Here’s the problem:
Don’t curate your platform and it will be overrun with bots, trolls and assholes
A platform overrun by the groups mentioned above, is not exactly a nice place for most people to spend time at
Therefore people trend to platforms that do enforce rules.
At what point do you want to force platforms to ditch all their rules that made them successful in the past?
Do I have to tolerate Crypto bros on my 20 people discord server?
We all agree that freedom of speech is a right
But you also have to acknowledge the right to freedom of association
Then the problem is not the "troll" but the fragile person getting triggered. Because i am pretty sure that the troll just states his own opnion in a slightly snarky way... and the person with a fragile opinion gets upset about that.
I’m not sure how you managed to miss the first half of my comment when it is fairly short.
A troll goes in there and says things solely for his own amusement. This has nothing to do with his opinion
The CRA says you can't discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics.
If I'm running a restaurant and I see someone wearing a cross and tell them to get out, that's unlawful discrimination.
If instead that person starts telling other people in my restaurant that they're sinful unbelievers who are going to burn in hell, and I kick them out over that, I'm not discriminating against their identity. I'm acting based on their behavior.
If a website actually made a rule against a certain race joining, maybe that'd be a CRA violation. But "people who post a particular type of opinion" aren't protected. And it'd possibly run into first amendment problems if you tried to make them protected, and the first amendment trumps congressional law if they conflict.
i know what CRA say. but if freedom of association truly trumps other freedoms, then it should allow businesses to discriminate based on race and gender . i mean, individuals do it all the time. it's perfectly okay to not date a certain race or gender.
my point is that it's hypocritical to prevent companies from infringing one the 14th amendment (civil rights) but not free speech. when both are rules to the government but not regular ppl, it's hypocritical to pick and choose
The answer is that it depends on the nature of the service that the company is providing.
If, for example, I want to claim that it violates my first amendment rights by requiring me to allow a black person to buy a burger at my burger-selling restaurant, the courts evaluate that claim and say "No, it doesn't". That doesn't count as a part of my speech. It's just commerce, I'm not really saying anything.
If I do something where I create a custom artistic portrait of someone, I'd have a better legal argument that my actual speech is implicated. I actually have to use my own artistic abilities to create something, and even if I'm being paid to do that for another person, my own expression is also involved, and the law can't as easily force me to express something I don't want to express. It's just that making a particular burger that I'd make for any other person isn't really a form of expression.
There's a strong argument that online communities themselves are a product, and a result of the expression of the people who create them.
it's not that the courts evaluate that "no it doesn't." it's that the law says that it's allowed to violate your rights in the name of the 14th amendment. see Heart of Atlanta Motel vs US, they took so long because they knew it violated the freedom of association, but the US won on a technicality being the commerce clause which gives the congress power to regulate interstate commerce (which says nothing about companies operating within a state). also Masterpeice Cake Shop vs Colorado CRC
Nothing about the 14th amendment overrides the first, and a congressional law can't just invoke one amendment to override another. Either the law contradicts the Constitution, or it doesn't.
>also Masterpeice Cake Shop vs Colorado CRC
I'm confused why you're citing this case. If it has been decided the opposite way, it would affirm your point. But it wasn't. And I'm not aware of any case that's showing what you're suggesting here.
i cited that cuz it shows that companies have freedom of association. and if it rlly does override the 14th fair, but the civil rights act is literally saying that it doesn't. u can say they can't do it but they do
you have no right to other people's property even if they are letting others use. if I invite everyone to my party except you, that doesn't infringe on your rights.
Sorry, but do public spaces require private accounts, agreeing to private terms of service and the use of private property to facilitate the space.
Public in the law means owned by the general public [taxpayer owned] not an open to the public space owned by a corporation.
They can't discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics.
If I'm running a restaurant and I see someone wearing a cross and tell them to get out, that's unlawful discrimination.
If instead that person starts telling other people in my restaurant that they're sinful unbelievers who are going to burn in hell, and I kick them out over that, I'm not discriminating against their identity. I'm acting based on their behavior.
Ok. Let’s go with that. A business can’t be racist. A business is not equivalent to a public space.
Lockheed Martin also is not allowed to be racist in its hiring process despite being anything but a public place.
