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.
Again ... Your understanding of net neutrality is incorrect.
The lack of net neutrality potentially will allow an ISP to throttle or severely limit traffic to AJ website.
That would be a breach of the service contract.
With NN, they would just remove his entire websites, because of "Hate Speech" according to the EU and China.
Section 230 is not cut and dried on editing making it yours.
There's pertinent info in the paragraph above this in the following article, too.
"The courts have not clarified the line between acceptable editing and the point at which you become the "information content provider." To the extent that your edits or comment change the meaning of the information, and the new meaning is defamatory, you may lose the protection of Section 230." https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230
So perhaps a lawsuit will clarify. But editing doesn't automatically, universally render it yours.
In an open internet public communications platform it does. You just made it closed to an individual.
Federal government protections under CDA 230 are for everyone. Not the chosen.
They cannot pick and chose. That is up to the consumers. If defamation is committed, the lawsuit is there to be filed, just not against a provider.... The publisher of the content.
Once you start removing and editing content, you become the editing publisher same as the publishers you provided for and lose all protections of an open public communications platform. You effectively closed the door, as a competing publisher, not just the provider.
Again.. You lack of understanding of 230 and editing content is flawed and wrong. Numerous people have already pointed it out. Removing content doesn't qualify as you think it is.. No more than removing a protester from private land makes you a protestor.
Will you just answer the questions I have asked repeatively?
That would be a breach of the service contract.
With NN, they would just remove his entire websites, because of "Hate Speech" according to the EU and China.
It proved they are publishers, in collusion with each other, in competition with Jones publishing. It was a conflict of their interest, without a crime being committed in the communications industry, to remove all his content over. Not just the content that violated federal law and state law.
You've proven again and again that you do not understand publishing, editing, collusion, communications law, social media, libel, anti-trust, or any of the other dozens of topics you try to deflect from the original topic with.
Congratulations. Now even I'm confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
These social media big wigs, clearly have an editor, not just for criminal behavior.
"Criminal behavior" is not the only violation of a website's Terms of Service.
Quote:
Social media falls under the federal regulations of communications.
No. It does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
This is just another example of posts just making things up out of thin air and throwing it against the wall to see if it will stick.
Right? And it's getting more and more bizarre as the thread wears on.
At this point, I'm in it for the entertainment factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit
You've been told several reasons why this argument is flawed and keep repeating.
So let's update the list of things you've said that don't apply or wrong
1st,
Libel,
Rackateering,
public traded vs public domain,
Public utility,
230
Publisher,
Monopoly,
Did I miss any?
Anti-trust
Communications law
Collusion
Publishing
Editing
Terms of Service
Ban
Censorship
I'm sure there are more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
If Net Neutrality would have passed, not only would Jones social media be removed, his entire website would have been removed.
That would be a breach of the service contract.
With NN, they would just remove his entire websites, because of "Hate Speech" according to the EU and China.
Nope. Nope. Nope. Completely wrong.
If you aren't going to bother to even try to educate yourself on a topic, maybe you should consider not commenting on it.
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.
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.
