Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain
Token Daily is a place to discover trending news and products in crypto and blockchain.
Token Daily is a place to discover trending news and products in crypto and blockchain.
Really think people are making this way more complicated than it is.
If you remove the liability protection for content posted then the platforms will remove a lot more content. That is just the only thing that would make sense.
So if Trump posts that you should take chlorine to combat Covid-19 and now Twitter has liability it only makes sense they are going to remove the post. Or at least label properly to remove their liability.
Twitter has recently had some heavyweights in finance invest big money into this company. Twitter brought this whole 230 law to the forefront by fact checking Trump tweets. There is a logical reason why they done this. Twitter's moderator didn't just all of a sudden take it upon himself to semi muzzle the president without the nod from board members. Twitter has a plan and its about money. They will come out stronger on the other side , Most people wont agree with my thesis but there it is.
So ONE person in the world has had his feelings hurt and now the internet must suffer and we must all forfeit our right to free speech.
Hi zsreport
. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, your submission has been removed for the following reason:
I'm a bot and sometimes I make mistakes. If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/zsreport&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this submission.)
Goldman and other experts interviewed for this story say the most likely outcome of a repeal of Section 230 is one that neither the left nor the right want to see: more censorship by major tech companies and potentially paralyzing other websites.
"We don't think about things like Wikipedia, the Internet Archive and all these other public goods that exist and have a public-interest component that would not exist in a world without 230," said Aaron Mackey, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil liberties nonprofit.
Without Section 230, experts argue, sites would have less tolerance for people posting their opinions on YouTube, Reddit, Yelp, Amazon and many other corners of the Internet.
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to whitelist and outlet criteria.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
If twitters gets held accountable for what it's users posts. Then it certainly would hit him more than anything else. Every lie he makes would have to get the fact checking mark because it would be baseless claims. This might very well result in Trumps account get closed.
As with many moves he makes, it is mostly about intimidation, not practical consequences. Maybe not even really targeted at Twitter specifically, but designed to warn anybody who speaks out that he will aggressively target them back.
As if trump cares about warnings. It's like warning a brick. Although most bricks are fine, unlike trump.
Posting this in the comments since the threads seems to be auto-removed: https://reclaimthenet.org/twitter-admits-censored-white-house-tweet-doesnt-break-rules/
I think they should get rid of it. It would mean more restrictions on social media content which would be a good thing. I bet it would make it more likely that right wing fake news would be reduced.
Oh, please let's listen to the experts. They have never been wrong.
Edit-I'm honestly shocked that so many will blindly obey and believe the word of others over free thought. Think for yourselves.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-experts-are-almost-always-wrong-9997024/
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/31/experts-coronavirus-cdc-158313
I honestly don't see a good reason - an "in the public interest" reason - why these social media companies should be exempt from laws that cover any other media company.
Does society really benefit from a firehose of unfiltered yammering with absolutely no guidance or gatekeeper? To essentially have replaced mediated discussion with a free-for-all opinion amplifier machine?
There are pros and cons to everything, but the idea of "no consequences" for companies just doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't exactly encourage them to be socially responsible if they are immune to consequences.
Could some the dangers of repealing be ameliorated by mandatory Arbitration of claims?
TokenSoft is the volume leader in compliant token sales.
The open protocol for tokenized debt.
A secure online platform for buying, selling, and storing digital currencies.
A second layer, off-chain scaling proposal for bitcoin.
Ensuring the blockchain is inexpensive and accessible to everyone.
An open protocol for decentralized exchange on the ethereum blockchain.