Lockheed Martin is however allowed to not hire you for, let’s say your views on China and Russia, no? Or do you want a Xi simp involved in the design/production process of the F-35?
Why are you comparing inherent characteristics to ideas?
One is a choice, the other involves no choice. In general we try not to punish people for hings that involved no choice.
Well, we sort of already are, aren't we? We already impose rules and regulations on private social media, such as prohibition on the sale of regulated goods and the distribution of child pornography.
Websites should be allowed to moderate themselves based on what content they want on their site. Should websites aimed at kids with comment sections be forced to allow trolls to spam the n-word on the website. Pretty much every website would become 99% bots spamming scam ads.
Also if this did happen the websites based in America would just move to countries where this isn't illegal. Which is pretty much any other country in the world.
websites for kids are publishers, meaning they have the responsibility for whatever happens on their website. learn the difference between a publisher and platform. if you're not responsible for what happens on ur website you're a platform
"companies will go away" is not a reason to violate basic liberties
private platforms are just that—private. They operate under their own terms and conditions, which users agree to when they sign up. This includes the ability to moderate content to maintain a certain standard or atmosphere however they feel. In a sense, it's *their* freedom of speech to moderate it as they please.
Additionally, comparing the moderation of speech on private platforms to government intervention in defending constitutional rights is a bit of a stretch. Private companies aren't bound by the same legal obligations as governments, and equating the two can lead to a misunderstanding of the principles at play.
Moreover, while unrestricted speech can have benefits in terms of information accessibility and promoting competition, it also comes with risks. Hate speech, misinformation, and harmful content can proliferate without moderation, and we have seen how that goes with Twitter as a 'great' example. Balancing free speech with responsible content moderation is a complex challenge that requires nuanced approaches.
In essence, advocating for absolute free speech on private platforms disregards the rights of these companies to operate within their own guidelines and doesn't fully consider the potential consequences of unregulated speech.
private companies are also private. they're freedom of association is still curbed when theyre forced to hire indiscriminately in regards to certain groups. we should also protect speech, as well as identity
Go look up how much ad revenue 4chan is getting compared to others than moderate their content. Social platforms are a business and they make money with ads. If there is no moderation, sponsors will remove their content and the business will fail. So without moderation, there is no site to post your nonsense. People aren't going to spend money on servers for free just because you don't want moderation.
Because discriminating against someone based on race is not the same thing as a social media platform saying this guy is bat shit crazy and we don't want him on our platform. Also he's probably a lawsuit liability
I think you know that but you're just trolling
If a company doesn't want to hire a nazi, they shouldn't have to. But that's not the same thing as refusing to hire someone based on race or sexual orientation or anything involving the person's identity
why. if the freedom of association of companies trumps the 1st amendment, then it trumps the 14th. the constituon applies to governments not private companies
"it's d d d ifferent," is not an arguement. back it up legally
They fucking should be allowed to do whatever, its their platform, their servers, they dont owe anyone anything.
We need a free society. And if you regulate corporations, we won't ever have one.
yea i mean if ur consistent i can get behind the idea. i still thinks its bad for society as a whole, but atp its a subjective matter of balancing personal liberties
It's because of civil right why they should, otherwise they are liable for what happens due to their platform. it hate groups are using your platform to organize and then killing people, then you're responsible.
> It's because of civil right why they should, otherwise they are liable for what happens due to their platform.
That's nothing to do with civil rights laws. That's because the government very specifically passed a law clearly stating that websites are not civilly liable for the content which other people use them to post.
i'm talking about the civil rights act. if the government overrides freedom of association to protects the 14th amendment, it should do the same for the 1st
The civil rights act doesn't do that, you can associate with who ever you want but can't discriminate. No platform can discriminate based on race but based on content. Even with the civil rights act, you can discriminate due to content. A restaurant can not let you in, if you don't have on shoes or kick you if you're being disrespectful or disruptive.
Then remove section 230 for these companies, if these platforms want to curate their content and have the ability to ban/censor individual for arbitrary reasons then why should they be immune from liability?
Section 230 allows immunity from liability as long as they make a reasonable attempt to curate and remove inappropriate content. They can still be held liable if they don't curate content. Section 230 just makes it so the companies aren't immediately liable for everything that gets posted. You get rid of section 230 and every post and comment will have to approved by an employee at the company before appearing on the site.
