• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There should be ‘consequences’ for platforms that don’t remove people like Alex Jones, Senator Ron W

Kal'Stang said:
So you want to punish companies like Youtube, twitter etc etc via government that don't adhere to YOUR sensibilities of what is right? Free Speech is NOT about allowing speech that everyone likes Linc. It's about allowing speech that people DO NOT like. Without which you would never get dissent against the government because the government would be allowed to arrest those that do not like it. Can you imagine TRUMP with that kind of power? A lot of people on this forum alone would be getting visited by and "re-educated" by men in black suits.

Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.
Click to expand...

OK, and the alternative is fact free cesspools? Sounds like a really ****ty plan to me. Oh look, DP is censoring me. You're a moderator whose job is censoring people.

And the only alternative he gave was REMOVING GOVERNMENT PROTECTION of these platforms, so they can be sued for allowing harmful content. How are Twitter et al. deserving of a massive government liability protection shield if they're not going to make a legitimate attempt to police the place?
 
Linc said:
Horse**** is defending low-life scum of the earth who stalk and terrorize Sandy Hook Parents.

This AFTER these Parents have endured the Ultimate Grief of their Children having their faces blown away by GOP Weapons of War.
Click to expand...

Democrats carry guns as well.
 
Vladimir Putin said:
Once you ban extreme speech.....there is no free speech. Only Free Acceptable Approved Speech Agreed Upon by the Establishment.

There are more idiots on this chat site that I see on any web site. Sad
Click to expand...

Private entities "ban speech" every day in a 1000 different ways. Pen an obscenity laced letter and see how many newspapers publish it. Go into a restaurant and start yelling racial slurs at the guests and see if you don't get kicked out.
 
JasperL said:
The article was much less illuminating than the transcript below it. The overall message I got from the actual discussion was pretty simple. Wyden was pointing out Congress gave Facebook et al. this incredible "shield" against liability for what was posted on their platforms, and the responsibility of those companies given almost complete immunity from prosecution was to wield a "sword" (those were his words, shield and sword) to run those platforms responsibly, which would include kicking off irresponsible, reckless assholes who lie for a living and harm real people like Alex Jones.

His point was the platforms enjoy the shield but don't or didn't hold up their end of the bargain which was to police their own sites and kick off those who abuse the platform. He's essentially saying - EARN the near complete protection we gave you from liability by acting responsibly.

Seems reasonable enough to me. The difficulty is what or how that might be reflected in new laws, and he didn't address that, except to hint that these 'monopolies' he called them might lose their precious "shield" if they didn't find answers on their own. OK! Sounds good to me!
Click to expand...

I don't think it's particularly reasonable. It's almost impossible to moderate everything posted on the internet. I guess you could make a case that since Facebook, and others, do attempt to moderate things than they can now be considered publishers and therefore able to be held liable. Hopefully that would give rise to a change in policy or maybe Facebook going out of business and a new platform that doesn't moderate anything could take it's place.
 
Vladimir Putin said:
FB and TWITTER are considered PUBLIC UTILITIES due to their monopoly and massive influence.

Funny how Farrakhan isn't banned....he is always calling for the overthrow of the govt and death to whites. FB showing its true colors
Click to expand...

No they're not.
 
JasperL said:
OK, and the alternative is fact free cesspools? Sounds like a really ****ty plan to me. Oh look, DP is censoring me. You're a moderator whose job is censoring people.
Click to expand...

Sorry but there is a HUGE difference between a private entity censoring someone and the government censoring someone. And since I never called for DP to not censor, all you've built here was a strawman. I may not like corporations that get literally billions of views all across the world censoring people, but I'll easily put up with that over the government censoring people.

JasperL said:
And the only alternative he gave was REMOVING GOVERNMENT PROTECTION of these platforms, so they can be sued for allowing harmful content. How are Twitter et al. deserving of a massive government liability protection shield if they're not going to make a legitimate attempt to police the place?
Click to expand...

They do not even have to have the governments "shield". All that they have to do is put up a clause in their TOS that says that ""YOU" (royal you there) are responsible for what you post at this site and will accept full responsibility for any and all legal liabilities resulting from what you post". Require an adult to OK the agreement and once that is done and agreed to no company could ever be sued for such.
 
Fishking said:
I don't think it's particularly reasonable. It's almost impossible to moderate everything posted on the internet. I guess you could make a case that since Facebook, and others, do attempt to moderate things than they can now be considered publishers and therefore able to be held liable. Hopefully that would give rise to a change in policy or maybe Facebook going out of business and a new platform that doesn't moderate anything could take it's place.
Click to expand...

