Message from @Al Capwned

Discord ID: 617518384476848158


2019-09-01 00:36:18 UTC  

Same thing as you, Anubis.

2019-09-01 00:36:19 UTC  

get out and do something

2019-09-01 00:36:26 UTC  

this is the way it has worked for decades before 230 came along which allowed companies to play both sides

2019-09-01 00:36:29 UTC  

basically section 230 states that Fb and twitter and google are not responsible for what is posted because they do not control it. however... they are controlling it by editing posted content

2019-09-01 00:36:29 UTC  

@Anubis i worked all day u nigger

2019-09-01 00:36:33 UTC  

i dun wanna do something

2019-09-01 00:36:33 UTC  

Im just getting my nice shirt on. im outta this bitch

2019-09-01 00:36:45 UTC  

imagine working <:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

2019-09-01 00:36:45 UTC  

yes, 230 is an exception to the rule

2019-09-01 00:36:52 UTC  

They're hardly editing content..

2019-09-01 00:36:53 UTC  

imagine being poor

2019-09-01 00:36:57 UTC  

<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

2019-09-01 00:37:02 UTC  

remove the exception and the rules take effect making them LIBEL

2019-09-01 00:37:06 UTC  

nah i just live off old money

2019-09-01 00:37:08 UTC  

McDonalds is love. McDonalds is life.

2019-09-01 00:37:28 UTC  

Behave while daddy is out

2019-09-01 00:37:31 UTC  

@Weez they literally alter search results and etc... based on political opinion

2019-09-01 00:37:32 UTC  

they will be SUED out of buisness and whether they censor or not makes no difference because it is the STANDING that matters

2019-09-01 00:37:35 UTC  

having to work is for poor people

2019-09-01 00:37:35 UTC  

have fun

2019-09-01 00:37:37 UTC  

@Weez Is suppressing conservative news (on the recommended feed AFAIK) considered editing?
https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006

2019-09-01 00:37:55 UTC  

currently any case against a social media company is dismissed based on lack of standing

2019-09-01 00:37:59 UTC  

Depending on the implementation / design of their system then no @SPOOKY Phil, Ruler of Heck

2019-09-01 00:38:10 UTC  

If it were designed to operate that way. Then it would be working as intended.

2019-09-01 00:38:13 UTC  

They say they did it purposely

2019-09-01 00:38:16 UTC  

So?

2019-09-01 00:38:23 UTC  

Their system, their design.

2019-09-01 00:38:23 UTC  

Dunno man, seems.....retarded

2019-09-01 00:38:28 UTC  

section 230 states one doesn't HAVE standing to sue a social media platfrom; Section 230 is an exception

2019-09-01 00:38:31 UTC  

due to 230 protection, but basically all that has to be done... is an evaluation of whether or not google, fb, and twitter are editing content on their site

2019-09-01 00:38:35 UTC  

Just stop using facebook and twitter

2019-09-01 00:38:42 UTC  

They're not required by law to make their recommendation system work a certain way

2019-09-01 00:38:50 UTC  

if they are... well they arent protected by being a public platform

2019-09-01 00:38:51 UTC  

i deadass cannot imagine giving a shit about social media at all lmao

2019-09-01 00:38:51 UTC  

They're not required by law to evenly serve content

2019-09-01 00:39:05 UTC  

that is editing the content tho

2019-09-01 00:39:11 UTC  

and goes against the section 230 protection

2019-09-01 00:39:16 UTC  

But that's how their system works.

2019-09-01 00:39:16 UTC  

230 is only given them a 'pass' on the rules that would normally effect those not online

2019-09-01 00:39:20 UTC  

all these nerds are taking politics seriously online