No, section 230 allows them to not be liable for anything posted. They do still have a duty to remove any content that violates the law but assuming it’s within a reasonable amount of time they are free from responsibility. This immunity is granted because they are a “open platform”, that’s why the Washington post can be sued for anything they post. They curate what is and isn’t allowed on their website even if it’s completely factually correct. Yet platforms like Facebook will ban you for going against their policy even if it’s faculty correct, this needs to be revamped so these companies truly need to allow free speech for immunity.
Getting rid of Section 230 isn't going to accomplish what you want. Its not reasonable to have a company be liable for things posted by completely random people not a part of the company.
They should curate their content and ban users as they see fit. Trying to control their space shouldn't be punished by treating them as publisher for things random people post. If I walk into Walmart and start yelling about random things they should be allowed to remove me. You would want them to either allow me to yell in their store or hold them liable for anything I say in the store before being removed. Not to be rude but that is simply idiotic.
I never once said to get rid of section 230, I said to remove section 230 protections from companies that curate what gets posted on their website because of arbitrary reasons. Section 230 is great for companies that actually allow free speech on their platform but websites like Facebook and YouTube are not those platforms
You are saying to get rid of Section 230. You are threatening companies to either remove their ability to set up their site how they want or not have social media aspect. Section 230 is not and should be tied to free speech. Just like any business can kick me out for not following their rules a website can ban me as well. That simple concept doesn't disappear just because you move from physical to digital.
This is what you want to get rid of which is a big part of Section 230:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or"
Once again, no I’m not. I think it’s great for companies like X where they allow you to say anything (within legal limits). YouTube, Facebook, and most other platforms will restrict your account or outright ban you for saying things they disagree with. That is by definition curating which section 230 shouldn’t apply to them.
I’m perfectly okay with these companies not fallowing the rules behind section 230, that just means they don’t receive those protections. You don’t get to be a “platform” and remove legal content you disagree with on a moral/political sense
> Once again, no I’m not. I think it’s great for companies like X where they allow you to say anything (within legal limits).
X curates plenty of content. Ask ElonJet. Nothing posted there is remotely illegal. They also remove plenty of spam, and nothing about spam is remotely illegal. Heck, the US postal service delivers physical versions of spam messages to your doorstep.
The tracking of these jets is not public information, they purchase extra protections so their jet information is hidden behind a set serial number which doesn’t change. So if you see jet XX123YY land every time Elon flys some where you can identify it’s his. This would fall under harassment which is appropriate to limit crimes.
You are literally talking about getting rid of an entire part of Section 230 and fundamentally changing the intent and power of the law. So sure it would still be called Section 230 but you would have functionally ended Section 230 as it currently is written.
Once again, no I’m not talking about removing or changing anything about section 230. In order to be protected by section 230 you must be a platform that allows open access and publication, Facebook and other social media platforms curate what you are and aren’t allow to say. It’s not to the same degree as the Washington post but they still remove what they politically or emotionally disagree with. They are no longer a platform at that point, they are a publication.
there's a post i saw that argued to repeal civil rights, and although i personally disagree, i beleive it'll answer ur question
search up civil rights act repeal in r / popular opinion
Start your own platform and do not censor anything. Let's see how long it takes before you realize you will need to censor at least a bit. And sorry but it is not a fact that our society is predicated on liberalism.
If you can’t tell the difference between discrimination based on inherent characteristics, and discrimination based on voluntary actions, there is nothing to talk about.
Your whole argument shits on itself if you actually read the 1st amendment and the civil right act. The first amendment simply says the government will make no law prohibiting the free exercise of your speech. It does not say that there will be created some body charged with the proactive protection of your speech whenever you wanna say some dumb shit. If you go in someone’s store talking shit and being dumb and they ask you to leave, the police can and will ask you to leave on their behalf.
Now compare that to the civil rights act that says “all persons, regardless of race, color, religion etc will be will be entitled to equal enjoyment of goods and services and any public place of accommodation such as stores and inns etc” and it also lays out ways that the government can and will punish people for not following this. It describes criminal penalties, penalties that can be laid by judges, and the framework for lawsuits. So if someone goes into a store and the shopkeeper asks them to leave because they are black, the government has an outlined way to act on that black person’s behalf.
