Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting point that I didn't know until recently: YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and the rest have been granted special protections. As long as they keep their platforms open to everyone without discrimination and do their best to remove illegal content (like terrorists recruitment for suicide bombers or such), then they are granted immunity from being sued as a publisher.
I don't think their upholding their end of that bargain. Considering the sheer volume of content uploaded to these platforms every single second, I doubt they could survive the massive wave of lawsuits coming their way if these protections are lifted. Sure they can still choose to ban whoever they want, but they've been given some very unusual and specific legal protections and it sounds like those protections need to be ended.
BTW, H3H3 (a rather massive YouTuber, very popular with younger folks) got a community guidelines strike just for talking about the Alex Jones/InfoWars purge. Twitter just kicked all of the Proud Boys off of their platform. I think Devin Nunes (R) got kicked off of Twitter for some nonsensical charge as well. This is getting stupider and stupider.
Let them ban, people will just flock to another site. I joined Bitchute a few months ago myself in case the big social communist sites decide to ban my personal favorites, Mark Dice and Paul Joseph Watson.
Truer words were never said. If you silence everyone on one side of the conversation, then you're putting an end to all the conversations that we really need to have.
Trying to figure out how Alex Jones can contribute to a needed conversation, but drawing a blank...
Here is a big lesson from Tech Check, a segment on 92.3 KTAR's (Phoenix News Radio) morning news from about 7:18 AM today. Free Speech ONLY applies to the government intervening. Private companies are not subject to denying someone's right to free speech. A man can get censored, banned or permabanned without prejudice for breaking TOS whether it is hates peech, lies or defamatory material. Even trolling, flaming and ever-baiting.
That's right, and publishers aren't required by any law to publish anything at all. Just because someone writes something, a publisher has no concomitant duty or obligation to publish it.
Trying to figure out how Alex Jones can contribute to a needed conversation, but drawing a blank...
Of course you are drawing a blank my dear. You've been thoroughly indoctrinated into giving up critical thinking and to just accept whatever the news conglomerates tell you as truth.
OK, I can agree with that. The thing is that there are numerous domain registrars, and not all of them are within US jurisdiction. How would/could you enforce a requirement that they register all comers?
Good question and had ICANN oversight not been relinquished by the US under the Obama administration it would be quite easy. ICANN needs to implement a policy that any accredited registrar accept any qualified domain registration. Qualified would be the basic rules and regulations that govern any domain registration set by ICANN.
Interesting point that I didn't know until recently: YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and the rest have been granted special protections. As long as they keep their platforms open to everyone without discrimination and do their best to remove illegal content (like terrorists recruitment for suicide bombers or such), then they are granted immunity from being sued as a publisher.
What you are referring to is the "Safe Harbor" provisions in the DMCA. This absolves ISP's and service providers like CD for the illegal actions of their users, the internet as we know it would grind to a halt without it. There is no way the moderators here for example could know if a file I uploaded truly belongs to me unless it was well published. As long as you make effort to address illegal activities and respond to things like DMCA complaints you should be fine.
Quick note if you are reading this and are service provider, you need to register.
That's right, and publishers aren't required by any law to publish anything at all. Just because someone writes something, a publisher has no concomitant duty or obligation to publish it.
I don't know why we turned Facebook, YouTube and forums into publishers. YouTube only is if it is movies or maybe a stretch with YouTube Premium (formerly YouTube Red) content similar to podcasts on Apple and Spotify. Facebook deleted not just the videos but the pages.
You think that if (for example) BentBow posts a bunch of lunacy on the P&OC forum, City-Data is liable because they are not protected by 230?
Man, you are seriously out of your depth here.
City Data does a lot more than these here forums, you are only seeing in the tunnel vision of frustration.... Yes, they are a Publisher, with an editorial staff.
They can be sued for the defaming content published, that is allowed to stand without retracting.
#1 app for a week straight.
The Free Market will sort it out and looks like the laws governing the 1st amendments preservation are going to be put under the microscope.
City Data does a lot more than these here forums, you are only seeing in the tunnel vision of frustration.... Yes, they are a Publisher, with an editorial staff.
They can be sued for the defaming content published, that is allowed to stand without retracting.
Many sites have their own published works and then a forum where they are just the platform. Apples and oranges. Forums are still user generated and fall under different laws no matter how much you wish 230 didn't apply.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.