Twitter swings the ban hammer at Project Veritas (1 Viewer)

[nolaspe]

Twitter suspends Project Veritas account

The move against the conservative activist organization comes amid a broader crackdown by the social media giant on those promoting misinformation.

www.politico.com

Project Veritas has been known to use deceptive practices and spread misinformation in attempts to expose what it views as “corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct” from liberal organizations or individuals. In September, Stanford University and University of Washington researchers wrote that a Project Veritas video alleging voter fraud with unidentified sources was what a “a domestic, coordinated elite disinformation campaign looks like in the United States.”

 

[Nebaghead]

No it wasn't. It was to protect social media corporations from lawsuits, that's pretty much it. If you want to get rid of section 230, expect more content policing from them.

And dude, if you're using Stephen Molyneaux as an example of unfair cancel culture, you're going to have a hard time making your point.

Actually it was to protect internet companies from content on their platforms including website. It’s origin has nothing to do with social media just not holding a company accountable for what was done on their platforms.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Actually it was to protect internet companies from content on their platforms including website. It’s origin has nothing to do with social media just not holding a company accountable for what was done on their platforms.

Right, I was being a little simplistic - but the point was to allow these entities to operate without being sued for what their users say.

 

[Nebaghead]

Nonsense, the ultimate intent, as I observed in the above:

Section 230 affords website publishers the status of non-publishers in terms of general immunity regarding third-party content. The idea was to promote the entrepreneurial spirit and protect free speech.​

I never said Section 230 should be gotten rid of. It just needs to be enforced. See above.

Molyneaux is just one dozens who have been deplatformed. I take it you're a fan of deplatformation.

He can build his own platform. It’s like owning a coffee shop and someone comes there and says things that are questionable. You ban this person from that coffee shop. Now he has to go to a lesser coffee shop because the owners don’t agree.

 

[Xeno]

Actually it was to protect internet companies from content on their platforms including website. It’s origin has nothing to do with social media just not holding a company accountable for what was done on their platforms.

This. It also has nothing to do with free speech. A lot more content would disappear if ISPs and web hosts could be held liable for any content they host.

 

[Nebaghead]

This. It also has nothing to do with free speech. A lot more content would disappear if ISPs and web hosts could be held liable for any content they host.

It even goes to a level of you sent an email that involved a criminal act and that domain could be sued or implicated because they allowed the email.

 

[Xeno]

It even goes to a level of you sent an email that involved a criminal act and that domain could be sued or implicated because they allowed the email.

This is technically already the case. Section 230 doesn't absolve hosts of liability with regards to crimes being committed.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

And I'm picturing a racist negro with a chip on his shoulder.

You flatter me

also mods, is it ok if I have this as my sig?

 

[Xeno]

You flatter me

I can see another ban hammer getting swung sooner rather than later.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I can see another ban hammer getting swung sooner rather than later.

I blame deplatforming

 

[Xeno]

I blame deplatforming

 

[Saint by the Bay]

When it comes to 230 and free speech I think what the right wing victimhood crowd missses is this:

The intent was to protect media companies from consequences for the free speech of others, not to protect others from consequences by the media companies for things they said.

 

[Rawlings]

He can build his own platform. It’s like owning a coffee shop and someone comes there and says things that are questionable. You ban this person from that coffee shop. Now he has to go to a lesser coffee shop because the owners don’t agree.

I don't need lessons on liberty. Folks here apparently need lessons on reading. That way, maybe they'll stop reading things into my posts that aren't there.

 

[JRad]

You are unequivocally incorrect about section 230. Section 230 protects free speech on the internet, you could almost argue the internet in its current state wouldn’t exist without 230. Even this website - Every. Single. Post. would be subject to moderation in order to protect the site admin.

Right now, you could go to website.com/comments, post you want to stab Archduke Bob Smith, and the site has no liability. If you remove 230, the site is now responsible for your threat.

Is it perfect? No. But you’re very misguided on what it actually is.

 

[Rawlings]

Enforced how -- there's nothing in section 230 that says social media has to host anyone. It's a protection clause, not a law to force companies to do the will of the state.



I'm a fan of consequences for actions. If you say that black people are dumber than white people, and that women are causing the problems in society today, then I don't have a lot of sympathy if a private company does not want to let you use them to make money.

You asked for examples. I gave you examples. And Molyneaux did not assert that black people were inherently less intelligent than white people. He pointed out the fact that black people generally did not fare as well as other races in school and held the public education system at fault.

I am concerned about the noxious effects of cancel culture on free speech. You should be too.

 

[Xeno]

He said the secret word!

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

You asked for examples. I gave you examples. And Molyneaux did not assert that black people were inherently less intelligent than white people. He pointed out the fact that black people generally did not fare as well as other races in school and held the public education system at fault.

I am concerned about the noxious effects of cancel culture on free speech. You should be too.

And your examples are bad examples -- at least with Molyneaux for sure. He has not merely pointed out that black people do not fare as well as other races in school - he has called them a different species. He has point blank said that they are dumber than white people his quote:

"Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane."

And you can go on -- his whole deal is that races are different species and our breeding arena needs to be cleaned up, and that women have forked up raising kids which is why we have problems today, and so on.

And you seem to think that private companies should be forced to help him make money. That is what you are complaining about. One company doesn't want a racist and misogynist to use their platform to make money off his racism and misogyny.

Sure, there are absolutely examples of people going overboard -- but you are not actually highlighting them. You are highlighting people who's entire schtick is trying to figure out how to offend people and then whine when people get offended and don't want to give them money any more.

 

[V Chip]

Is it kosher to send flowers *before* the actual funeral? Asking for someone I barely know...

 

[wardorican]

Nonsense, the ultimate intent, as I observed in the above:

Section 230 affords website publishers the status of non-publishers in terms of general immunity regarding third-party content. The idea was to promote the entrepreneurial spirit and protect free speech.​

I never said Section 230 should be gotten rid of. It just needs to be enforced. See above.

Molyneaux is just one dozens who have been deplatformed. I take it you're a fan of deplatformation.

That wasn't exactly the intent. it was more of a realization that websites couldn't keep up and monitor everything said on chat rooms, or comments. So, they weren't liable. it wasn't to promote free speech.

if anything, content editing or 'curating' is an expression of free speech by the company / website.

You can almost think of it like a news paper (which, of course is a publisher, so under stricter rules), but.. a big paper might get thousands of letters to the editor on a certain topic.. they don't publish them all. There is no rule, and 230 sure doesn't cover it, that says you must have access to all online platforms to expand your range.