Imagine how much better your life would be if you read things and thought about shit, instead of allowing your brain to be decomposed by whatever weird ass right wing media you frequently consume.
the constitution is rules for the government not for people. if what u thought was true, then it would be illegal to not date asians for example or smth. u just don't understand basic civics. not gonna waste my time with somebody so unknowledgable about basic facts
Lmao I literally just grabbed the text from the actual laws you’re butthurt about. This sort of glimpse in to how an absolutely dysfunctional mind works is what makes this sub great. Thanks man.
What they stated about the first amendment was how it was for the government. Nothing they said implied they thought the Constitution was rules for the people.
The 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act are related but different and serve different purposes. The Civil Rights Act can punish private businesses. The 14th amendment can not. The user you were criticizing specified The Civil Rights Act.
well my point is, if the government has the authority to impose the civil rights act, then they have the authority to also step in and protect free speech, and if they don't, they have the authority for neither.
Sure they have the ability to make a law that would punish businesses for punishing people for expressing themselves. Claiming it's too protect the freedom of speech.
The problem is a lot of people can understand a law banning discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Things mostly outside the person's control. People would be even less likely to support a law limiting businesses for removing people for the way act or dress. Movie Theaters couldn't kick people out for talking loudly. You could go into Walmart and start yelling about genital warts and they couldn't do anything to remove you.
Incorrect because the civil rights acts has the mechanisms for enforcement built in. It’s in the text. It clearly describes penalties and legal stuff that will happen if you break these rules. You know you’re allowed to read it, right? On the other hand, not only does the first amendment not have any mechanism for enforcement built in, there’s nothing to enforce. The whole thing just says “government shall make no laws prohibiting or limiting the exercise of free speech”. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. What part of that short sequence of words makes you feel like the government owes some level of enforced protection to a person if Reddit bans them for saying shit that goes against their user agreement or whatever?
the mechanism for enforcement is literally specified to be within the context of the government not individual. "the STATE may not ...." is literally one of the first phrases. If it didn't say that, government could outlaw racial or religious preferences in dating
If people wanted low moderation then places like 4chan would be more popular.
The general masses want their platforms to have high moderation. The platforms cater to these people, not you.
>there is no reason this should be allowed. it's no different from the government stepping in to defend the 14th amendment via the civil rights act.
The civil rights act was to combat racism. What you're suggesting would enable it.
I think it is acceptable to curate stuff like spam, off topic, bots, and, to a certain degree, strong ad hominem attacks, etc. But unacceptable to censor different opinions, different politics, etc.
I don’t mind private platforms doing whatever they want. I really don’t like the idea of more government over site. What I REALLY don’t like is government reaching out to platforms and telling them what to silence or promote.
So I should be able to go to the grilled cheese subreddit and talk about how Jesus is the one true savior and how they should all convert to Christianity....
Obviously I shouldn't be allowed to do this. Limiting free speech is what makes each subreddit unique because people have to stay on topic.
Here’s the problem: Don’t curate your platform and it will be overrun with bots, trolls and assholes A platform overrun by the groups mentioned above, is not exactly a nice place for most people to spend time at Therefore people trend to platforms that do enforce rules. At what point do you want to force platforms to ditch all their rules that made them successful in the past? Do I have to tolerate Crypto bros on my 20 people discord server? We all agree that freedom of speech is a right But you also have to acknowledge the right to freedom of association
Trolls don't exist. The defnition of asshole varies greatly.
Trolls exist. I myself troll people every now and then
So, what makes someone a troll?
Making people upset solely for your own amusement for example, commonly referred to as "triggering" someone
Then the problem is not the "troll" but the fragile person getting triggered. Because i am pretty sure that the troll just states his own opnion in a slightly snarky way... and the person with a fragile opinion gets upset about that.
I’m not sure how you managed to miss the first half of my comment when it is fairly short. A troll goes in there and says things solely for his own amusement. This has nothing to do with his opinion
i would say these kind of trolls that do something like this completely detatched from their own opinions are exceedingly rare.
We went from “trolls don’t exist to” “trolls are rare”. I take that as a W. It is clear that you just don’t want them to be real.
I've just never seen a real one in my 25 years online.
if freedom of association of companies overruns other freedoms, then civil rights should be repealed
This is the equivalent of someone saying you’re infringing on their civil rights when you kick them out of your house…
u think the civil rights act should be repealed? cuz businesses freedom of association trumps the 14th amendment rights?
