Posted on 11/15/2020 10:01:12 AM PST by dynachrome
Such contractual terms in web services and products—from Microsoft on down—should be illegal. It’s not a real contract if one side can breach at any time in bad faith.
This Libertarian bullshit doesn't fly anymore. Pretty soon Conservative sources are going to be ghettoized and disconnected from the mainstream entirely. There'll be a right wing social media and a left wing social media that will have access to all devices, everywhere, while we'll be banned in an alternate dimension. Web services, registrars, etc., will ban us like they banned "The Daily Stormer," forcing us to use fooking registrars in Russia or other foreign countries. And soon even the banks--which are already taking away our ability to raise money online--will decide we're too toxic to service.
Free Speech doesn't end at the federal or state government.
We dealt with your retarded libertarian arguments several mass bannings ago. They do not work. Ideological monopolies are the result of your thinking. Your thinking is dumb and should be ridiculed.
Ohmigosh!
Hope Larry isn’t a sick pervert like humblegunner.
Your mom is a sick pervert.
Check out Peter Neffenger. Chairman of Smartmatic/Dominion. On the Biden Transition Team.
There must be off-shore places to run a server from.
Typical response from a sick pervert who just got called out. Go away, you sick, perverted man.
Go away, you sick, perverted man.
No, I think not.
Now what are you going to do?
So what?
The German people would never allow Hitler to harm the Jews!
Wake up. It's 1930s Germany, and you are a Jew.
I agree. Absolutely.
Sundance is an important site. He's the one who deconstructed the Trayvon Martin killing. He also deconstructed the death at Charlottesville that suggested the car driver panicked after making a wrong turn into an agitated crowd on a narrow side street.
He was also the one that laid out the mechanics of why, even though most GOP primary voters were conservative, the GOP ended up with RINO nominees like Mitt Romney & John McCain.
I'm not sure Trump was reading his blog, but he refused to play the politics as expected game and broke the cycle.
Free Speech doesn't end at the federal or state government.
We dealt with your retarded libertarian arguments several mass bannings ago.
Irony just died.
I wa referring to bannings of conservatives. FR has not banned you idiots.
I wa referring to bannings of conservatives.
You said free speech didn't end at the federal or state government but you clearly think it ends somewhere before Jim's private site.
Why can Jim ban people but not wordpress.com?
I already knew that dumb argument was coming.
Freerepublic doesn’t enjoy immunity from lawsuits based on defamation, nor is Freerepublic a provider of internet infrastructure, products or services.
Freerepublic doesn’t enjoy immunity from lawsuits based on defamation...
FreeRepublic enjoys the same Section 230 protections Twitter does - Jim can't be sued for defamation just because a FReeper posts something defamatory.
And, like Twitter, he doesn't lose that immunity if he moderates his site.
...nor is Freerepublic a provider of internet infrastructure, products or services.
Section 230 applies to any provider or user of an "interactive computer service". You're wrong.
FreeRepublic enjoys the same Section 230 protections Twitter does
Section 230 is speaking of online intermediaries, as in web hosts, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, internet providers, web hosts, etc. I know because I've actually attempted to sue Microsoft for randomly kicking people from OneDrive/SharePoint because of accusations of hate speech. If a special interest forum like Free Republic, which obviously does publish its own material, moderates users based on viewpoint, etc., qualifies under 230, that is news to me, and that be a good thing. Whatever the case, it is also absolutely irrelevant: Free Republic is like the Boy Scouts, or your local Christian church, who obviously can discriminate against even women from joining if they want to. Facebook claims to be like Whataburger, HEB, or Wally World. And such a business, if they can't discriminate against a black guy based on his race, or can't discriminate against women when it comes to opening an account, then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on viewpoint.
Section 230 applies to any provider or user of an "interactive computer service".
You're getting wrapped up in your retarded logic. I replied that Free Republic, essentially, is a publisher not covered by Section 230. You attempted a "gotcha," which also doesn't really matter. Whether Section 230 applies or not, Free Republic is obviously its own special interest type of website, like the Boyscouts or the Free Masons. I also stated that Free Republic is not a "provider of internet infrrastructure, products or services." Obviously that's an argument that Free Republic can't be treated the same as internet infrastructure, etc., which has nothing to do with Section 230. I think you know that, but you want to claim that Microsoft and your internet Registrar and Free Republic are absolutely the same, so you're going to play stupid about what that means.
The Left cannot be allowed to control the infrastructure of the internet, or the major companies that provide products and services such as software, web hosting, etc., and then argue that under the Constitution they have the right to completely disenfranchise millions of people. The Founders would never have tolerated an ideological monopoly of Communists to have such dominance over the culture and speech.
Section 230 is speaking of online intermediaries, as in web hosts, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, internet providers, web hosts, etc.
Section 230 was enacted because Prodigy was sued for libel based on a user post. The court ruled that since they moderated their content they were a publisher and subject to the libel claim.
Congress realized this precedent would kill innovation and hinder the development of the internet so they enacted 230 which simply says 1) services or forums can't be sued for libel based on what their users post, and 2) they don't lose that protection if they moderate content. That's it.
If a special interest forum like Free Republic, which obviously does publish its own material, moderates users based on viewpoint, etc., qualifies under 230, that is news to me, and that be a good thing.
It's a very good thing because it's what keeps Jim from being sued for any libelous statements we FReepers may make.
Free Republic is like the Boy Scouts, or your local Christian church, who obviously can discriminate against even women from joining if they want to. Facebook claims to be like Whataburger, HEB, or Wally World. And such a business, if they can't discriminate against a black guy based on his race, or can't discriminate against women when it comes to opening an account, then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on viewpoint.
Private businesses like FR, Facebook or Twitter can discriminate against anyone they want for any reason except race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability (plus maybe some state-specific protections). They can absolutely discriminate on the basis of political viewpoint - it isn't a protected class anywhere.
I replied that Free Republic, essentially, is a publisher not covered by Section 230.
But if you look at the history I outlined above FR is almost exactly the kind of forum 230 was enacted to protect.
...you want to claim that Microsoft and your internet Registrar and Free Republic are absolutely the same, so you're going to play stupid about what that means.
Not sure where you got that notion and I'm not sure why most of the big infrastructure providers would need the libel protections of 230.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.