because ill tell you if it wasnt for twitter and tim i would not know about the yellow jackets

@Grenade123 Well, there's Ocasio Cortez's popularity for one. Then there's sleeping Giants. And let's not pretned it takes less than a second to find antifa supporters on Reddit.

You also just undermined your own argument that social media isn't that important.

I have proposed something, you just deny that it's a proposition because you don't like it, and have dichotomized the issue

What is your proposed solution then? Hand over social media to the government so when AOC or someone likes her gets into power we are back to square one with no way to fight it?

When you go fiddle with Section 230 (you'd have to) you make it a requirement that immunity means carrying all legal traffic regardless of content (or something slightly less extreme).

I wouldn't think that we have political censorship in the mail system. I think you're overstating and oversimplifying the risks.

Also, I apologize. Beeman's the one with his head in his ass who never proposes anything.

thats what were trying to figure out, I want a clearly defined end goal and stablished lines of conduct so that we dont get hangers on that leave at th critical moment

@pratel what is legal traffic? spamming?

Non-malicious. Where malicious is defined from a technical point of view. Also, child porn is banned as that's not legal. Threats can be carried, but they count as threats for prosecution under the relevant statutes.

threats should be protected as evidence

Aside from specific technical exceptions, it means "if you could say it legally in the open, you can say it online"

Exactly.

you can say a threat, but you can get arrested for the action of making it.

Treat social media like the postal service or fedex.

but that would still stay up

Fedex can't refuse to ship your package because they don't like the person sending it.

They can report it if they think you're breaking the law and let the relevant authorities handle it.

i don't see how this is terrible far off from removing their platform protections while acting like a publisher. Now if platform protections are not strong enough to remove censorship then maybe you can add that back in.

but yes, the idea that to be protected from lawsuits, you need to carry all legal traffic, only taking town that which is clearly illegal or at the request of the government, or at least block it in that region.

Because when you say "repeal 230" it sounds an awful lot like just making it an open field for any and all lawsuits and pressure campaigns.

Which is obviously counter-productive.

You also have the issue of enforcement.

there is an assumption that platforms already had protections

Because in practice, there's alot of people too poor to sue.

i assumed you could not sue a library for mein kampf

Sure, but there's libraries that are removing Mein Kampf from pressure campaigns anyway.

now, those laws may need updating wording wise.

actually removing platform protections is a fine end goal by me

i would agree to that

removing platform protections **IF** they act like a publisher

If you just remove all protections, the larger protection racket wins.

thats the key phrase

"Google, there's some difficult speech from person X. We think it's harmful to community Y. If you remove it we won't sue you for Z"

you can sue NY times for what is in their articles. but you can;t sue twitter for what someone says, despite twitter curating their users liek they were an editor

If you don't provide platform protections, you're just turning it into a legal might free for all

removing platform protection would both a) destroy small platforms and b) force large platforms to drastically increase censorship

im ok with legal getting involved

What Atkins said gets it exactly.

it would pretty much mean that social media platforms would stop curating

the left has infinite money and man-hours for tactical lawsuits.

damn