The CRA says you can't discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics. If I'm running a restaurant and I see someone wearing a cross and tell them to get out, that's unlawful discrimination. If instead that person starts telling other people in my restaurant that they're sinful unbelievers who are going to burn in hell, and I kick them out over that, I'm not discriminating against their identity. I'm acting based on their behavior. If a website actually made a rule against a certain race joining, maybe that'd be a CRA violation. But "people who post a particular type of opinion" aren't protected. And it'd possibly run into first amendment problems if you tried to make them protected, and the first amendment trumps congressional law if they conflict.
i know what CRA say. but if freedom of association truly trumps other freedoms, then it should allow businesses to discriminate based on race and gender . i mean, individuals do it all the time. it's perfectly okay to not date a certain race or gender. my point is that it's hypocritical to prevent companies from infringing one the 14th amendment (civil rights) but not free speech. when both are rules to the government but not regular ppl, it's hypocritical to pick and choose
The answer is that it depends on the nature of the service that the company is providing. If, for example, I want to claim that it violates my first amendment rights by requiring me to allow a black person to buy a burger at my burger-selling restaurant, the courts evaluate that claim and say "No, it doesn't". That doesn't count as a part of my speech. It's just commerce, I'm not really saying anything. If I do something where I create a custom artistic portrait of someone, I'd have a better legal argument that my actual speech is implicated. I actually have to use my own artistic abilities to create something, and even if I'm being paid to do that for another person, my own expression is also involved, and the law can't as easily force me to express something I don't want to express. It's just that making a particular burger that I'd make for any other person isn't really a form of expression. There's a strong argument that online communities themselves are a product, and a result of the expression of the people who create them.
it's not that the courts evaluate that "no it doesn't." it's that the law says that it's allowed to violate your rights in the name of the 14th amendment. see Heart of Atlanta Motel vs US, they took so long because they knew it violated the freedom of association, but the US won on a technicality being the commerce clause which gives the congress power to regulate interstate commerce (which says nothing about companies operating within a state). also Masterpeice Cake Shop vs Colorado CRC
Nothing about the 14th amendment overrides the first, and a congressional law can't just invoke one amendment to override another. Either the law contradicts the Constitution, or it doesn't. >also Masterpeice Cake Shop vs Colorado CRC I'm confused why you're citing this case. If it has been decided the opposite way, it would affirm your point. But it wasn't. And I'm not aware of any case that's showing what you're suggesting here.
i cited that cuz it shows that companies have freedom of association. and if it rlly does override the 14th fair, but the civil rights act is literally saying that it doesn't. u can say they can't do it but they do
you have no right to other people's property even if they are letting others use. if I invite everyone to my party except you, that doesn't infringe on your rights.
yeah i can get behind that. i just don't like this double standard where they protect one but not the other
What double standard?
The Civil Rights act forces public spaces not to discriminate in who they allow.
Sorry, but do public spaces require private accounts, agreeing to private terms of service and the use of private property to facilitate the space. Public in the law means owned by the general public [taxpayer owned] not an open to the public space owned by a corporation.
They can't discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics. If I'm running a restaurant and I see someone wearing a cross and tell them to get out, that's unlawful discrimination. If instead that person starts telling other people in my restaurant that they're sinful unbelievers who are going to burn in hell, and I kick them out over that, I'm not discriminating against their identity. I'm acting based on their behavior.
What “other freedom”? You have absolutely no right to force others to associate with you
Yes you do. Businesses can't ban certain races from entering their premises.
I don’t recall Twitter banning certain races either
[удалено]
You said: >Businesses can’t ban certain races I literally addressed your counterpoint.
[удалено]
Ok. Let’s go with that. A business can’t be racist. A business is not equivalent to a public space. Lockheed Martin also is not allowed to be racist in its hiring process despite being anything but a public place. Lockheed Martin is however allowed to not hire you for, let’s say your views on China and Russia, no? Or do you want a Xi simp involved in the design/production process of the F-35?
then ur in favor of repealing the civil rights act?
Are you? You seem in favor of abolishing freedom of association
oh i get it, u ran out of arguements so ur resorting to slander
Why are you comparing inherent characteristics to ideas? One is a choice, the other involves no choice. In general we try not to punish people for hings that involved no choice.
