-->
@fauxlaw
Identify the specific section of Section 230 that prohibits the unilateral banning of users.
Parler, the conservative version of twitter, should have been banned by big tech
Posts
Total:
167
-->
@3RU7AL
Thank you. I am, aftert all, just follwng the 1A, Section 230, and SCOTUS decisions, all pointing to the Twitter action against Trump, and the universal action against Parler as being inappropriate
-->
@drafterman
What? So you don't have to read it yourself? I am not your tutor. It's short. READ IT.
-->
@drafterman
You may miss it, because it does not specifically say there's a prohibition to ban users. But it does say only content can be banned, and that only on "good faith." You're required too apply critical thinking.
-->
@fauxlaw
I have read it. I see no section that prohibits services such as Twitter from unilaterally banning people. There is a section that protects them from removing content in good faith, but 1) removing content is a separate issue from banning users as you've said; 2) being protected in performing one action doesn't mean they aren't allowed to do it in a different way.
So what section explicitly says services such as Twitter cannot ban users unilaterally. Just identify the section and I'll read it myself.
-->
@fauxlaw
You may miss it, because it does not specifically say there's a prohibition to ban users. But it does say only content can be banned, and that only on "good faith." You're required too apply critical thinking.
No, it does not say only content can be banned. And it does not say that content can only be banned on good faith. It simply says that when it does ban objectionable content in good faith it is immune to civil action.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Top 4 twitter alternatives,
Mastodon
Gab
Amino
Peeks
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm pretty certain at least some of the evil parler users also drive evil automobiles.
I never questioned that. I asked if these products were used to spread their sedition. But automobiles are obviously nothing like the google play store. A car is not an active service. It is a specific item which is sold and then Ford (or whoever) has no knowledge or connection to what it is used for. Google can see the treason these people are spreading using their product. The playstore is an active service with a contract apps like parlor agree to. When parlor breaks that contract (by allowing treason and sedition) then google is perfectly within their rights to revoke parlor's access to their play store.
Would you call the picture of Kathy Griffin holding up the severed head of the sitting president "sedition"?
It is obviously inappropriate. A quick google search says she was flagged by twitter, had a federal investigation of her and lost mutliple jobs because of it. So your example is of another person who did something inappropriate and who was also punished for it.
I'm pretty certain at least some of the evil parler users also use evil water and evil electricity.
same answer as the car example.
-->
@drafterman
@3RU7AL
@HistoryBuff
@fauxlaw
Twitter can be a platform or a publisher and they have to be consistent. If they want to be a platform, they have to allow ANYBODY to post what they want to post on the site. If they wish to be a publisher, they can be sued for inaccurate claims. Twitter can’t be both. DART can’t be both. Both sites have to pick.
Thank you U-dog.
The problem I think everyone is overlooking is that Twitter is not just banning Parler for term violations on their(Twitter/Apple) platforms, but banning Parler for what they see as "violations" on Parler's own platform. An analogy would be like Saudi Arabia trying to incarcerate an American for doing something IN AMERICA that Saudi Arabia thinks is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
So your example is of another person who did something inappropriate and who was also punished for it.
Not by you. You didn't think it was incitement to violence. Why?
-->
@ethang5
The platform vs publisher stuff is a myth not supported by law. And twitter isn't banning parler.
-->
@ethang5
The problem I think everyone is overlooking is that Twitter is not just banning Parler for term violations on their(Twitter/Apple) platforms, but banning Parler for what they see as "violations" on Parler's own platform.
but parlor's platform is on Apple's platform. Think of it like if you are renting a shop space in a mall. Then that shop commits crimes. These crimes obviously violate the lease the shop owner signed. So the mall kicks them out.
Parlor had to agree to Apple's terms of service in order to be on their app store. they violated those terms of service and got kicked out. It is very simple.
Not by you. You didn't think it was incitement to violence. Why?
I didn't even know this happened until I looked it up a few minutes ago. I agree what she did was wrong.
But she didn't spend months convincing millions of people that trump had stolen an election and was literally going to destroy the country. Then organized a riot in the capitol where people actually tried to carry out a murder of the president. Trump did spend months convincing people of delusional conspiracies. He did organize a riot, get them riled up then they did attack democracy where they tried to murder government officials.
Let's not pretend 1 tweet from a comedian and months of lies and conspiracy theories from the sitting president of the united states are the same thing.