But why would a place that moderates nothing be entitled to liability protection for what it allows, which is anything? Bomb making, terrorist recruitment, criminally liable medical advice?
 
JasperL said:
But why would a place that moderates nothing be entitled to liability protection for what it allows, which is anything? Bomb making, terrorist recruitment, criminally liable medical advice?
Click to expand...

Because then they couldn't be considered publishers, just a platform.
 
JasperL said:
The article was much less illuminating than the transcript below it. The overall message I got from the actual discussion was pretty simple. Wyden was pointing out Congress gave Facebook et al. this incredible "shield" against liability for what was posted on their platforms, and the responsibility of those companies given almost complete immunity from prosecution was to wield a "sword" (those were his words, shield and sword) to run those platforms responsibly, which would include kicking off irresponsible, reckless assholes who lie for a living and harm real people like Alex Jones.

His point was the platforms enjoy the shield but don't or didn't hold up their end of the bargain which was to police their own sites and kick off those who abuse the platform. He's essentially saying - EARN the near complete protection we gave you from liability by acting responsibly.

Seems reasonable enough to me. The difficulty is what or how that might be reflected in new laws, and he didn't address that, except to hint that these 'monopolies' he called them might lose their precious "shield" if they didn't find answers on their own. OK! Sounds good to me!
Click to expand...

The government has no business using legislation to compel private actors to limit speech based on the government's wishes. That's an incredibly dangerous idea.
 
JasperL said:
Indecent isn't the standard, and he wasn't talking about cable TV, but Facebook. And in that interview, he's clearly talking about Facebook and others defining and enforcing a standard, not having NO standard, which is closer to their previous stances.
Click to expand...

Whose standard? Their own or the government's?
 
Vladimir Putin said:
Remember they also banned Socialist Telesur for 5 days for its very pro-Palestinian beliefs. They are PUBLIC UTILTIES and have no right to ban far left or far right. The whole point of free speech is to protect even the most extreme speech....or what is the point? The left is so happy about cons being banned....

that shows you the LOW IQ and sickness of the left. They are bankrupt morally and spiritually.
Click to expand...

No they're private companies. They are not public utilities - at least not yet.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Sorry but there is a HUGE difference between a private entity censoring someone and the government censoring someone. And since I never called for DP to not censor, all you've built here was a strawman. I may not like corporations that get literally billions of views all across the world censoring people, but I'll easily put up with that over the government censoring people.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the interview to indicate it would be government making those calls. As I said in my first reply, the specifics of what "club" he's threatening are unclear except to perhaps remove the government SHIELD Congress granted them, this privilege granted by the state. It seems clear that's his problem because he repeatedly refers in the interview to the "sword" and the "shield" and says in several ways these platforms have taken huge financial advantage of the "shield" without wielding what the law also gave them which was a tool to police the place, the "sword."

A cousin of mine works for Facebook and he's now very involved in Facebook's efforts to police the place. The one thing is clear is that it's very difficult to identify the egregious stuff and get it off the platform. But what he also admits is Facebook just didn't care all that much if the content drove traffic. Well, a $500 billion company with a government granted liability shield IMO ought to put a lot of resources into being nothing more than a responsible corporate citizen. If Facebook knowingly allows libel to be published, why should they be immune from being sued?

They do not even have to have the governments "shield". All that they have to do is put up a clause in their TOS that says that ""YOU" (royal you there) are responsible for what you post at this site and will accept full responsibility for any and all legal liabilities resulting from what you post". Require an adult to OK the agreement and once that is done and agreed to no company could ever be sued for such.
Click to expand...

They do have a shield, Section 230, and it's a big and comprehensive one.
 
Gaius46 said:
Whose standard? Their own or the government's?
Click to expand...

Their own. He never suggests that government enforce any standard, just essentially that a standardless cesspool isn't what Congress had in mind when they gave them liability protection under Sec. 230.
 
Gaius46 said:
The government has no business using legislation to compel private actors to limit speech based on the government's wishes. That's an incredibly dangerous idea.
Click to expand...

OK, what business is government's to provide a privileged liability-free zone where content providers can publish, or allow to be published, anything under their banner, sell ads based on the clicks, sell the information of their users to anyone and everyone for a fee, and enjoy nearly complete protection from being held liable?

The article clearly refers to the "shield" and the "sword" as two sides of the coin. The objection is Facebook has monetized the shield in part into a $500 billion company. The suggestion is they have responsibilities that come with that "shield." I don't see that as unreasonable. As I've said several times, the difficulty is in defining their responsibilities. There is no indication Wyden's suggestion is for Congress to define it, rather that Facebook et al. can either come up with their own or risk losing the STATE-granted privileges they're now enjoying and making piles of money with.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
Their own. He never suggests that government enforce any standard, just essentially that a standardless cesspool isn't what Congress had in mind when they gave them liability protection under Sec. 230.
Click to expand...

