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.
A book or paper publisher selects the articles that it wants to publish. That's entirely different from social media that lets everyone publish and then selects what people it wants to censor.
Nope. Writing on paper is a version of getting your word out. No company is compelled to let you use their paper.
Websites, social media, etc is a newer version. No company is compelled to let you use theirs.
A book or paper publisher selects the articles that it wants to publish. That's entirely different from social media that lets everyone publish and then selects what people it wants to censor.
So you admit, they are not just a provider. They edit what they publish.
CDA 230 makes that distinction.
Cannot have it both ways or it is anti-Trust and violating the Communications Act.
The fact it was a concerted ban, with a competing publisher rallying for it to happen(CNN) is the definition of Racketeering.
So you admit, they are not just a provider. They edit what they publish.
CDA 230 makes that distinction.
Cannot have it both ways or it is anti-Trust and violating the Communications Act.
The fact it was a concerted ban, with a competing publisher rallying for it to happen(CNN) is the definition of Racketeering.
They're not editing it, they removed it from their platform. The original is on his website.
They're under no contractual obligation to host his garbage.
That would be an edit... CUT!
Yes they are, or they selectively edit and in no longer is an open public communications platform. They closed the door. It is censored communications and no longer open communications. They can now be held liable for any libel and defamation they now publish. They are no longer just providing it, with the user as the editing publisher.
Removing content from a server doesn't make you a publisher as long as the content itself isn't changed.
{SNIP the emotions}
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.
If Net Neutrality would have passed, not only would Jones social media be removed, his entire website would have been removed.
Your ignorance on the inner workings of the Internet is only surpassed by the intensity of your feelings on the subject.
I'll quote myself from one of my first posts on this subject, bolding added.
Quote:
OK, try this on: The Internet transports user data in discrete chunks called packets, each packet marked with a destination and source. The dedicated hardware (routers) that handle the traffic look at the destination address of each packet and forwards the traffic in the right direction. Your local provider (ISP) will typically not have its own network extend all the way to whatever host you're communicating with, so they set up peer agreements with other ISPs they can reach - in effect agreeing to handle data for each others customers and exchanging routing information. For those addresses outside any peering agreement, your ISP will purchase upstream capacity from a backbone provider. The backbone providers, in turn, have peering agreements with other backbone providers.
This interconnected nature makes the Internet somewhat resilient to outages, but it also means that you don't get to decide who handles your traffic. Your only choice as consumer is the ISP, and for many areas, ISPs have de facto monopolies.
What does all that have to do with NN? Traffic prioritization. Under NN, routers aren't supposed to prioritize packets due their IP addresses or, probably worse, content. Simple as that.
It is like the common carrier law in that respect, and this is a good thing.
Verizon is not allowed to make a deal with Amazon to see to it that traffic to Amazon's webpage takes priority over traffic to Barnes & Noble - or to any new players on the field. Cable TV companies acting as ISPs can't downgrade access to NetFlix - and they'd love to, because NetFlix eats into their PPV revenue. Likewise, the telcos would undoubtedly love to throw a wrench in the works of Skype.
It's maintaining equal access to the marketplace - any libertarian should cheer on NN.
You're welcome.
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.
