Fixing the internet by THG

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Fixing the internet

POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Thursday, September 26, 2024 19:11
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 441
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, September 17, 2024 7:03 PM

A Terms of Service agreement is a legal document that helps you set out the rules and guidelines that your users or visitors must agree to in order to use your website or app. It helps to limit your legal liability while maintaining control over your platform. May 12, 2024

A legitimate terms of service agreement is legally binding and may be subject to change. Companies can enforce the terms by refusing service. Customers can enforce by filing a lawsuit or arbitration case if they can show they were actually harmed by a breach of the terms.

Terms of service should include user rights and responsibilities. The ToS should also be transparent about all activities of the service that have significance for users, such as details of what the service does with user data as well as how the service maintains user privacy and security.

There you have it. We, our government, will sue them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 17, 2024 7:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
A Terms of Service agreement is a legal document that helps you set out the rules and guidelines that your users or visitors must agree to in order to use your website or app. It helps to limit your legal liability while maintaining control over your platform. May 12, 2024

A legitimate terms of service agreement is legally binding and may be subject to change. Companies can enforce the terms by refusing service. Customers can enforce by filing a lawsuit or arbitration case if they can show they were actually harmed by a breach of the terms.

Terms of service should include user rights and responsibilities. The ToS should also be transparent about all activities of the service that have significance for users, such as details of what the service does with user data as well as how the service maintains user privacy and security.

There you have it. We, our government, will sue them.

In particular, who are you referring to?

I believe yesterday I heard a statistic that if every human adult were to have taken the time to read and understand every contract they've signed by clicking on "I Agree", it would take nearly 2 years out of their lives.

That shit needs to stop. We don't need to be signing 80 page documents to sign up for an email account or set up our bank accounts online.

On top of that, no company should ever be given the ability to "upgrade" those terms whenever they feel like it and force you to abide them when it's not what you originally agreed to.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 17, 2024 7:41 PM

Apples and Oranges. An agreement was made. For lack of a more enlightened way of saying it, it was agreed that those with platforms, like YouTube, X, would police what they allowed to be on their platforms. A reference point would be, you cannot burn a cross on your property because it is considered hate speech. They have not honored their agreement, so it is time to take em to court.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 17, 2024 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Apples and Oranges. An agreement was made. For lack of a more enlightened way of saying it, it was agreed that those with platforms, like YouTube, X, would police what they allowed to be on their platforms. A reference point would be, you cannot burn a cross on your property because it is considered hate speech. They have not honored their agreement, so it is time to take em to court.

T

Oh. I see. You were coming at this issue from a pro-censorship Democrat angle. You weren't worried about people signing their lives away to Chinese corporations to watch TikTok videos or buy cheap shit on TEMU.

My mistake.

Section 230 protects YouTube and X. The US Government can't do anything about it.

The only time they aren't protected is when they make themselves publishers, rather than platforms. This is behavior that outfits that are run by Left Wing people with an agenda engage in constantly. Silencing opinions from anybody who doesn't agree with the current Establishment narrative makes you a Publisher, and revokes your Section 230 shield. This is the behavior that Twitter engaged in every day on behalf of Democrats while Trump was President and at the behest of the Biden* administration after 2020.

Out of the two companies now. Google would have the most to worry about since they still currently do actively engage in censorship for the Left, but it is nowhere near as heavy-handed as it was at Twitter before Musk bought it.

In the meantime, I keep hearing about how dangerous people who vote for Trump are going to be, yet all of these recent school shootings have been committed by transgendered left-wingers, you've tried to kill Trump not once, but twice before an election, and unchecked immigration has made every major metropolitan area in the country dangerous.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 17, 2024 8:25 PM

Also...

The ONLY things that companies who are shielded by Section 230 protections are required to dump resources into keeping off their platforms, because children engage on those platforms, is sex stuff... and obviously CP. Also, unless the site is not intended for children, there shall be no videos showing excessive violence or actual murders/executions. I'm sure people try uploading these things to these sites all the time, but at least from my experience, I don't ever see any content in these two categories on either site. Occasionally I have seen uncensored videos of guys shooting somebody who was trying to rob their store or restaurant, but if you ever want to see that again you'd better download it fast because the bots will find it and remove it.

Secondary to that would be reporting anyone to the authorities who were actively recruiting people and setting up meetings to get together with the intent to physically harm anybody.

That is IT. Period.

Anybody who is arguing that speech they don't agree with gets censored is one of the bad guys. It doesn't matter what the reason is.

There is no justification for censorship. You don't get to say you live in a free society when every adult in that society has their beliefs silenced, or even worse... they get punished for even trying to express them.

We can NEVER allow either "side" to criminalize speech in any form.

That's what China does, Ted. It's what Russia does.

And when I first signed up to this site and started ripping GWB and his administrations asses to shreds, it was the Republican Party that was trying to gain that power. I don't trust Republicans at all. But it's not their "side" that's blatantly trying to take that power in 2024. They're very happy to let the Democrats hold the football for a while on this one while they take a break. They're all getting in line to vote for Kamala as we speak.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 17, 2024 8:37 PM

Gavin Newsom signs election ‘deepfake’ ban in rebuke to Elon Musk

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the country’s toughest law banning digitally altered political “deepfakes” on Tuesday, following through on a vow to act after rebuking Elon Musk for sharing a doctored video of Vice President Kamala Harris.

