https://www.facebook.com/Theconservativelatina/photos/a.355383218225181/1070078010089028/

good thing no one here voted for her...

The libertarian party has turned into the smelly kid in the corner eating paste.

The libertarian party has turned into the smelly kid in the corner eating paste.

I thought those were called "Independents?" 

https://www.facebook.com/Theconservativelatina/photos/a.355383218225181/1070078010089028/

good thing no one here voted for her...

Wait what?  She is correct.  A private corporation can show any amount of bias they want.  They are legally protected to free speech and judged as individuals according to the supreme court.  Are yall crazy?  I think Flapp you been eating too much paste.

There is no one in the world that is truly un-biased.   Much less social media.  I think they should be less biased.  But they technically have every right to be.

The libertarian party has turned into the smelly kid in the corner eating paste.

I thought those were called "Independents?" 

   

I think you mean republicans.   So much for free speech and corporations are people.   That was a good run. 

Wait what?  She is correct.  A private corporation can show any amount of bias they want.  They are legally protected to free speech and judged as individuals according to the supreme court.  Are yall crazy?  I think Flapp you been eating too much paste.

There is no one in the world that is truly un-biased.   Much less social media.  I think they should be less biased.  But they technically have every right to be.

There are 2 words that separates fb from having the 1a behind them. I cant remember but basically as soon as they started to control info, theyre no longer protected by the 1a. The subject came up when sites like ssh is able to edit comments and kitv or other media fb edits their comments.

Someone help me out here.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

There are 2 words that separates fb from having the 1a behind them. I cant remember but basically as soon as they started to control info, theyre no longer protected by the 1a. The subject came up when sites like ssh is able to edit comments and kitv or other media fb edits their comments.

Someone help me out here.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

section 230

There are 2 words that separates fb from having the 1a behind them. I cant remember but basically as soon as they started to control info, theyre no longer protected by the 1a. The subject came up when sites like ssh is able to edit comments and kitv or other media fb edits their comments.

Someone help me out here.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Section 230 provides immunity to social media companies like Facebook and Twitter against being sued over the content on their site. This allows them to operate and flourish without needing to moderate content.

The term used for what Twitter and FB are "supposed" to operate as is "platform".  That means they are not responsible for the content others post, and they only censor material that breaches the site's Terms of Service (ToS).

However, since Twitter, FB and other social media sites have started EDITING and censoring some content and not others, even though they both contain similar materials, they are no longer a platform. They fall under the category "publisher."

Since Section 230 of the FCC regulations protect platforms from being sued, they enjoy a special government protection.  That means they must adhere to the standards that apply to a platform.

Once their biases come out, and they begin to sensor this and allow that -- for the most part only differentiated by the politics of the users posting and sharing it, they become editors and "publishers". That means they no longer have protection against lawsuits for the material shared, and any credibility as a "public square" for ideas is shot to hell.

These same sites were used by foreign entities to "interfere in a Presidential Election."  What do they call what  FB and Twitter are doing now on their own? 

In 2012, it was estimated that 70% of adults get their news from Social Media rather than news sites and television.  If YouTube is included, which I think it is by way of Google owning it, I'm sure that number has risen greatly.  That makes Social Media capable of determining who will be the next President by censoring one candidate and promoting another.

This is not a free speech issue.  It's a private sector monopoly being taken over by one political faction used to replace the formerly free press.

Section 230 provides immunity to social media companies like Facebook and Twitter against being sued over the content on their site. This allows them to operate and flourish without needing to moderate content.

The term used for what Twitter and FB are "supposed" to operate as is "platform".  That means they are not responsible for the content others post, and they only censor material that breaches the site's Terms of Service (ToS).

However, since Twitter, FB and other social media sites have started EDITING and censoring some content and not others, even though they both contain similar materials, they are no longer a platform. They fall under the category "publisher."

Since Section 230 of the FCC regulations protect platforms from being sued, they enjoy a special government protection.  That means they must adhere to the standards that apply to a platform.

Once their biases come out, and they begin to sensor this and allow that -- for the most part only differentiated by the politics of the users posting and sharing it, they become editors and "publishers". That means they no longer have protection against lawsuits for the material shared, and any credibility as a "public square" for ideas is shot to hell.