-->
@drafterman
And twitter isn't banning parler.
AMAZON is banning parler.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I never questioned that. I asked if these products were used to spread their sedition.
Yes. Without automobiles (and or water and or electricity), these dirty rotten scoundrels would have never been able to make it to the Capital Building to perform their evil deeds.
-->
@HistoryBuff
revoke parlor's access to their play store.
I actually agree with you on that part.
The "problem" is with AMAZON canceling their hosting without 30 days notice.
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes. Without automobiles (and or water and or electricity), these dirty rotten scoundrels would have never been able to make it to the Capital Building to perform their evil deeds.
but the automobile companies have no way they could have known or prevented that since they have no ongoing ownership of, or relationship to, their car. Google very much does have an ongoing ownership of and relationship to their own app store. So the comparison doesn't make sense.
The "problem" is with AMAZON canceling their hosting without 30 days notice.
If there is a contract in place requiring 30 days notice, then that should be respected. I don't know the nature of their contracts though.
Other than that, Amazon doesn't have to host any app they don't want to. They are a private company with the right to host, or not, any apps they want. They are making a business decision. IE they are not being paid by parlor, so they are losing money. They believe this is outweighed by the potential costs of continuing to do business with parlor. So the thing you are objecting to, is capitalism.
Do you believe the government should have the power to compel a company to do business with someone they don't want to? That seems to be something conservatives would argue strongly against.
-->
@HistoryBuff
but the automobile companies have no way they could have known or prevented that since they have no ongoing ownership of, or relationship to, their car.
Any vehicle with an onstar system can be remotely disabled by the manufacturer.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Other than that, Amazon doesn't have to host any app they don't want to.
Apparently.
Too big to jail.
Angry conservatives should abandon all AMAZON hosted apps and services immediately.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Do you believe the government should have the power to compel a company to do business with someone they don't want to?
Yes.
Public companies can't pick and choose which customers they wish to serve on a whim.
There must be some procrustean standard that applies to all customers.
For example,
The exception to this would be PRIVATE CLUBS.
-->
@3RU7AL
but the automobile companies have no way they could have known or prevented that since they have no ongoing ownership of, or relationship to, their car.Any vehicle with an onstar system can be remotely disabled by the manufacturer.
Which can only be used at the owner's request or at the request of law enforcement. Specifically, if the car has been stolen. But the car itself has no real relationship to GM. It has been purchased by the owner. Parlor hasn't been purchased from google. Parlor is paying Amazon/google for the right to put their app on Google/Amazon's platform. It is not even close to being the same relationship as buying a car.
Other than that, Amazon doesn't have to host any app they don't want to.Apparently. Too big to jail.
You didn't directly answer my question, but that comment kind of does. So you are saying you want the government to have the power to force companies to do business with other people/companies against their will? Is that what you are saying? because you appear to want the Chinese government system.
Angry conservatives should abandon all AMAZON hosted apps and services immediately.
that is certainly your right to do so. But try not to be such a hypocrite about it. IE saying how great free market capitalism is, then crying about how terrible free market capitalism is when it reigns in the crazy people you like.
-->
@drafterman
230, not free speech.
And Twitter has banned Parler's account on Twitter. (And Parker's CEO)
Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter have taken steps to sanction Parler. For stuff on Parler's platform! That is certainly not correct.
-->
@HistoryBuff
The problem I think everyone is overlooking is that Twitter is not just banning Parler for term violations on their(Twitter/Apple) platforms, but banning Parler for what they see as "violations" on Parler's own platform.
..b.parlor's platform is on Apple's platform.
In Apple's case, but this is not true for Google or Twitter.
Parlor had to agree to Apple's terms of service in order to be on their app store. they violated those terms of service and got kicked out. It is very simple.
It's very hypocritical. Apple did not sanction others doing the same thing or worse.
Not by you. You didn't think it was incitement to violence. Why?
I didn't even know this happened until I looked it up a few minutes ago. I agree what she did was wrong. But she didn't spend months convincing millions of people that trump had stolen an election and was literally going to destroy the country.
She spent years convincing millions of people that trump was an illigetimate president
Then organized a riot in the capitol where people actually tried to carry out a murder of the president.
What do you think coming out with the bloody severed head of the president was supposed to mean? If Trump had done that, you'd now be calling it incitement to murder.
Trump did spend months convincing people of delusional conspiracies.