The new California law — which will take effect before the November election — channels rising alarm about artificial intelligence’s capacity to disrupt elections by sowing misinformation, with voters increasingly confronted with deepfake images and audio impersonating candidates. Musk, who owns X, stoked that debate when he shared the AI-altered video of Harris in July, drawing Newsom’s public promise to prohibit similar practices.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 17, 2024 8:40 PM

You’re probably seeing more social media propaganda, but don’t blame the bots

Bots commonly shoulder the blame for social media propaganda, but a recent study out of the U.K. suggests not only that organized political misinformation campaigns have more than doubled in the last two years, but that bots take second place to human-run manipulation.

The Global Disinformation Order study, conducted by the University of Oxford, found evidence of social media manipulation by a government agency or political party in 70 countries, an increase from 48 in 2018 and 28 in 2017. The study has been collecting data annually since 2017, but suggests political propaganda has leveraged social media for the last decade.

The study, co-authored by Samantha Bradshaw and Phillip N. Howard, tallies up reports from around the world on cyber troops, defined as “government or political party actors tasked with manipulating public opinion online.” While the report focuses on propaganda that can be traced back to a government agency, politician, or political parties, the researchers found formal coordination with private communication firms, and in more than 40% of the countries, civic organizations and citizens.

Much of propaganda is created by actual people: 87% of the countries use human accounts compared to the 80% of countries using bots. In some cases, the study even identified countries hiring student or youth groups for computational propaganda, including Russia and Israel.

The increase in countries with organized misinformation is likely partially an increase in activity but is also inflated by the increasing ability to detect such activity. “The number of cases we identified was the most surprising thing about this year’s study. Partially, the growth has to do with more state actors seeing social media as a tool of geopolitical power,” Bradshaw, study co-author and researcher at the Computational Propaganda Project, told Digital Trends. “But not all of the cases were new, per se. Many were older examples that were uncovered by journalists and other independent researchers, who are now equipped with better tools and a better vocabulary for identifying instances of computational propaganda in their own country context.”

This year, the researchers also identified a new category of accounts used for manipulation — in addition to human accounts, bot accounts, and “cyborg” accounts that use both, 7% of the countries hacked or stole real accounts to use in their campaigns. Guatemala, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Uzbekistan were among the countries using hacked or stolen accounts.

More than half of the countries with evidence of political propaganda — 45 out of 70 — used the tactics during the elections. Among those examples, the study suggests, are politicians with fake followers, targeted ads using manipulated media, and micro-targeting.

So what type of information are the campaigns using? Attacking political opposition was the most widespread, in 89% of the countries, followed by spreading pro-government or pro-party propaganda and 34% spreading information designed to create division.

While nearly 75% used tactics like memes, fake news, and videos, the tactics also fell under more covert types of manipulation beyond the media that’s shared. About 68% used state-sponsored trolls to attack opponents, such as journalists and activists. Many also used the reporting tools to censor speech, hoping the automated process will remove the content that doesn’t violate any platform rules. Another 73% percent of the countries flood hashtags in order to make a message more widespread.

Most of the cyber troop activity remains on the biggest social network, Facebook, but the researchers saw an increase in campaigns on platforms focused on photos and video, including Instagram and YouTube. The researchers also saw increased activity on WhatsApp.

The United States ranked among the “high cyber troop capacity” group, which indicates a full-time operation with a big budget focusing on both domestic and foreign propaganda. The report suggests the U.S. uses disinformation, data, and artificial amplification of content from human, bot, and cyborg (or mixed human-bot) accounts. The study also showed evidence the U.S. used all five messaging categories included in the study: Support, attack the opposition, distract, driving divisions, and suppression.

Bradshaw says that social media companies should do more to create a better place to connect and discuss politics. “Determining whether a post is part of a manipulation campaign is no easy task. It often requires looking at broad trends across social media and the conversation that is taking place about a particular topic,” she said.

While Bradshaw says detecting misinformation shouldn’t be left solely to the user, some misinformation can be picked up by looking for accounts that post in multiple languages, conducting reverse image searches, and using free online tools to detect automated accounts.

The 2019 study highlights changes in political propaganda that existed long before the internet, but has likely been leveraging social media for a decade. The study authors end the report with a question: "Are social media platforms really creating a space for public deliberation and democracy? Or are they amplifying content that keeps citizens addicted, disinformed, and angry?”

If you can read this, and yes understand it, and still believe we should do nothing to protect ourselves from this, then there is no hope for you.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 17, 2024 8:49 PM

Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 17, 2024 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

T

They're not absolute.

But they are a LOT stronger than your legacy media would like them to be.

They should have all stayed the fuck off of YouTube and stopped trying to ruin it for everyone else. The internet was so much better in the 2000's than it is today.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 17, 2024 10:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
If you can read this, and yes understand it, and still believe we should do nothing to protect ourselves from this, then there is no hope for you.

You post clickbait and propaganda every day, Ted.

I don't call for anybody to ban any of it. I just shame you for it.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 1:29 AM

All I'm telling you is that I'm sure the NeoCons and the Bush Administration would have loved to have what you're hoping is going to happen, happen.

