That is about the time he left the organization... perhaps they just weren't aware of the extent? Or were unaware of the illegal (underage) parts...

I don't know - I'm not really following that story closely, for reasons at the END of this posting...

What I do know is that the organization stands for Conservative Ideals - many of which I agree with - but didn't "sell their soul" to authoritarianism or turn a blind eye to essentially treason in exchange for a Supreme Court judge or two (or three!).

I also know that I'm not one to throw around guilt by association claims or accusations.

If I did, most of the largest Evangelical Christian organizations in the US (not to mention the Catholic Church) would have been burned to the ground by now for the sins of their past leaders... Sins also against children

This is according to reporting over the last 2 days.

The movie was The Wolf of Wall Street.

The courts found Prodigy guilty of libel because they moderated the posts, thus acting as a publisher.

About the same time, there was another lawsuit but the website was deemed a platform, thus not liable, since they did not moderate the posts.

As always, politicians are whores who ignore the citizenry.

This is the swamp you keep defending.

Why does that matter?

Because that's when Seection 230 was written into law.

Hmmm... maybe they didn't just pull that law out of their overly large, exceptionally old, pasty-white, "can't even SPELL Internet in 1996" asses?

Maybe some rich, white-owned business didn't like being sued for something they really didn't have any reasonable control over, and decided to swing some bucks the way of those Politician types - you know, the ones who love money... and telling other people what to do - and get some protections in there so it doesn't happen again!

I don't remember the full details, but some scummy billionaire was called out on a website, by a 3rd party poster. The billionaire sued the website and won, despite later the posts being proven true in criminal court.

From memory, Leonardo DiCaprio played the billionaire in a movie.

The problem (in my view) is not that sites are well covered by protections of Section 230, it is that many of these same sites allow users to create accounts (sometimes multiple accounts) that are essentially anonymous.

So, if you are scanning and see someone offering up a 12-year-old up for sex:

• the site where the posting is made cannot itself be held liable - they are protected under Section 230 (mind you: they do have to remove it as soon as they are made aware!)
• sites like Facebook, Twitter, and even eBay, Craigslist, and even THIS FORUM! can get hundreds, sometimes thousands (or even millions!) of posts every hour. They cannot police that much data!
• under the original intent of the statute, the original poster would be solely responsible for the content that they posted.
• But, in too many cases - with true anonymity - there is no way to track that person down! MOST sites do not request, much less require, any proof of identity!

So again, they passed an amendment to Section 230 that required the site to pull that particular kind of material down (child-porn, sex trafficking, and some other special categories)... and that's not a bad thing.

But that loophole kept popping up: you have to go after the originator of the content, not the platform on which they posted it... and some of this shit was truly awful shit! People wanted/needed to find a way to hold someone accountable! And, quite literally, there was no one else to look to!

So they passed another amendment that held the site accountable for such a posting to begin with... and that's somewhat problematic (and, in large part, what led to the death of the Craigslist Personals, as well as any other "Personals" that don't have some way of identifying and tracing actual user information - real, valid, information - like from a credit card!)

But that is just one of many problems that TRUE anonymity creates on the Internet!

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll trust actual experts.

Even leftist rag NYT admits that the spirit of the law say that it should not be about political censorship. It's even in the 1st section of 230.

The 2nd section talks about a free and open market, which the cabal prevents.

And that is why I call you a swamp monster loving RINO. You, rightfully, believe that life isn't fair, however, you also believe that we should never, ever do anything to make it fair. This is why you voted for swamp scum rather than vote for Trump.

Twitter does force you to agree with their liberal bullshit ideas or get banned. Watch the Joe Rogan podcast with Tim Pool, Jack Dorsey, and Twitter's top legal person. It's clear that Twitter has an agenda and they enforce it strongly. They banned a person for "hate speech" for saying "but they aren't women though" referring to transwomen.

I really think you believe you are much more educated than you really are.

It's like the Betsy DeVos discussion, you knew she was controversial, but you didn't know why, just that you believed it was bad. She was controversial because she was reversing Obama-era shite that harmed male students and other woke crap Obama put in.

