is proved to have lied... nothing to see here, must be a mistake, the right is just pushing hate speech. Anything other than admitting they fucked up.

Rob has no legs to stand on to be judging anyone.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]