And if your Democrats are successful passing any of it, those NeoCons that are all voting for Kamala Harris will be more than happy to use that when they're back in power. And so will Raytheon.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 3:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

I may be splitting hairs, but platforms don't CREATE content. They only host it. AFA intellectual property claims ... this is a platform. You would hold Haken responsible for the copyrighted material that gets posted here?

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Americans support America

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 4:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hillary wants to criminalize free speech.

Quote:
Hillary Clinton Calls for Prosecutions, Lawsuits Against Americans Who Spread ‘Disinformation’

The Justice Department has alleged that a number of conservative influencers were unwitting tools of a Russian propaganda campaign.

The Kings (and Queens) of England had well-developed reactions to opposition: If you threatened to create any sort of opposition movement, you were hung. It didn't matter if you were a lowly peasant; the Crown had spies and informers eveywhere.

That's where our nursery rhymes came from: they are actually coded protests. "Jack Sprat could eat no fat, His wife could eat no lean" was actually protest against rapacious taxes.

Every time a New World colonist grumbled against the East India Company, or taxes, or the King of England, they could have been arrested for sedition.

In creating a Republic, the Founding Fathers (some of them, anyway) thought long snd hard about how NOT to recreate the same tyranny that existed in England, and their first remedy was FREEDOM OF SPEECH- the right to openly criticize the government.

It doesn't matter if what someone says is right, or wrong, or if their opinion rhymes with somebody else's somewhere else. In fact some of the FF's best ideas opinions came from the French enlightenment. (I'm sure the King of England considered it treason. )

Anybody who doesn't understand how fundamental freedom of speech is to liberty really doesn't understand what America is all about. Anyone who promotes government censorship doesn't deserve citizenship. If they really like censorship that much, maybe they should move to N Korea.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Americans support America

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 4:41 AM

from a prediction thread

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Trump says (but who knows if he means it) that he will veto the defense bill unless 230 is terminated:

Donald J. Trump AT realDonaldTrump
Very sadly for our Nation, it looks like Senator
AT
JimInhofe
will not be putting the Section 230 termination clause into the Defense Bill. So bad for our National Security and Election Integrity. Last chance to ever get it done. I will VETO!
10:37 PM · Dec 3, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1334718387583377408

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 8:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

JAYNZE, a more objective commet

Quote:
But there is opposition to the law from across the political spectrum: both Trump and President-Elect Joe Biden have called for the repeal of Section 230. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has called the law a “gift” to the tech industry that could be taken away. Wyden, now a senator, has said that tech companies have not done enough to get rid of “slime” online.

To many Democrats, the law allows tech companies to avoid doing more to combat hate speech and disinformation online. To Trump and some other Republicans, it shields them from consequences for censoring conservative voices.

So.
Dems call for censorship.
Trump is against selective censorship by corporations.

The ironic thing, freedom of speech allows people (like you) to lie about public figures (like Trump).
Freedom of speech allows Hillary to advocate against freedom of speech.
And some boneheaded law clerk decided back in 1880 that corporations have the same "rights" as people.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Americans support America

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

I may be splitting hairs, but platforms don't CREATE content. They only host it. AFA intellectual property claims ... this is a platform. You would hold Haken responsible for the copyrighted material that gets posted here?

Bingo. There you go.

Imagine Haken, who has kept this site up years beyond its actual usefulness to anybody besides half a dozen people gets thrown in prison for 20 years and has to pay $500k in fines for all of the pirated movies, TV shows, books and comic books that Second has posted here.

That's not going to happen, because he's protected by 230.

My only concern is that if anybody did have a problem with it and if Haken ever got a letter from a lawfirm about all of the pirate links that Second posted everywhere, Haken is just going to shut the site down. He's not going to take the time to pour through every post that was ever made here to remove pirate links. Chances are, there are many other pirate links from the early days posted by a lot of people.

Just because he's protected, doesn't mean that somebody couldn't take him to court. Court is expensive and court eats up a lot of your life. Unless that was a hill that Haken was willing to die on, my guess is that this site just goes black for the last time overnight.

Also, with your definition of what a platform is above, this is how a company can change from a platform to a publisher by choosing which content it will allow people to post and which content it won't based off of political ideology. At that point it has an active hand in the process of what information is put on display. Then it loses its 230 shield.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And some boneheaded law clerk decided back in 1880 that corporations have the same "rights" as people.

That is one of the worst decisions our country has ever made.

One that I almost never hear anybody mention at all.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
from a prediction thread

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Trump says (but who knows if he means it) that he will veto the defense bill unless 230 is terminated:

Donald J. Trump AT realDonaldTrump
Very sadly for our Nation, it looks like Senator
AT
JimInhofe
will not be putting the Section 230 termination clause into the Defense Bill. So bad for our National Security and Election Integrity. Last chance to ever get it done. I will VETO!
10:37 PM · Dec 3, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1334718387583377408

I had a whole thread about this one. It wasn't the only thing I disagree with Trump on over the years, but it was by far the thing I disagreed with the most.

See how Ted and the people he supports would be a whole lot happier about their control over the flow of information had Trump signed that for them? I do hope Trump has educated himself a bit about the issue or puts some younger, tech-savvy people in his cabinet that can advise him on these things.

I don't trust ANYBODY over the age of 50 to be making any laws regarding the internet. These people have no clue what they're even legislating.