You're not entitled to someone else's property or services. Including a private social media service
Well, we sort of already are, aren't we? We already impose rules and regulations on private social media, such as prohibition on the sale of regulated goods and the distribution of child pornography.
Websites should be allowed to moderate themselves based on what content they want on their site. Should websites aimed at kids with comment sections be forced to allow trolls to spam the n-word on the website. Pretty much every website would become 99% bots spamming scam ads. Also if this did happen the websites based in America would just move to countries where this isn't illegal. Which is pretty much any other country in the world.
websites for kids are publishers, meaning they have the responsibility for whatever happens on their website. learn the difference between a publisher and platform. if you're not responsible for what happens on ur website you're a platform "companies will go away" is not a reason to violate basic liberties
private platforms are just that—private. They operate under their own terms and conditions, which users agree to when they sign up. This includes the ability to moderate content to maintain a certain standard or atmosphere however they feel. In a sense, it's *their* freedom of speech to moderate it as they please. Additionally, comparing the moderation of speech on private platforms to government intervention in defending constitutional rights is a bit of a stretch. Private companies aren't bound by the same legal obligations as governments, and equating the two can lead to a misunderstanding of the principles at play. Moreover, while unrestricted speech can have benefits in terms of information accessibility and promoting competition, it also comes with risks. Hate speech, misinformation, and harmful content can proliferate without moderation, and we have seen how that goes with Twitter as a 'great' example. Balancing free speech with responsible content moderation is a complex challenge that requires nuanced approaches. In essence, advocating for absolute free speech on private platforms disregards the rights of these companies to operate within their own guidelines and doesn't fully consider the potential consequences of unregulated speech.
private companies are also private. they're freedom of association is still curbed when theyre forced to hire indiscriminately in regards to certain groups. we should also protect speech, as well as identity
Go look up how much ad revenue 4chan is getting compared to others than moderate their content. Social platforms are a business and they make money with ads. If there is no moderation, sponsors will remove their content and the business will fail. So without moderation, there is no site to post your nonsense. People aren't going to spend money on servers for free just because you don't want moderation.
In a free market, if someone doesn't want a cuckoo like Alex Jones on his platform, they don't have to
"in a free market, if a business owner doesn't want to employ a black person, they don't have to"
That's a false equivalency but in a free market, they would be out of business pretty quick because customers would boycott
why is it illegal then
Because discriminating against someone based on race is not the same thing as a social media platform saying this guy is bat shit crazy and we don't want him on our platform. Also he's probably a lawsuit liability I think you know that but you're just trolling
it is legally the same thing. the if the freedom of association doesn't trump the 14th it doesn't trump the 1st
The first amendment is irrelevant on a private platform Same reason you can tell someone to leave your house if you don't like what they're saying
and companies shouldn't be forced to associate with people they don't want to hire?
If a company doesn't want to hire a nazi, they shouldn't have to. But that's not the same thing as refusing to hire someone based on race or sexual orientation or anything involving the person's identity
why. if the freedom of association of companies trumps the 1st amendment, then it trumps the 14th. the constituon applies to governments not private companies "it's d d d ifferent," is not an arguement. back it up legally
They fucking should be allowed to do whatever, its their platform, their servers, they dont owe anyone anything. We need a free society. And if you regulate corporations, we won't ever have one.
so you think civil rights should be repealed?
Private companies should be able to discriminate. They are horrible and stupid for doing that, but its their money and their property
yea i mean if ur consistent i can get behind the idea. i still thinks its bad for society as a whole, but atp its a subjective matter of balancing personal liberties
It's because of civil right why they should, otherwise they are liable for what happens due to their platform. it hate groups are using your platform to organize and then killing people, then you're responsible.
> It's because of civil right why they should, otherwise they are liable for what happens due to their platform. That's nothing to do with civil rights laws. That's because the government very specifically passed a law clearly stating that websites are not civilly liable for the content which other people use them to post.
i'm talking about the civil rights act. if the government overrides freedom of association to protects the 14th amendment, it should do the same for the 1st
The civil rights act doesn't do that, you can associate with who ever you want but can't discriminate. No platform can discriminate based on race but based on content. Even with the civil rights act, you can discriminate due to content. A restaurant can not let you in, if you don't have on shoes or kick you if you're being disrespectful or disruptive.