This is your opinion, not fact. And the MSM is guilty of this every day. Remember Russia, Russia, Russia? Or quid pro quo? Or collusion? Delusional conspiracies all.
He did organize a riot,...
Lie. He did not.
then get them riled up then they did attack democracy where they tried to murder government officials.
Ridiculous accusations. Do you listen to yourself?
Let's not pretend 1 tweet from a comedian and
Let's not pretend 1 tweet from a comedian and months of lies and conspiracy theories from the sitting president of the united states are the same thing.
Your spin is not what happened. Griffin was on SNL, she was not alone, and she was a constant abuser of Trump, from the day he announced his run for the presidency. 78 million American citizens disagree with your opinion of lies and conspiracy theories.
The ones pretending here are you and the Democrats. Pretending all this huhbub is anything more than a ludacrous partisan attempt at cancelling Trump. I still cannot tell if hypocrisy is required to be Democrat, or if that party just draws hypocrites.
-->
@drafterman
No, it does not say only content can be banned.
Content = material, as in one post, not a ubiquitous ban on a user from posting anything. Only material that is [quoting from paragraph 2[A]: "...obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." That's why I said a complete ban of anyone is not allowed, because the service provider [Twitter] cannot ban Trump should he want to tweet "roses are red..." as I said in my #82. Section 230 says nothing about banning users. You cannot assume what it does not stipulate.
-->
@drafterman
And twitter isn't banning parler.
But they did ban Trump. Wrong action by Twitter.
-->
@fauxlaw
Content = material, as in one post, not a ubiquitous ban on a user from posting anything.
The ban on a user is what we're talking about.
Only material that is [quoting from paragraph 2[A]: "...obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material isconstitutionally protected." That's why I said a complete ban of anyone is not allowed, because the service provider [Twitter] cannot ban Trump should he want to tweet "roses are red..." as I said in my #82. Section 230 says nothing about banning users. You cannot assume what it does not stipulate.
Exactly, Section 230 says nothing about banning users. So what law prohibits banning users?
-->
@drafterman
There is no law allowing banning of users. That is my point. Donald Trump is a user. Was a user. But he was banned. Nor can one provider ban another provider. but a provider was banned. Parler. Not because Parler was a a provider for users advocating violence because parket did not allow inciting violence on their platform, but they were banned anyway by Google and Apple.
I'll give y'all an example of another attempt to enact a universal ban one hundred years ago. Congress banned the manufacture, sale and distribution of liquor. They would have banned drinking it, but knew that was a preposterous proposal. They figured that if those activities that were banned, drinking would shortly follow, not anticipating the new industry of bootlegging. Congress was too dumb to see that. So, Congress banned an industry. In 13 short years, it was repealed, the only amendment to suffer that fate. One factor was sudden loss of revenue by liquor sales taxes, and corporate taxes. Such will be the case in these attempts to ban users simply for their non-violent, but contrary political content. Mark my words. You do not censure without consequence.
-->
@fauxlaw
There is no law allowing banning of users. That is my point. Donald Trump is a user. Was a user. But he was banned. Nor can one provider ban another provider. but a provider was banned. Parler. Not because Parler was a a provider for users advocating violence because parket did not allow inciting violence on their platform, but they were banned anyway by Google and Apple.
You realize that things are legal until a law is passed making them illegal right? In order for banning users to be prohibited, there needs to be a law stating that.
-->
@ethang5
Trump did spend months convincing people of delusional conspiracies.This is your opinion, not fact. And the MSM is guilty of this every day. Remember Russia, Russia, Russia? Or quid pro quo? Or collusion? Delusional conspiracies all.
Good point.
Where are all those WMDs?
Why did "the news" spread those viscous "conspiracy theories" about IRAQ planning 911?
-->
@HistoryBuff
how great free market capitalism is
Please explain where I said anything to suggest "how great free market capitalism is".
TRUMP IS AN IDIOT.
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you are saying you want the government to have the power to force companies to do business with other people/companies against their will?
Yes.
Imagine a world where a business (that is open to the public) can choose to refuse service to Jewish customers.
Imagine a world where a business (that is open to the public) can choose to refuse service to Black customers.
Imagine a world where a business (that is open to the public) can choose to refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers.
U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information. [LINK]
CREED.
If you want to capriciously select your customers, start a PRIVATE CLUB.