BREAKING: Twitter Censors Trump By Completely Removing His Tweets For First Time - The Donald - America First

submitted by christnmusicreleases from (thedonald.win)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]justcool393 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

side note related to the users in the thread:

why do people actually want Section 230 removed? like... that'd make every site owner liable for anyone some idiot says on there. if some guy threatens to shoot up a place or something on <your favorite website here that has a commenting feature>, the site owner shouldn't be liable for that stuff.

removing section 230 protections would basically require either

a) multitudes of whole websites to shut down completely, especially those in which controversial viewpoints are discussed, which is way more egregious censorship than Twitter trendbanning some people.

b) every piece of content to be humanly moderated and the operator would have to be absolutely perfect at it. as an example, I don't want saidit taken offline because someone posted or commented something libelous or someone issued a threat of violence or something.

I think Twitter can be eyerollworthy at the times I choose to visit but I don't want this to happen. because the day that Twitter is declared a "publisher" is the day that Trump and pretty much everyone that has any bit of controversy at all are kicked off.

[–]Trajan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

This is a post that should be read by anybody thinking that messing with 230 is the solution. 230 is why sites like Saidit are feasible to operate in the US. Does anybody seriously believe that either party would modify 230 to favour freedom of expression? No, it’ll be geared towards corporate and governmental interests.

[–]One_Jack_Move 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm totally willing to sacrifice Saidit if it means more freedom of expression on the net. But I agree, the politicians aren't going to do shit.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I’m afraid we’d see far less freedom of expression. Everybody who operates a site would be liable for comments and content posed by users. Only companies with deep pockets and the ability to screen would be feasible. It’d be as if the entire Internet were a particularly censorious AOL.

230 is the best thing that ever happened to the Internet.

[–]One_Jack_Move 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Couldn't websites just not censor content at all? Except for illegal stuff of course.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The situation on illegal acts won’t really change. Sites like Facebook are liable if they don’t take reasonable steps to prevent criminal activity. The difference is that without 230 there is no inherent protection against civil suits. If you libel somebody on Facebook then it would be as if they were a publisher. The same would apply to sites like Saidit, Kiwi Farms, or BitChute.

As much as I despise social media, I don’t need to use them or care about what they do. I have alternatives. I’d like to keep them.