Personally, I think that Section 230 was a happy accident that went in our favor only because the old people in congress that passed it didn't realize how much it protected free speech and what problems that might cause their never-ending quest for absolute power down the road.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

I may be splitting hairs, but platforms don't CREATE content. They only host it. AFA intellectual property claims ... this is a platform. You would hold Haken responsible for the copyrighted material that gets posted here?

I don't know but, Fox news had to pay dominion $787.5M million-dollar fine for spreading lies and propaganda.

Alex Jones same thing for Sandy Hook. It was determined what he was saying was harmful to others. Again, I don't know.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
I don't know but, Fox news had to pay an 800 million dollar fine due in large part to Tucker Carlson spreading lies and propaganda. They are about to be fined another billion for lying about the voting machines.

Alex Jones same thing for Sandy Hook. It was determined what he was saying was harmful to others. Again, I don't know.

Right. You don't know.

Fox News and Info Wars would both be considered publishers.

It's really not that hard a concept to understand, but I do realize that mental blocks can get in the way. I'm trying to understand why you don't appear to be grasping the nuances of this issue.

If we were to make it so difficult for any social media platform to keep going without completely whitewashing everything so only the people in the government and media can decide on any given day what can and cannot be said, then free speech is dead.

Think of this site specifically. There wasn't even expensive AI back when this site was created. Any policing done anywhere online was done manually by other human beings. If the rules were set up back in 2002 in a way that you are proposing would "fix" the internet now, there would never have been any political discussions on this platform whatsoever. No RWED.

And Haken would have either needed to find a lot of volunteers or paid people to scour the new posts daily to remove any links to pirated content.

My guess is that this site as well as tens of thousands of other niche websites that were made for various fanbases and interests would never have been created in the first place because of the potential that you could lose everything because of what somebody else said on your website.

And to play Devil's Advocate, I'm also worried about AI and deepfakes and TRUE misinformation. By all means... that actually IS one of the things that our Government is charged with combating. So do it. Go after people from foreign nations that are putting out bad info and hold them accountable.

But do not EVER allow them to tell you what you can and cannot say as an individual. The moment you give them that power they're going to start telling you that a lot of the ideas that you have aren't allowed either.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 5:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

I may be splitting hairs, but platforms don't CREATE content. They only host it. AFA intellectual property claims ... this is a platform. You would hold Haken responsible for the copyrighted material that gets posted here?

I don't know but, Fox news had to pay dominion $787.5M million-dollar fine for spreading lies and propaganda.

Alex Jones same thing for Sandy Hook. It was determined what he was saying was harmful to others. Again, I don't know.

T

HOUSTON (AP) — Bombastic conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been ordered to liquidate his personal assets as he owes $1.5 billion for his false claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which killed 20 first graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, was a hoax.

But the immediate future of his Infowars media platform,

https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook-0
c3576e3c4bd853ac2cc5342118fca8c

Oh look Jack. It says media platform. Well, what do ya know? And his show was on the internet. Go figure...

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

I may be splitting hairs, but platforms don't CREATE content. They only host it. AFA intellectual property claims ... this is a platform. You would hold Haken responsible for the copyrighted material that gets posted here?

I don't know but, Fox news had to pay dominion $787.5M million-dollar fine for spreading lies and propaganda.

Alex Jones same thing for Sandy Hook. It was determined what he was saying was harmful to others. Again, I don't know.

T

HOUSTON (AP) — Bombastic conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been ordered to liquidate his personal assets as he owes $1.5 billion for his false claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which killed 20 first graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, was a hoax.

But the immediate future of his Infowars media platform,

https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook-0
c3576e3c4bd853ac2cc5342118fca8c

Oh look Jack. It says media platform. Well, what do ya know? And his show was on the internet. Go figure...

T

AP misspoke. I can throw more than a few possible reasons why they would have done that, but we could just call it a simple misnomer and human error. Or maybe since this wasn't specifically an article about Section 230, they didn't bother to make the proper distinction.

Info Wars is a Publisher. Info Wars is not a Platform. This is an objective fact.

Now... If they have a comment section at Info Wars, there's a great chance that the comment section portion of the site was protected under Section 230. At least I hope it is. I would hope that was the case for all Media outfits and local news organizations that allow for public discourse to take place. I wouldn't even want New York Times to ever get in deep shit for things that users on their sites say in the comment section. In a future where news agencies can get sued for a $100 Million because of something that you or I said on there, that's the immediate end of any of them allowing comment sections overnight, and we're going right back to a time when information was a one-way exchange over TV and radio with zero input from people without the power and the money.

But the news portion, which is 99% of Info Wars' website is all published work, in written, audio and video format, which is created by paid employees of a company with a mission statement and an agenda, just like all the other media outlets are.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

I may be splitting hairs, but platforms don't CREATE content. They only host it. AFA intellectual property claims ... this is a platform. You would hold Haken responsible for the copyrighted material that gets posted here?

I don't know but, Fox news had to pay dominion $787.5M million-dollar fine for spreading lies and propaganda.

Alex Jones same thing for Sandy Hook. It was determined what he was saying was harmful to others. Again, I don't know.

T

HOUSTON (AP) — Bombastic conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been ordered to liquidate his personal assets as he owes $1.5 billion for his false claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which killed 20 first graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, was a hoax.

But the immediate future of his Infowars media platform,

https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook-0
c3576e3c4bd853ac2cc5342118fca8c

Oh look Jack. It says media platform. Well, what do ya know? And his show was on the internet. Go figure...