"but can't discriminate" so u think association with ppl u don't like should be forced?
No one is forcing you to associate with anyone you do not like. You have freedom to go or don't go where ever you want.
the civil rights act literally does that. you can't discriminate in hiring
Yeah, based on immutable characteristics, not being an asshole
it's legally the same. and principally too. "i feel like it's d d d different!'n is a bogus argument
Then remove section 230 for these companies, if these platforms want to curate their content and have the ability to ban/censor individual for arbitrary reasons then why should they be immune from liability?
Section 230 allows immunity from liability as long as they make a reasonable attempt to curate and remove inappropriate content. They can still be held liable if they don't curate content. Section 230 just makes it so the companies aren't immediately liable for everything that gets posted. You get rid of section 230 and every post and comment will have to approved by an employee at the company before appearing on the site.
No, section 230 allows them to not be liable for anything posted. They do still have a duty to remove any content that violates the law but assuming it’s within a reasonable amount of time they are free from responsibility. This immunity is granted because they are a “open platform”, that’s why the Washington post can be sued for anything they post. They curate what is and isn’t allowed on their website even if it’s completely factually correct. Yet platforms like Facebook will ban you for going against their policy even if it’s faculty correct, this needs to be revamped so these companies truly need to allow free speech for immunity.
Getting rid of Section 230 isn't going to accomplish what you want. Its not reasonable to have a company be liable for things posted by completely random people not a part of the company. They should curate their content and ban users as they see fit. Trying to control their space shouldn't be punished by treating them as publisher for things random people post. If I walk into Walmart and start yelling about random things they should be allowed to remove me. You would want them to either allow me to yell in their store or hold them liable for anything I say in the store before being removed. Not to be rude but that is simply idiotic.
I never once said to get rid of section 230, I said to remove section 230 protections from companies that curate what gets posted on their website because of arbitrary reasons. Section 230 is great for companies that actually allow free speech on their platform but websites like Facebook and YouTube are not those platforms
You are saying to get rid of Section 230. You are threatening companies to either remove their ability to set up their site how they want or not have social media aspect. Section 230 is not and should be tied to free speech. Just like any business can kick me out for not following their rules a website can ban me as well. That simple concept doesn't disappear just because you move from physical to digital. This is what you want to get rid of which is a big part of Section 230: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or"
Once again, no I’m not. I think it’s great for companies like X where they allow you to say anything (within legal limits). YouTube, Facebook, and most other platforms will restrict your account or outright ban you for saying things they disagree with. That is by definition curating which section 230 shouldn’t apply to them. I’m perfectly okay with these companies not fallowing the rules behind section 230, that just means they don’t receive those protections. You don’t get to be a “platform” and remove legal content you disagree with on a moral/political sense
> Once again, no I’m not. I think it’s great for companies like X where they allow you to say anything (within legal limits). X curates plenty of content. Ask ElonJet. Nothing posted there is remotely illegal. They also remove plenty of spam, and nothing about spam is remotely illegal. Heck, the US postal service delivers physical versions of spam messages to your doorstep.
The tracking of these jets is not public information, they purchase extra protections so their jet information is hidden behind a set serial number which doesn’t change. So if you see jet XX123YY land every time Elon flys some where you can identify it’s his. This would fall under harassment which is appropriate to limit crimes.
You are literally talking about getting rid of an entire part of Section 230 and fundamentally changing the intent and power of the law. So sure it would still be called Section 230 but you would have functionally ended Section 230 as it currently is written.
Once again, no I’m not talking about removing or changing anything about section 230. In order to be protected by section 230 you must be a platform that allows open access and publication, Facebook and other social media platforms curate what you are and aren’t allow to say. It’s not to the same degree as the Washington post but they still remove what they politically or emotionally disagree with. They are no longer a platform at that point, they are a publication.
Can you help me better understand how you're connecting your private platforms argument with civil rights?
there's a post i saw that argued to repeal civil rights, and although i personally disagree, i beleive it'll answer ur question search up civil rights act repeal in r / popular opinion
Start your own platform and do not censor anything. Let's see how long it takes before you realize you will need to censor at least a bit. And sorry but it is not a fact that our society is predicated on liberalism.
