The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment
-
@raphjd
Are you implying that there were no objections when Obama... or Clinton... or Carter were elected?You don't Google very well, do you! As I said earlier: it's harder (since the law was changed post-Civil War) to find an Electoral College count that DIDN'T have a house member object to something... (nearly always without a Senatorial co-sponsor).
Again, the purpose of those objections was never to change the outcome of the election, rather than to draw attention to some perceived grievance - nearly always in their home state. What made things different this time:
- multiple state's electors were challenged
- the intended purpose was to change the result
- the objectors were mostly (though not entirely) from other states
-
Calling me juvenile names doesn't change the facts.
-
@raphjd
Agreed that the National Government changes slowly... but it certainly does change, and the pace of that change has been getting faster and faster. Especially with each ensuing administration since Nixon seemingly expanding the powers of the Presidency (and Congress all too often complicit in the usurpation of powers not provided for in the Constitution!).But I question whether you actually understand what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 really does!
At its core, Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content. For God's Sake man, this is a torrenting site! Take away Section 230, and the content producers will shut this baby down faster than you can say howdy!
It's BECAUSE of Section 230 that content owners have to send the site a request to remove copyrighted content, and cannot sue the site owners over the fact that the lion's share of content shared here is copyrighted somewhere else.
(For those who care, a modification to Section 230 that was made in 2018 is the cause for the demise of the Craigslist personals - once a treasure-trove of prostitution, sex trafficking, and a ton of horny guys just looking to get off! -- in other words: a "den of iniquity with some good and some bad actors).
Anyway, without Section 230, the Internet would not even closely resemble what we know it as. Facebook couldn't exist. Nor Twitter (too much risk someone would publish "illegal" content, for which the ISP & website owner could be held legally and civilly liable!) OOOMMMPPPHHHH!
The issue some people have arising from Section 230 is the misguided (well, I think it's misguided) belief that large Internet content providers (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) are filtering Conservative viewpoints. They want to tie "free speech" rights to private companies (no-go there, the 1st Amendment only applies to the Government!). Conspiracy theorists and their followers believe there is a concerted effort on the part of these Internet companies to squelch Conservative voices on their platforms. The companies, naturally deny any bias.
Aside: As a Conservative (a non-conspiracy-theory-believing one), I don't see evidence of bias. But I do see extremists on both ends of the spectrum getting better and better at organizing and leveraging social media; and I see these tech companies trying (albeit imperfectly) to avoid being the tool by which these groups cause real harm.
As Parler & IONOS have shown, there is little-to-no barrier to entry for creating competitive platforms to Facebook, Twitter, etc... and there is already large-scale competition in the Google marketplace.
Thus, and in no small part because I like to download porn, I stand strongly in favor of keeping Section 230, if not re-strengthening it!
(That out to light a fire under @raphjd's pants!)
-
I never implied that it didn't happen to Obama. All I did was point out that it's extremely hypocritical to whine about it being done to Biden.
It's also IDIOTIC to call someone treasonous for something that is part of the rules.
Section 230 abuses are rampant.
Clearly, you have no idea what the problems are with 230. You choose whether to be a publisher or a platform. If you are a publisher, then you are responsible for the content on your site. If you are a platform, which social media claims to be, then you are not responsible. Social media acts as both.
If you can find it, Tim Pool was on Joe Rogan with Jack Dorsey and his top legal person. It's explained quite well. Also, in the Congressional hearing on the topic.
As for Parler and the like, that was big tech collusion. Zuckerberg admitted that they all talk and work together
-
Let me guess.
You view the people that stormed the Capitol as treasonous as well but don't think there was anything wrong with storming the Senate building and trying to storm the Supreme Court during the Kavanaugh hearings.
And we all know someone like you thinks the summer of love was a good thing.
-
Yes, and your claims about the Kavanaugh hearings are false.
This isn't hard.
It's very easy to say that there was a treasonous, attempted coup, on Jan 6th. If you can't utter that simple fact without engaging in (false) whataboutisms then you simply look like you're a fascist who hates democracy.
-
Ok, if you say so, dearie.
-
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
"You can grab them by the pussy BECAUSE THEY LET YOU"
I have sex with my husband because he lets me.
'I just start kissing them, I DON'T EVEN WAIT'
-
What do you think about the woman Trump talked about in that conversation who led him on so he would buy her a bunch of furniture, despite knowing she wouldn't sleep with him?
This is where you give her the pussy pass.
Arianne Zucker was there for most of the conversation and she didn't seem offended, but I guess you are offended for her.
-
@raphjd
There is no "choice" under Section 230...If you publish a libelous post about someone, you are responsible! No Section 230 protection!
If you provide a platform, and a 3rd party posts libelous content on that platform, you can sue the person who authored the post, but you cannot sue the platform!
If you provide a platform, and you post content that is libelous, you have no protection under Section 230 - because you're not a 3rd party!
-
NYT is a publisher. They control what is published, therefore they are liable for what is on their site.
Twitter is a platform, so they have no legal liability for what is posted. HOWEVER, they act as a publisher by controlling what is published.
-
@raphjd
Sorry - removing some posts (and protection against suits because of that) is covered under Section 230You are not guaranteed unfettered free speech - ANYWHERE!!
Even the Government can limit speech in certain circumstances - but Twitter isn't the Government - and neither are they a monopoly (or even a regulated provider, like your local TV Station! Twitter is not broadcast over public airwaves)...Your (falsely) perceived 1st Amendment right to post your political views on their (privately owned) platform is running head first into their actual right to do whatever they want with their property!
NOTE: IF Twitter were to require their editorial approval BEFORE allowing content on their site, THEN they would be a publisher....
This ain't that!
-
No duh, the Supreme Court has been clear on free speech.
Are you saying I would be totally within my right to ban you and the rest of the swamp monster?
Twitter has set rules for what is allowed and what is not allowed, as a publisher would do.
Ironically enough, Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS, but saying "but they aren't women, though" does violate their TOS. What does it say about you that you are defending them.
-
Are you saying that a private company cannot set out ToS for the platform it has created?
ToS is not editorialising.
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
What do you think about the woman Trump talked about in that conversation who led him on so he would buy her a bunch of furniture, despite knowing she wouldn't sleep with him?
So you admit that Frumpy was messing around with women.
This is where you give her the pussy pass.
Nope.
Arianne Zucker was there for most of the conversation and she didn't seem offended, but I guess you are offended for her.
I don't care what Arianne thinks, I know what's on the tape.
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
No duh, the Supreme Court has been clear on free speech.
Yes, they have, and a private platform setting out ToS is not a free speech issue.
Twitter has set rules for what is allowed and what is not allowed, as a publisher would do.
Nope, this is ToS, something that the majority of private companies have
Ironically enough, Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS, but saying "but they aren't women, though" does violate their TOS. What does it say about you that you are defending them.
Why are you lying?
Do ctrl-f
-
Seems like someone is clueless about what is going on in the world;
https://nypost.com/2021/01/21/twitter-sued-for-allegedly-refusing-to-remove-child-porn/
-
Besides the fact that you are such a child that you can't say Trump's name properly, what does it have to do with anything?
You are all butt hurt about how Trumpsupposedly treats women, but you feel it's ok to discount women who don't agree with you.
Typical liberal.
-
@gerggently said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
Are you saying that a private company cannot set out ToS for the platform it has created?
ToS is not editorialising.
As I already asked, would I be totally in my rights and you would willingly accept it If I banned you because you are too childish enough to say Trump's name properly?
Nah, you'd whine and we all know it.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login