First demanding a standard is a government standard. That aside as I read the article the congress critter is demanding the people like Alex Jones not be given a platform or they - the companies may face consequences. That is tantamount to censorship on the government's part.
 
JasperL said:
OK, what business is government's to provide a privileged liability-free zone where content providers can publish, or allow to be published, anything under their banner, sell ads based on the clicks, sell the information of their users to anyone and everyone for a fee, and enjoy nearly complete protection from being held liable?

The article clearly refers to the "shield" and the "sword" as two sides of the coin. The objection is Facebook has monetized the shield in part into a $500 billion company. The suggestion is they have responsibilities that come with that "shield." I don't see that as unreasonable. As I've said several times, the difficulty is in defining their responsibilities. There is no indication Wyden's suggestion is for Congress to define it, rather that Facebook et al. can either come up with their own or risk losing the STATE-granted privileges they're now enjoying and making piles of money with.
Click to expand...

It isn't their business. The government needs to keep out of it. The government has no business using legislation to coerce private companies to censor viewpoints the government disagrees with.
 
JasperL said:
I'm not sure what you're going on about. If you kick some asshole out of your house, or some drunk out of your restaurant or place of business, it's not a 1A issue. This isn't either. Same thing when a newspaper refuses to print my racist "nigger" laced editorial or letter to the editor in the local paper, or a public access channel enforces standards there.

Goodness, I don't know how people can have used social media and not been disgusted at what a cesspool much of it is, full of just dishonest garbage. This isn't about left or right either, censoring opinions.
Click to expand...

It is is if the government santions your business for not kicking certain people out.
 
JasperL said:
There is nothing in the interview to indicate it would be government making those calls. As I said in my first reply, the specifics of what "club" he's threatening are unclear except to perhaps remove the government SHIELD Congress granted them, this privilege granted by the state. It seems clear that's his problem because he repeatedly refers in the interview to the "sword" and the "shield" and says in several ways these platforms have taken huge financial advantage of the "shield" without wielding what the law also gave them which was a tool to police the place, the "sword."

A cousin of mine works for Facebook and he's now very involved in Facebook's efforts to police the place. The one thing is clear is that it's very difficult to identify the egregious stuff and get it off the platform. But what he also admits is Facebook just didn't care all that much if the content drove traffic. Well, a $500 billion company with a government granted liability shield IMO ought to put a lot of resources into being nothing more than a responsible corporate citizen. If Facebook knowingly allows libel to be published, why should they be immune from being sued?



They do have a shield, Section 230, and it's a big and comprehensive one.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, this is the shield:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"
Click to expand...

I see this as a good thing.

If someone doesn't like what they see on, say, FB then they can address whomever is presenting what they don't like. This shield just prevents someone from going after FB for allowing something to be presented.

I don't think FB should be held responsible for what other individuals present on their platform.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
There is nothing in the interview to indicate it would be government making those calls. As I said in my first reply, the specifics of what "club" he's threatening are unclear except to perhaps remove the government SHIELD Congress granted them, this privilege granted by the state. It seems clear that's his problem because he repeatedly refers in the interview to the "sword" and the "shield" and says in several ways these platforms have taken huge financial advantage of the "shield" without wielding what the law also gave them which was a tool to police the place, the "sword."

A cousin of mine works for Facebook and he's now very involved in Facebook's efforts to police the place. The one thing is clear is that it's very difficult to identify the egregious stuff and get it off the platform. But what he also admits is Facebook just didn't care all that much if the content drove traffic. Well, a $500 billion company with a government granted liability shield IMO ought to put a lot of resources into being nothing more than a responsible corporate citizen. If Facebook knowingly allows libel to be published, why should they be immune from being sued?
Click to expand...

1: Facebook isn't publishing anything. They are simply a platform to let others publish what they wish to publish. Just like Wal-Mart is a platform to buy a baseball bat which someone could use to either hit a ball or someone's balls (pun intended :mrgreen: ) Why should Wal-Mart be responsible for the actions of the user of the bat? Of course I'm sure, or at least I would hope, that you would agree that they shouldn't be. FB is no different. The only difference is the medium.

2: And the "club" that he's threatening with is the removal of a law protecting FB et al from being prosecuted/sued for something that common sense says they shouldn't be prosecuted/sued for in the first place. It is essentially saying "you either adhere to what we think is decent or you will no longer benefit from your government against frivolous lawsuits which will cost you money". That alone is unacceptable from our government as it is a form of coercing them to only allow government approved speech. The simple threat alone is more than should be allowed.