You don't know about Twitter's actions. You don't know how they censored reporting about Hunter Biden's laptop, claiming it was "leaked" but allowed discussions of leaked things that they deemed harmed Trump and Co. All the heads of social media claimed: "we made a mistake" when in front of Congress. The mistakes kept happening. Project Veritas showed that those were not "mistakes" or "accidents" but intentional. One liberal admitted knowing that Trump's account was not to be banned, but he did it anyway.

Twitter told the family that they would not remove the kiddie porn because it did not violate their TOS. Twitter only removed it because Homeland Security got involved.

I am admittedly not familiar with this specific case, but in general, Twitter's finding that an instance that you (and, presumably others) found offensive and labeled kiddie porn did not violate their ToS does not follow that they therefore allow kiddie porn.

When the officer sitting on the side of the road lets 100 cars go by - all of whom are speeding - and he then chooses to pull YOU over for speeding, the fact that he chose to ignore the other speeders does not mean the speeding was legal. Nor is he required to ticket every speeder to validate your speeding ticket.

Selective enforcement does not invalidate the law (or, in this case, the ToS of Twitter).

If that doesn't sound FAIR, let me tell you the same thing I taught my children as they were growing up:

Life isn't fair - and anyone who tells you it is, should be, or could be, is flat-out lying to you!

@bi4smooth

Twitter requires that your posts follow liberal ideological rules or face banning.

hyperbole, anyone?
Beuler?

That isn't the purpose/intent of 230.

No, the purpose of Section 230 is to shield the owners of "public forums" and other kinds of social media from being sued or harassed - as the owner of the forum - for the postings (actions) of its subscribers.

For what its worth, Section 230 has absolutely nothing to do with censorship!

I do love that you are, in your own eye at least, more of an expert in Section 230 than lawyers, politicians, and others.

Again, no - just (apparently) more than you

@gerggently

You're an idiot.

I'm not the one here repeatedly lying.

I have to question if you still have the coat hanger in your head.

Incisive commentary there.

You admit that just because Twitter wrote some shit down, that they don't have to follow it.

Nope.

Twitter told this family that kiddie porn does not violate their TOS and refused to remove it. Twitter only removed it once Homeland Security got involved.

No, you said that "Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS". Try reading your own words.

The fact that you have such a pathological need to fight me over this says volumes about you.

I'm correcting you.

Twitter totally disregarded their own TOS on kiddie porn, but for some reason you need to fight me over this, claiming I am a liar.

I have proven you're a liar.

EDIT: Looking at this discussion, I'm not sure if you are special needs or simply a troll.

Merely someone who prefers accuracy more than you clearly do.

You're an idiot.

I have to question if you still have the coat hanger in your head.

You admit that just because Twitter wrote some shit down, that they don't have to follow it.

Twitter told this family that kiddie porn does not violate their TOS and refused to remove it. Twitter only removed it once Homeland Security got involved.

The fact that you have such a pathological need to fight me over this says volumes about you.

Twitter totally disregarded their own TOS on kiddie porn, but for some reason you need to fight me over this, claiming I am a liar.

EDIT: Looking at this discussion, I'm not sure if you are special needs or simply a troll.

@gerggently

I did not lie.

You did, even after multiple corrections.

Twitter told the family that they would not remove the kiddie porn because it did not violate their TOS. Twitter only removed it because Homeland Security got involved.

An indivdual incident does not invalidate Twitter ToS.

"Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS" was your statement.

That is the truth, but you call it a lie because you are mentally ill.

I call a repeated lie a 'lie'. Yes.

I did not lie.

Twitter told the family that they would not remove the kiddie porn because it did not violate their TOS. Twitter only removed it because Homeland Security got involved.

That is the truth, but you call it a lie because you are mentally ill.

@gerggently

Yet, you are full of crap.

I'm not the one who lied about Twitter ToS.

Twitter said that kiddie porn does not violate their TOS and refused to remove it until Homeland Security got involved.

"Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS"

Yet I have proven this wrong with reference to their terms. You're lying.

Your crack headed liberal mental gymnastics won't change that fact.