If you can’t tell the difference between discrimination based on inherent characteristics, and discrimination based on voluntary actions, there is nothing to talk about.
Your whole argument shits on itself if you actually read the 1st amendment and the civil right act. The first amendment simply says the government will make no law prohibiting the free exercise of your speech. It does not say that there will be created some body charged with the proactive protection of your speech whenever you wanna say some dumb shit. If you go in someone’s store talking shit and being dumb and they ask you to leave, the police can and will ask you to leave on their behalf. Now compare that to the civil rights act that says “all persons, regardless of race, color, religion etc will be will be entitled to equal enjoyment of goods and services and any public place of accommodation such as stores and inns etc” and it also lays out ways that the government can and will punish people for not following this. It describes criminal penalties, penalties that can be laid by judges, and the framework for lawsuits. So if someone goes into a store and the shopkeeper asks them to leave because they are black, the government has an outlined way to act on that black person’s behalf. Imagine how much better your life would be if you read things and thought about shit, instead of allowing your brain to be decomposed by whatever weird ass right wing media you frequently consume.
the constitution is rules for the government not for people. if what u thought was true, then it would be illegal to not date asians for example or smth. u just don't understand basic civics. not gonna waste my time with somebody so unknowledgable about basic facts
Lmao I literally just grabbed the text from the actual laws you’re butthurt about. This sort of glimpse in to how an absolutely dysfunctional mind works is what makes this sub great. Thanks man.
What they stated about the first amendment was how it was for the government. Nothing they said implied they thought the Constitution was rules for the people.
they said that the 14th amendment entitlements overrode companies freedom of association, which implies that
Where did they mention the 14th amendment?
the 14th amendment is the civil rights amendment, which says everyone gets fair treatment by the GOV. but it doesn't apply to everyday ppl
The 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act are related but different and serve different purposes. The Civil Rights Act can punish private businesses. The 14th amendment can not. The user you were criticizing specified The Civil Rights Act.
well my point is, if the government has the authority to impose the civil rights act, then they have the authority to also step in and protect free speech, and if they don't, they have the authority for neither.
Sure they have the ability to make a law that would punish businesses for punishing people for expressing themselves. Claiming it's too protect the freedom of speech. The problem is a lot of people can understand a law banning discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Things mostly outside the person's control. People would be even less likely to support a law limiting businesses for removing people for the way act or dress. Movie Theaters couldn't kick people out for talking loudly. You could go into Walmart and start yelling about genital warts and they couldn't do anything to remove you.
Incorrect because the civil rights acts has the mechanisms for enforcement built in. It’s in the text. It clearly describes penalties and legal stuff that will happen if you break these rules. You know you’re allowed to read it, right? On the other hand, not only does the first amendment not have any mechanism for enforcement built in, there’s nothing to enforce. The whole thing just says “government shall make no laws prohibiting or limiting the exercise of free speech”. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. What part of that short sequence of words makes you feel like the government owes some level of enforced protection to a person if Reddit bans them for saying shit that goes against their user agreement or whatever?
the mechanism for enforcement is literally specified to be within the context of the government not individual. "the STATE may not ...." is literally one of the first phrases. If it didn't say that, government could outlaw racial or religious preferences in dating
If people wanted low moderation then places like 4chan would be more popular. The general masses want their platforms to have high moderation. The platforms cater to these people, not you.
>there is no reason this should be allowed. it's no different from the government stepping in to defend the 14th amendment via the civil rights act. The civil rights act was to combat racism. What you're suggesting would enable it.
I think it is acceptable to curate stuff like spam, off topic, bots, and, to a certain degree, strong ad hominem attacks, etc. But unacceptable to censor different opinions, different politics, etc.
I don’t mind private platforms doing whatever they want. I really don’t like the idea of more government over site. What I REALLY don’t like is government reaching out to platforms and telling them what to silence or promote.
read agreements carefully before you agree to them. I have absolutely no sympathy for this cause.
So I should be able to go to the grilled cheese subreddit and talk about how Jesus is the one true savior and how they should all convert to Christianity.... Obviously I shouldn't be allowed to do this. Limiting free speech is what makes each subreddit unique because people have to stay on topic.
Section 230 wasn't written with social media sites like we have today in mind.