T

AP Misspoke. I can throw more than a few possible reasons why they would have done that, but we could just call it a simple misnomer and human error. Or maybe since this wasn't specifically an article about Section 230, they didn't bother to make the proper distinction.

Info Wars is a Publisher. Info Wars is not a Platform. This is an objective fact.

Now... If they have a comment section at Info Wars, there's a great chance that the comment section portion of the site was protected under Section 230. At least I hope it is. I would hope that was the case for all Media outfits and local news organizations that allow for public discourse to take place. I wouldn't even want New York Times to ever get in deep shit for things that users on their sites say in the comment section.

But the news portion, which is 99% of Info Wars' website is all published work, in written, audio and video format, which is created by employees of a company with a mission statement and an agenda, just like all the other media outlets are.

Like I said. Section 230 does not protect anyone if what they do is harmful to others. I.E. Alex Jones and Sandy Hook. Just like I said Jack. An internet platform is an internet platform. All Media outlets are held accountable if what they report was harmful to others and done with malice. This shit with the internet is relatively new so it is learn as you go. And remember, we have other countries spreading bullshit in an attempt to hurt us. We need to take this on.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

I may be splitting hairs, but platforms don't CREATE content. They only host it. AFA intellectual property claims ... this is a platform. You would hold Haken responsible for the copyrighted material that gets posted here?

I don't know but, Fox news had to pay dominion $787.5M million-dollar fine for spreading lies and propaganda.

Alex Jones same thing for Sandy Hook. It was determined what he was saying was harmful to others. Again, I don't know.

T

HOUSTON (AP) — Bombastic conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been ordered to liquidate his personal assets as he owes $1.5 billion for his false claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which killed 20 first graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, was a hoax.

But the immediate future of his Infowars media platform,

https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook-0
c3576e3c4bd853ac2cc5342118fca8c

Oh look Jack. It says media platform. Well, what do ya know? And his show was on the internet. Go figure...

T

AP Misspoke. I can throw more than a few possible reasons why they would have done that, but we could just call it a simple misnomer and human error. Or maybe since this wasn't specifically an article about Section 230, they didn't bother to make the proper distinction.

Info Wars is a Publisher. Info Wars is not a Platform. This is an objective fact.

Now... If they have a comment section at Info Wars, there's a great chance that the comment section portion of the site was protected under Section 230. At least I hope it is. I would hope that was the case for all Media outfits and local news organizations that allow for public discourse to take place. I wouldn't even want New York Times to ever get in deep shit for things that users on their sites say in the comment section.

But the news portion, which is 99% of Info Wars' website is all published work, in written, audio and video format, which is created by employees of a company with a mission statement and an agenda, just like all the other media outlets are.

Like I said. Section 230 does not protect anyone if what they do is harmful to others. I.E. Alex Jones and Sandy Hook. Just like I said Jack. An internet platform is an internet platform. This is still new so it is learn as you go. All Media outfits are held accountable if what they report was harmful to others and done with malice.

T

It doesn't matter what your opinion on Sandy Hook was. Info Wars is a Publisher and is not protected by Section 230.

An internet Platform IS an internet Platform. These include but are not limited to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and FireFlyFans. They have Section 230 protections.

Info Wars is a Publisher. ALL Media Outfits are Publishers. They very much are held accountable for what they put out there. They do not have Section 230 protections.

Currently, there is a two-tiered system in place where only "news" from one side is being fact-checked or litigated against, but those winds of change blow all the time. If we get another GWB style administration watch the people at NYT and MSNBC have their balls cut off just like Alex Jones did.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 5:47 PM

InfoWars is an American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Alex Jones.

He hosts The Alex Jones broadcasted Show from Austin Texas

Jones's website, InfoWars, promotes conspiracy theories and fake news

Here you go dummy. Website, broadcaster, fake news and conspiracy theorist. Exactly what I started this thread to talk about. And don't look now, he was fined a billion dollars.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 6:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Alex Jones is a content CREATOR, not a platform.

And he wasn't fined (by the government), he was sued, by individuals.

Dood, what is so hard about the concepts "platform" and "host"?

A plain-English interpretation of those words should tell you all you need to know.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Americans support America

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 6:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BTW, the government has no business, or should have no business, censoring or approving even Infowars, except where Infowars violates a criminal law.

Free speech means free speech. It's a lot broader than you'd apparently like, THUGR

We've been thru this before. Apparently it didn't stick

Quote:
The Limits of Free Speech

You can say that whites are the superior race.
Or that women are better than men,
You can say that Jews control the world.
Or that you want to see the world genocided "down to the last hundred".
You can claim the earth is flat.
Or that last summer's riots were "mostly peaceful".
You can spin endless conspiracy theories (for example, Russian collusion) or endless conspiracy facts.

You can claim any fool thing .... or wise thing... that you want. It's protected free speech. And the answer to stupid speech is rebuttal, not censorship or defamation.

There are some thing you CAN'T do:

You can't slag someone's reputation by making false claims about them, incite IMMINENT violence, defraud people, distribute child pornography, threaten people, violate copyright laws, or plan illegal behavior. Advertising is also not protected free speech.

I know that free speech disturbs a bunch of libtards here, and that they want to get rid of it right away, but free speech clause protects them, too, when they post hate speech or idiocies.

It doesn't protect defamation, tho. Might want to keep that in mind.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64170

So yeah, you might want to stop defaming me as a Russian troll. Otherwise you might wind up like Alex Jones.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Americans support America

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 6:47 PM

I fail to understand how Ted is not grasping this concept.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
InfoWars is an American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Alex Jones.

He hosts The Alex Jones broadcasted Show from Austin Texas

Jones's website, InfoWars, promotes conspiracy theories and fake news

Here you go dummy. Website, broadcaster, fake news and conspiracy theorist. Exactly what I started this thread to talk about. And don't look now, he was fined a billion dollars.

T

Why did you bother making this post? It does nothing to refute anything I said.

Info Wars is not a Platform and does not have Section 230 protections.

Conversely, FireFlyFans IS a Platform, and Haken has Section 230 protections.

You clearly don't even have a basic grasp on this concept, and at this point one could argue that you don't even have a clear message or any idea what point you're even trying to make.

What you are arguing for wouldn't make things worse for Alex Jones and Info Wars. They don't have the protections. They never had the protections. And arguably, it couldn't get any worse for Alex Jones and Info Wars.

What you are arguing for would hurt HAKEN, and put him in life-destroying legal jeopardy for what other people have posted on his site over more than 2 decades.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 19, 2024 6:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Alex Jones is a content CREATOR, not a platform.

And he wasn't fined (by the government), he was sued, by individuals.

Dood, what is so hard about the concepts "platform" and "host"?

A plain-English interpretation of those words should tell you all you need to know.

At its core, an online platform is any website that facilitates a service or interaction between itself and the visitor Online platforms include search engines, marketplaces, social media, online financial systems, informative websites, and more.

Your wrong again comrade. And yes, he was sued by the families, but the point is, he was using the internet to cause harm to others. He was not protected by section 230.

Also, I take offense to a Russian troll having the American flag show up with every post as though you are the one who loves this country; bullshit. You degradate America every chance you get. I am going to start reposting them in your garden thread by the thousands if you continue.

T

AND! Apparently, section 230 does not protect users of the internet platform from government oversight. If said users are using people's personal information inappropriately. I said it's time to crack down on bullshit, propaganda and inappropriate behavior. Due to foreign disrupters, it looks like that is starting.

US accuses social media giants of 'vast surveillance'

A years-long analysis shows that social media titans engaged in "vast surveillance" to make money from people's personal information, according to the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

A report based on queries launched nearly four years ago aimed at nine companies found they collected troves of data, sometimes through data brokers, and could indefinitely retain the information collected about users and non-users of their platforms.

"The report lays out how social media and video streaming companies harvest an enormous amount of Americans' personal data and monetize it to the tune of billions of dollars a year,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a release.

"Several firms' failure to adequately protect kids and teens online is especially troubling."

Khan contended that the surveillance practices endangered people's privacy and exposed them to the potential of identity theft or stalking.

Business models that typically involve targeted advertising incentivized mass collection of user data at many of the companies, pitting profit against privacy, according to the report.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/us-accuses-social-media-gian
ts-of-vast-surveillance/ar-AA1qR5fH?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9460b557b57d42c4a745606f8c5c5ee9&ei=55

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 19, 2024 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Your wrong again comrade. And yes, he was sued by the families, but the point is, he was using the internet to cause harm to others. He was not protected by prop. 230.

No shit, you dumb cunt.

Nobody is arguing that Alex Jones had Section 230 protections or even that he should have had Section 230 protections. Info Wars is a Publisher and does not get Section 230 protections.

Learn how to fucking read.

And it's Section 230, not "Prop 230". It's not a referendum that's been proposed.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 19, 2024 6:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

I may be splitting hairs, but platforms don't CREATE content. They only host it. AFA intellectual property claims ... this is a platform. You would hold Haken responsible for the copyrighted material that gets posted here?

I don't know but, Fox news had to pay dominion $787.5M million-dollar fine for spreading lies and propaganda.

Alex Jones same thing for Sandy Hook. It was determined what he was saying was harmful to others. Again, I don't know.

T

HOUSTON (AP) — Bombastic conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been ordered to liquidate his personal assets as he owes $1.5 billion for his false claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which killed 20 first graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, was a hoax.

But the immediate future of his Infowars media platform,

https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook-0
c3576e3c4bd853ac2cc5342118fca8c

Oh look Jack. It says media platform. Well, what do ya know? And his show was on the internet. Go figure...

T

AP misspoke. I can throw more than a few possible reasons why they would have done that, but we could just call it a simple misnomer and human error. Or maybe since this wasn't specifically an article about Section 230, they didn't bother to make the proper distinction.

Info Wars is a Publisher. Info Wars is not a Platform. This is an objective fact.

Now... If they have a comment section at Info Wars, there's a great chance that the comment section portion of the site was protected under Section 230. At least I hope it is. I would hope that was the case for all Media outfits and local news organizations that allow for public discourse to take place. I wouldn't even want New York Times to ever get in deep shit for things that users on their sites say in the comment section. In a future where news agencies can get sued for a $100 Million because of something that you or I said on there, that's the immediate end of any of them allowing comment sections overnight, and we're going right back to a time when information was a one-way exchange over TV and radio with zero input from people without the power and the money.

But the news portion, which is 99% of Info Wars' website is all published work, in written, audio and video format, which is created by paid employees of a company with a mission statement and an agenda, just like all the other media outlets are.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

Infowars is/was, owned and operated by Alex Jones. It is/was an internet platform used to disseminate information; lies and propaganda. They violated the user agreement they signed to use the internet. Much the same as signing an agreement to use Microsoft. If you have a platform, you've signed the agreement. Which is why you hear sometimes google forced users off their platforms.

T

America owns the internet Vinton Cerf, born on June 23, 1943, began his career in computer networking in the early 1970s. He joined the United States Department of Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) at the invitation of his colleague Robert E. Kahn.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 19, 2024 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Infowars is/was, owned and operated by Alex Jones.

Correct.

Quote:
It is/was an internet platform

Incorrect. Info Wars is/was a PUBLISHER! Get that through your thick fucking skull or we're not going to discuss this any further. I'm tired of wasting my time conversing on an issue with somebody who refuses to properly make the distinction between the two, whether that decision comes from bias or stupidity or a combination of both.

Quote:
used to disseminate information; lies and propaganda.

Opinion.

Quote:
They violated the user agreement they signed to use the internet. Much the same as signing an agreement to use Microsoft.

Show me this so-called "User Agreement To Use The Internet" that you just made up. I won't bother waiting for this because no such document(s) exists.

Quote:
If you have a platform, you've signed the agreement.

What agreement? Show me what agreement that Info Wars signed.

And once again... Info Wars is/was a PUBLISHER. Not a platform.

Quote:
Which is why you hear sometimes google forced users off their platforms.

No. This is because of a violation of the TOS that you signed when you signed up for Gmail and Google's various other PLATFORMS available to you when you sign up for their services.

They are able to force every one of the people using their PLATFORM into signing these documents, because the only alternatives are to either use another platform that gets 1/100th of the traffic. Or to raise the cash necessary to host your own news/video site, and that's not cheap. You are agreeing to Google's TOS when you sign up because there is zero chance that 99.9% of us would ever be able to invest in their own web platform or become a publisher and not lose all of that money.

Info Wars did NOT sign a TOS with Google or Microsoft when they made their own website.

They DID sign a TOS with Google when they started their YouTube channel, so it was within Google's right to ban Alex Jones/Info Wars from their platform, although the optics on Google's stance were not good for the company. This all happened right around the time where Google dropped their long-time company slogan "Do No Evil".

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 19, 2024 9:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Infowars is/was, owned and operated by Alex Jones. It is/was an internet platform used to disseminate information; lies and propaganda. They violated the user agreement they signed to use the internet. Much the same as signing an agreement to use Microsoft. If you have a platform, you've signed the agreement. Which is why you hear sometimes google forced users off their platforms.

Do you realize how ridiculous this statement is??

Alex Jones owns and operates Infowars. And he violated the terms of service that he wrote and signed ....with HIMSELF????

And Alex Jones was not "fined" by the government. He was SUED. By Sandy Hook parents. For defamation!

Quote:
What we know about the fight between conspiracist Alex Jones and Sandy Hook families over his assets

https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook-0
c3576e3c4bd853ac2cc5342118fca8c

Dood, you have SERIOUS misunderstandings about who owns what.

Among other things, you seem to think "the government owns the internet".

"The USA government" DOESN'T own the internet. The Internet was DARPA'S idea: how to communicate by phone, or airwaves, to permit communication over various routes in case emergency or hostilities shut some routes down. The idea is that messages are sent out in parallel so that they can't be disrupted, but that they find their destinations anyway. It is now based on a communication protocol that is shared by the whole world.

The hardware, tho. That's a different story.

The HARDWARE... fiber optic cables, routers, switches, massive computers, microwave relay stations, etc etc... is owned by the telecoms. In the USA that's AT&T, Verizon, Spectrum etc. In Britain it's BT, KCOM, etc.

Platforms and publishers own their own domain names, i.e. how they are uniquely identified on the internet. Facebook, CNN, Infowars etc. No two entities can have the same domain name. They have their own URL and website. These websites and software allow them to receive, store, and post content, remember what was posted when, retrieve on request, and display the content to your web browser.

Some large entities own their own servers. Others rent server space.

In order to access all kinds of websites ... banks, utilities, healthcare, news, social media etc. you will probably need to agree to Terms Of Service which vary, of course, depending on what the website does.

It's up to the website owner to define their terms of service.

But, and here's the take-home message.

It's up to the publisher or platform to determine their terms of service. They can allow almost anything or almost nothing. But except for violating CRIMINAL LAW, the government can't MAKE them censor ANYTHING.

And furthermore, the government is PROHIBITED from REQUIRING that platforms and publishers follow any sort of editorial line. It's called FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS.

So YOUR call to "fix the internet", and HILLARY'S call for censorship? UNCONSTITUONAL. Violates the very first Amendment!

I'm shocked that you both would feel so free to violate our freedoms, the ones that the FF thought were so important that they added a whole bunch of Amendments just to protect us from tyranny.

Like I said: you claim you're all about freedom. But in reality, I think freedom scares you.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Americans support America

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2024 6:33 AM

'Lobbying for unfettered innovation is bad for democracy'

https://www.ft.com/content/ab2761bd-ace7-428b-aa3e-b7412ef69b48

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 26, 2024 4:58 PM

Newsmax Settles Smartmatic Defamation Suit One Week Before Trial Opening Statements

Newsmax says it has reached a settlement in a defamation lawsuit filed by Smartmatic, averting a civil trial that was scheduled to begin in earnest next week.

Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but the 11th-hour accord echoes the $787 million settlement Fox News forged with Dominion Voting Systems, which came abruptly as a jury was being seated in April of last year.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/newsmax-settles-smartmatic-defama
tion-suit-one-week-before-trial-opening-statements/ar-AA1rgQq6

Newsmax, Inc. is an American cable news, political opinion commentary, and digital media company founded by Christopher Ruddy in 1998.

Newsmax Media divisions include its cable and broadcast channel Newsmax TV; its website Newsmax.com, which includes Newsmax Health and Newsmax Finance; and Newsmax magazine, its monthly print publication.

Newsmax launched a cable television channel on June 16, 2014, to 35 million satellite subscribers through DirecTV and Dish Network. As of May 2019, the network claimed to reach about 70 million households via cable television. As of September 2023, the average audience for Newsmax was 129,000.

I never said lawsuits would not play a part in cleaning up the internet.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 26, 2024 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:

Quote:
They violated the user agreement they signed to use the internet. Much the same as signing an agreement to use Microsoft.

Show me this so-called "User Agreement To Use The Internet" that you just made up. I won't bother waiting for this because no such document(s) exists.

Quote:
If you have a platform, you've signed the agreement.

In the United States, website terms and conditions are legally binding, given that the user has actively consented to them.

If you operate a website and create content, you must have a user agreement to safeguard your company. In short, a user agreement’s real purpose is to protect the company from the ever growing and changing rules with how you are required to interact with users online.

https://www.websitepolicies.com/blog/are-terms-and-conditions-legally-
binding#global-perspectives-and-regulations

tisk tisk...

Given enough rope, you guys will hang yourselves every time.

T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 26, 2024 5:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:

Quote:
They violated the user agreement they signed to use the internet. Much the same as signing an agreement to use Microsoft.

Show me this so-called "User Agreement To Use The Internet" that you just made up. I won't bother waiting for this because no such document(s) exists.

Quote:
If you have a platform, you've signed the agreement.

In the United States, website terms and conditions are legally binding, given that the user has actively consented to them.

If you operate a website and create content, you must have a user agreement to safeguard your company. In short, a user agreement’s real purpose is to protect the company from the ever growing and changing rules with how you are required to interact with users online.

https://www.websitepolicies.com/blog/are-terms-and-conditions-legally-
binding#global-perspectives-and-regulations

tisk tisk...

Given enough rope, you guys will hang yourselves every time.

T

It took you days to come up with this bullshit?

Show me the contract, dummy.

I want to see specifically where it says that nobody has freedom of speech and that we live in China where they can dictate what can and can't be said online.

I guaranty you the only rules they had was about policing CP, grooming minors and gratuitous violence. There is NOTHING in those contracts regarding political speech.

And this begs the question... Why the hell would you be absolutely giddy at the prospect that freedom of speech was being stomped on? What the fuck is wrong with you?

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 26, 2024 7:11 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

How the fuck can you claim to be a patriot and advocate for censorship?

And stop hiding behind "the rules". The government is Constitutionally prohibited from requiring censorship.

*****

Quote:
You can say that whites are the superior race.
Or that women are better than men,
You can say that Jews control the world.
Or that you want to see the world genocided "down to the last hundred".
You can claim the earth is flat.
Or that last summer's riots were "mostly peaceful".
You can spin endless conspiracy theories (for example, Russian collusion) or endless conspiracy facts.

You can claim any fool thing .... or wise thing... that you want. It's protected free speech. And the answer to stupid speech is rebuttal, not censorship or defamation.

There are some thing you CAN'T do:

You can't slag someone's reputation by making false claims about them, incite IMMINENT violence, defraud people, distribute child pornography, threaten people, violate copyright laws, or plan illegal behavior. Advertising is also not protected free speech.

I know that free speech disturbs a bunch of libtards here, and that they want to get rid of it right away, but free speech clause protects them, too, when they post hate speech or idiocies.

It doesn't protect defamation, tho. Might want to keep that in mind.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Americans support America

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS

Where is the 25th ammendment when you need it?
Sat, November 23, 2024 20:14 - 16 posts

In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, November 23, 2024 20:07 - 4758 posts

Australia - unbelievable...
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:59 - 22 posts

Elections; 2024
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:33 - 4796 posts

MAGA movement
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:28 - 12 posts

More Cope: David Brooks and PBS are delusional...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:32 - 1 posts

List of States/Governments/Politicians Moving to Ban Vaccine Passports
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:27 - 168 posts

Once again... a request for legitimate concerns...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:22 - 17 posts

What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Sat, November 23, 2024 15:07 - 19 posts

human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sat, November 23, 2024 14:38 - 945 posts

Convicted kosher billionaire makes pedophile Roman Polanski blush
Sat, November 23, 2024 13:46 - 34 posts

The worst Judges, Merchants of Law, Rogue Prosecutors, Bad Cops, Criminal Supporting Lawyers, Corrupted District Attorney in USA? and other Banana republic
Sat, November 23, 2024 13:39 - 50 posts

VIEW MORE TOPICS

FFF.NET SOCIAL