Moderate Viking

Hmmm…calling out GOP support for masked federal agents abducting people without transparency, probable cause, or due process incites violence, but falsely accusing Dems of “doping kids, cutting off kids genitals,…and protecting criminals” in no way encourages nut jobs to kill.

China has an abundance of adult males due to the “one child” policy of the last century - and the femicidal abortion of millions of female fetuses. Russia is losing its adult males to political flight and Empirical war.

Sounds like a match made in Commie heaven. Chinese men. Russian women.

A Brady Bunch reference is a fine ending to any discussion.

A media platform is a venue for free speech, just like schools, town squares, radio, television, etc. Unconditionally protecting a platform is antithetical to protecting free speech. If a platform allows incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, and threats, the platform stifles free expression.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you. Megalomania is challenging.

Inference.

What liability should SM companies have for platforming false and defamatory information?

When should free speech be regulated or sanctioned?

When does our First Amendment rights undermine our Fourteenth Amendment rights?

Deep pockets filled with money or truth?

SM is not free speech. It’s a money-making enterprise.

Unfortunately, just like cigarettes, there’s a cancerous core. Nicotine feels good. It’s the smoke and additives that kill.

SM offers a platform to reach the world and share ideas. It’s the absence of standards and accountability that kill.

We should just agree to disagree. I like a good argument. You think social media is the ultimate venue for free speech and should have no standards or be subject to any liability. Free speech means anybody can say anything regardless of damage to democracy, reputation, or morality. I disagree.

Exactly. Because if LM don’t, they could be disseminating false and/or defamatory information - and can be sued. Because SM can’t be sued, and because every batshit crazy story generates clicks/advertising dollars, SM companies will forever fight for Section 230 protections.

Just not true. Otherwise Dominion could have sued Twitter and Fox.

Mine was in the context of a point. Yours was just an ad hominem attack without context. Distinctly different. I was questioning your abilities and/or motivations to process a simple point.

Dumas to you.

You don’t understand the difference between who’s speaking and who’s platforming the speech. The law protects the social media platforms, not the speech. It looks like you profess to be a First Amendment champion. You’re a social media champion. Hope you figure out the difference.

You don’t understand the difference between who’s speaking and who’s platforming the speech. The law protects the social media platforms, not the speech. It looks like you profess to be a First Amendment champion. You’re a social media champion. Hope you figure out the difference.

When you can’t win an argument, resort to insults. Cool.

Section 230 shields social media platforms against liability for user-generated content, which is not available to legacy media outlets.

Not sure it could be any clearer.

By this argument, if Fox News brings on unpaid guest after unpaid guest who defame an individual or a company, they should be immune from court action.

Fox News is responsible for who/what they program. Social media is responsible for nothing.

“Who the speaker is?” Media platforms don’t speak. Their speech comes from employees/guests/posts.

Still haven’t answered the question. Why should social media be treated differently than legacy media?

Once again. Please answer the question. Why should social media be treated differently than legacy media? Somebody please answer.

You can’t/won’t/don’t because there is no good reason Twitter shouldn’t have been sued for disseminating the exact same crap that Fox did. Maybe more of it.

What? Missed this one. That’s just wrong. Social media is protected by Section 230.

Do you believe in free speech? Looks like you don’t on your profile page. Pathetic and cowardly.

I do. You don’t understand that whether the info comes from a hired or independent party, legacy media is accountable for what they program and disseminate. Either you’re not very clever or willfully ignorant.

Answer the question. Why should social media be treated differently than Fox News?

I do. You don’t understand that whether the info comes from a hired or independent party, legacy media is accountable for what they program and disseminate. Either you’re not very clever or willfully ignorant.

Answer the question. Why should social media be treated differently than Fox News?

“Amendment One?” Bot much? ChatGPTing?

Listen. Or should I say “Read.”

Treat social media the same way any other media outlet is treated.

Why should social media be any different than Fox News?

The platform should be accountable for what it programs. Section 230 prevents that.

They are not paying him. They are getting paid to have him on. They disseminate false and defamatory information. They get advertising money.

He gets sued.

They are unaccountable.

Questions?

Yes. I’m talking about Fox News and social media. They both knowingly put people on the air who disseminated false and defamatory information. Both allowed hired and independent people (Lindell/Powell) on their platform to share demonstrable falsehoods. Yours is a distinction without a difference.

They hired the staff and let them run with false stories from bad sources. They let Mr Pillow and the Kracken on.

Once again, what are you arguing? They have no role or accountability in the epidemic of false and defamatory news?

They need to be held accountable just like legacy media.

Exactly. They get the money from the clicks, and no responsibility for content that can ruin lives. Pretty slick deal for them.

But once again, why should they be any different than news outlets that book crazy guests?

That’s the problem. The social media platform can allow titillating, conspiratorial and defamatory information to go out without consequence. They just make money on the clicks. If there’s a problem they can say “It was the other guy. I had nothing to do with millions of people reading his crap.”

Opinions don’t need any factual basis. Sometimes people have stupid opinions and spread false information. However, if a radio or television station repeatedly disseminates or provides a platform for false information that is defamatory, they can be held liable. That’s what happened to Fox News.