These same sites were used by foreign entities to "interfere in a Presidential Election."  What do they call what  FB and Twitter are doing now on their own? 

In 2012, it was estimated that 70% of adults get their news from Social Media rather than news sites and television.  If YouTube is included, which I think it is by way of Google owning it, I'm sure that number has risen greatly.  That makes Social Media capable of determining who will be the next President by censoring one candidate and promoting another.

This is not a free speech issue.  It's a private sector monopoly being taken over by one political faction used to replace the formerly free press.

Section 230 says that "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" (47 U.S.C. § 230)

Are they really editing?  From what I gather they are deleting and filtering posts and that's not editing.  Unless proven otherwise I don't see then going into peoples posts and changing content to appear that someone else is saying it.   Deleting what deem illegal or wrong is within their prerogative.  They have not crossed the line.  Social media has conservatives leaning parts are they also wrong?  Not all social media is liberal.  Its a very slippery slope,  the same logic could ban this place. 

Section 230 says that "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" (47 U.S.C. § 230)

Are they really editing?  From what I gather they are deleting and filtering posts and that's not editing.  Unless proven otherwise I don't see then going into peoples posts and changing content to appear that someone else is saying it.   Deleting what deem illegal or wrong is within their prerogative.  They have not crossed the line.  Social media has conservatives leaning parts are they also wrong?  Not all social media is liberal.  Its a very slippery slope,  the same logic could ban this place.

OMFG.  Why do you always have to argue semantics?    And you're in IT?

Look at your favorite MS Office App, and look under the "edit" menu:  Cut, Copy, Paste, Delete. 

An editor of a single document might DELETE an entire paragraph.  An editor of an online Social Media site might delete an entire post.  It's all part of editing.

I can't believe your brain works that way.

Nobody is saying what they are deleting breaks the law.  Why would you even imply we said that?

We are saying they must adhere to Section 230 requirements.  If they don't then they don't get Section 230 protections and are liable for the content they allow to be accessed.

What if they only allowed untrue items to be seen and censored true posts?  Does that warrant protection from lawsuits?

OMFG.  Why do you always have to argue semantics?    And you're in IT?

Look at your favorite MS Office App, and look under the "edit" menu:  Cut, Copy, Paste, Delete. 

An editor of a single document might DELETE an entire paragraph.  An editor of an online Social Media site might delete an entire post.  It's all part of editing.

I can't believe your brain works that way.

Nobody is saying what they are deleting breaks the law.  Why would you even imply we said that?

We are saying they must adhere to Section 230 requirements.  If they don't then they don't get Section 230 protections and are liable for the content they allow to be accessed.

What if they only allowed untrue items to be seen and censored true posts?  Does that warrant protection from lawsuits?

Do you have any examples of what they "delete" that are legal.

this whole argument has devolved into 1984

Do you have any examples of what they "delete" that are legal.

FB, Teitter, .... ?

FB, Teitter, .... ?

Yes specifically what things they deleted that were legal.   

It doesnt matter what they delete. Once they start doing so, they are no longer a platform (sec 230 protects them). They are now a publisher.

A few members here had their comments removed by kitv and hnn. We had this conversation b4. And again when trump signed the xo about publishers/platforms.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

It doesnt matter what they delete. Once they start doing so, they are no longer a platform (sec 230 protects them). They are now a publisher.

A few members here had their comments removed by kitv and hnn. We had this conversation b4. And again when trump signed the xo about publishers/platforms.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 I don't belive kitv and hnn are social media.  Aren't they literally publishers? I'm not talking about them.  I'm talking about fb and Twitter. Etc

I don't belive kitv and hnn are social media.  Aren't they literally publishers? I'm not talking about them.  I'm talking about fb and Twitter. Etc

Shadow banning, deleted profiles, etc...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Shadow banning, deleted profiles, etc...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Shadow Banning is rumors and more ai algorithm based.  And deleting profiles from what I can find is inconclusive. They might of violetated rules etc.

For someone who is into "freedom" and "defending 2a rights", maybe they can be reminded that such platforms are censoring and deleting firearms content, you know, because feelings and "safety". 

I don't belive kitv and hnn are social media.  Aren't they literally publishers? I'm not talking about them.  I'm talking about fb and Twitter. Etc

literally? Like honestly? Explain how does AI work with censoring?