JasperL said:
They do have a shield, Section 230, and it's a big and comprehensive one.
Click to expand...

Never said that they don't have a shield. I just said how they could easily get around the possibility of a lawsuit if this senator were to have their way and get the shield law repealed because he didn't like what someone said on FB's platform and FB didn't take it down.
 
Kal'Stang said:
1: Facebook isn't publishing anything. They are simply a platform to let others publish what they wish to publish. Just like Wal-Mart is a platform to buy a baseball bat which someone could use to either hit a ball or someone's balls (pun intended :mrgreen: ) Why should Wal-Mart be responsible for the actions of the user of the bat? Of course I'm sure, or at least I would hope, that you would agree that they shouldn't be. FB is no different. The only difference is the medium.
Click to expand...

OK, but Walmart doesn't enjoy the same liability shield that Facebook has. They can be sued for selling defective products. To use that analogy, it would be like granting retailers blanket immunity for defective products, then Walmart doing nothing to ensure what they sell is safe, and in fact continuing to sell products they KNOW to be unsafe. Or a newspaper publishing ALL letters to the editor without regard to libel, and refusing to remove content they know to be libelous.

2: And the "club" that he's threatening with is the removal of a law protecting FB et al from being prosecuted/sued for something that common sense says they shouldn't be prosecuted/sued for in the first place. It is essentially saying "you either adhere to what we think is decent or you will no longer benefit from your government against frivolous lawsuits which will cost you money". That alone is unacceptable from our government as it is a form of coercing them to only allow government approved speech. The simple threat alone is more than should be allowed.
Click to expand...

It's not just "frivolous" lawsuits they're protected against, but nearly ALL lawsuits, including those cases in which the content caused identifiable harm.

Here's what I don't get in theory. If you want government out of the private sector, that's fine. The solution then is for individuals to sue those in the private sector for damages - that's the normal "conservative" or "libertarian" solution to damages in lieu of government regulation.

But what people are arguing is to provide Facebook government protection against lawsuits, AND impose no obligations on them to police content. It's more like crony capitalism than the 'free market.' It just means Facebook, a $500 billion company, can do any damn thing it wants without fear of lawsuits! They just point the finger to someone else when damages happen. That's a sweet gig if you can get it!

Never said that they don't have a shield. I just said how they could easily get around the possibility of a lawsuit if this senator were to have their way and get the shield law repealed because he didn't like what someone said on FB's platform and FB didn't take it down.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's correct at all. If it was, then we could repeal Sec. 230 and every platform on the planet adopts some boilerplate language, problem solved. Let's see it proposed and let the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the big boys begin!
 
Gaius46 said:
It isn't their business. The government needs to keep out of it. The government has no business using legislation to coerce private companies to censor viewpoints the government disagrees with.
Click to expand...

Great then get rid of the liability shield! I'm good with that. Repeal Sec. 230 and let Facebook be sued like anyone else in this "free market" system.

What you're suggesting, though, is government providing a $500 billion company with nearly complete liability immunity, then whining that government might expect something in return for this incredible privilege granted them by Congress.
 
Gaius46 said:
First demanding a standard is a government standard. That aside as I read the article the congress critter is demanding the people like Alex Jones not be given a platform or they - the companies may face consequences. That is tantamount to censorship on the government's part.
Click to expand...

Yes, but again if the 'consequences' are to remove a government-granted liability shield, why does a libertarian object? If you want the government OUT, then get them OUT, on both sides, not just the one that happens to benefit Facebook and disadvantages those who can otherwise prove in court that were harmed by Facebooks actions or lack of it.

An at least arguable analogy is providing coal fired plants complete immunity for the pollution they produce each day, then repealing all laws governing pollution. You can't argue for government to keep out AND support TVA getting blanket government-granted immunity from lawsuits. That's in effect what you're arguing for Facebook et al.
 
JasperL said:
Great then get rid of the liability shield! I'm good with that. Repeal Sec. 230 and let Facebook be sued like anyone else in this "free market" system.

What you're suggesting, though, is government providing a $500 billion company with nearly complete liability immunity, then whining that government might expect something in return for this incredible privilege granted them by Congress.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting anything. Frankly I didn't know that Facebook had a liability shield. It should be removed.
 
Gaius46 said:
I'm not suggesting anything. Frankly I didn't know that Facebook had a liability shield. It should be removed.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. What Wyden repeatedly objected to was them enjoying the "shield" without exercising any responsibility to police the site, the "sword." My own view is if they get protection, it's fair to expect government to demand standards of behavior in return. If they have no government-granted immunity, they can do whatever the hell they like and government can keep it's mouth shut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom