Florida passes law to stop social media companies from permanent bans

[wrbtrader]

Open forum....newspaper.....blog.... all protected under 1st amendment... not sure why people still having difficulty with this...

If you moderate and edit out content, no one can sue the forum host if a poster is doing the libel and defaming really...If we all post that you kill cats and bang em and Baron wants to leave it up there, you cannot sue Baron.

Just as importantly, we can not sue Baron if he chooses to edit / delete message posts or ban a member that he considers to be a violation of his terms of use policy...you already stated such but differently.

The only thing we can do is bitch about it.

Too many people these days write / post misinformation or disinformation. Yet, the same idiots do not understand or do not like it when someone else moderates that content.

wrbtrader

 

[newwurldmn]

Plus it’s not like Twitter as a monopoly on information access.

anyone can start a blog, webpage or post to a myriad of other sites.

the fact that conservatives can start a Twitter competitor with millions of users (their claim) shows that Twitter isn’t silencing anyone by banning people on their platform.

 

[wrbtrader]

Plus it’s not like Twitter as a monopoly on information access.

anyone can start a blog, webpage or post to a myriad of other sites.

the fact that conservatives can start a Twitter competitor with millions of users (their claim) shows that Twitter isn’t silencing anyone by banning people on their platform.

Why would someone / group with millions of followers and millions of dollars not start their own competitor of Twitter ???

We all know the answer to the above.

wrbtrader

 

[jem]

Yes... that are protected under the first amendment with respect to truth....

but...


a. And what happens if a newspaper writer defames a public figure...
there can be liability but the newspaper really had to screw up...

b. what can happen if a newspaper writer defames a non public figure...
its easier to recover damages...

not sure what is so hard to understand.

Now... the argument states that if you are using your forum to pick a side and erase the other side.... and you defame people... 230 should not protect you..

Not sure what is so hard to understand about that argument.

Open forum....newspaper.....blog.... all protected under 1st amendment... not sure why people still having difficulty with this...

If you moderate and edit out content, no one can sue the forum host if a poster is doing the libel and defaming really...If we all post that you kill cats and bang em and Baron wants to leave it up there, you cannot sue Baron.

 

[Baron]

a. And what happens if a newspaper writer defames a public figure...
there can be liability but the newspaper really had to screw up...

b. what can happen if a newspaper writer defames a non public figure...
its easier to recover damages...

Newspapers are considered publications that have reporters, editors and other people that fact-check articles and other content before it is published. They operate under a different set of rules than websites that provide user-generated content. So essentially what section 230 says is simply this: "There's no way an interactive website can fact-check the content of every individual's post before it's published, so it's the user himself who is 100% responsible for the contents he submits".

Newspapers have more liability from a legal standpoint because paid employees are submitting the articles, not random users, so they have the responsibility to make sure what they publish is accurate.

 

[jem]

Correct...

and the argument some of us are making is that if a site like Facebook (not just them) is employing fact checkers and editing away certain viewpoints...

While it may have a right to do so...

If by making its editorial choices it winds up leaving defamatory comments but edits away the other side which may be defending and proving truth...

then it should be held accountable as a newspaper or an individual would.


in short ....

if a site like facebook edits for viewpoint and chooses to leave defamation and erase truth...it does not need or deserve 230 protection.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Newspapers are considered publications that have reporters, editors and other people that fact-check articles and other content before it is published. They operate under a different set of rules than websites that provide user-generated content. So essentially what section 230 says is simply this: "There's no way an interactive website can fact-check the content of every individual's post before it's published, so it's the user himself who is 100% responsible for the contents he submits".

Newspapers have more liability from a legal standpoint because paid employees are submitting the articles, not random users, so they have the responsibility to make sure what they publish is accurate.

There shouldn't be any legitimate reason, other than direct physical threats, then for sites like Twitter and Facebook to ban individuals for their content.

 

[Baron]

if a site like facebook edits for viewpoint and chooses to leave defamation and erase truth...it does not need or deserve 230 protection.

I agree. Editing user comments to create a biased political viewpoint is unacceptable.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I agree. Editing user comments to create a biased political viewpoint is unacceptable.

It does not seem fair but not illegal if FB wants to have a political bias... how can the government tell FB to stop editing out far right postings or far elft postings...

Amazing how the patriot loving GOP who would die for the constitution now suddenly wants to control what private entities are doing. DO we become China where the government tells people how to control their information?

If FB has become to liberal then what about Washington Post or New York Times. Should people sue because NYT never prints anything negative on Biden???

If FB has posts that are defamatory they are reported and FB pulls them down, there is a process and there have been many examples of this.

 

[Cuddles]

I agree. Editing user comments to create a biased political viewpoint is unacceptable......edited because

but that's your level of acceptability, and in fact I've been called out by mods for editing replies as I've done above. This has never been the case when I've done so in multiple other forums as they have different levels of acceptability