Nothing you have said has invalidated Twitter ToS.

Yet, you are full of crap.

Twitter said that kiddie porn does not violate their TOS and refused to remove it until Homeland Security got involved.

Your crack headed liberal mental gymnastics won't change that fact.

@gerggently

Did twitter tell this family that they won't remove the kiddie porn because it doesn't violate their TOs in this case?

Irrelevant to your false statement.

If so, you are an ass clown that needs to fight.

I'm still here correcting you on your false claim that "Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS".

Did twitter tell this family that they won't remove the kiddie porn because it doesn't violate their TOs in this case?

If so, you are an ass clown that needs to fight.

Twitter requires that your posts follow liberal ideological rules or face banning.

That isn't the purpose/intent of 230.

I do love that you are, in your own eye at least, more of an expert in Section 230 than lawyers, politicians, and others.

@gerggently

AGAIN, since you are special needs.

Just because it is written down, does not mean that they follow their own rules.

AGAIN

I never said it did.

I said that Twitter says that kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS and in the case I mentioned, I am 100% right. Twitter's stance in that case is that kiddie porn does not violate their TOS.

No, you said that "Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS". Nothing else, no qualifiers. Don't lie.

I know you are too stupid to understand that.

I'm not the one who is defending a lie they've been caught up badly on.

AGAIN, since you are special needs.

Just because it is written down, does not mean that they follow their own rules.

I said that Twitter says that kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS and in the case I mentioned, I am 100% right. Twitter's stance in that case is that kiddie porn does not violate their TOS.

I know you are too stupid to understand that.

@gerggently

Yet, Twitter told that family that they would not remove it because it didn't violate their TOS.

What Twitter did in an individual case does not constitute a revocation of their ToS.

GOT IT?! Of course, you don't because you're a liberal.

My outlook has nothing to do with the fact that your statement was false, and I proved it.

It's funny that you feel the need to fight me over this when Twitter's actions are extremely disgusting in this case.

I'm not fighting with you, I'm correcting you.

Are you saying I would be totally within my right to ban you and the rest of the swamp monster?

YES! This is a "private" server! You actually DO ban people on this site - regularly! For violating your terms of service (e.g.: not having multiple accounts). If you want to ban me (or delete my posts), you are within your rights to do so! (If I understand the ownership of this site, @joker is the actual owner, although you are an administrator. If you are not a paid employee of the site owner (person or corporation), you may not be protected -- I'd want to look that up! LOL)

Twitter has set rules for what is allowed and what is not allowed, as a publisher would do.

No, publishers EDIT and CHOOSE content BEFORE it is published.
That was my example earlier:

• IF Twitter required that you submit your tweets for their approval, THEN they would become a publisher.
• Fox News is responsible (liable) for anything that they publish on their website, FoxNews.com... FYI: Fox News is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems for libel because they posted falsehoods about them on their site. They have no Section 230 protection for the edited (e.g.: published) parts of their site! They are claiming other protections, but that is another discussion...
• Fox News is not responsible for anything that readers post in the comment section of their website (I don't know if you can comment on FoxNews.com, but you get the idea). That content is protected under Section 230! The posters are "3rd parties")
• However, the actual people who post content are themselves potentially liable: Section 230 only provides legal coverage for the site-owner! (So, if Rudy Giuliani posted falsehoods about Dominion Voting Systems on the Fox News site - as a "reader comment" - he could be held liable, but FoxNews.com would be protected by Section 230. *That may be a bad example, because I don't know if Rudy is paid by Fox News - if he is, then both he AND FoxNews.com share liability for libel claims against them.)

Ironically enough, Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS, but saying "but they aren't women, though" does violate their TOS.

I honestly don't know anything about Twitter's TOS - I'm not a subscriber.

What does it say about you that you are defending them.

It says I understand the protections of Section 230 better than you do? LOL

Yet, Twitter told that family that they would not remove it because it didn't violate their TOS.

GOT IT?! Of course, you don't because you're a liberal.

It's funny that you feel the need to fight me over this when Twitter's actions are extremely disgusting in this case.