IseWolf22 said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

waynecountywolf said:

---

Mitch just blocked $2000

---

Why?

---

Same reason Pelosi did for so long in the house, an election

---

Pelosi blocked what? Was there a bill passed in the senate that the house refused to vote on? Didn't the house pass a bill in May with a second stimulus check that Mitch refused to bring to a vote?

---

From October 27th (Link)

Quote:

---

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ended any hopes of a Covid-19 relief bill before the Election Day, blaming the White House for failing "miserably" in a letter to House Democrats on Tuesday.

---

From today (Link)

Quote:

---

The Kentucky Republican later Tuesday introduced a bill that would boost the size of the checks to $2,000 from $600, repeal Section 230 legal liability protections for internet platforms and create a commission to study election issues. The bill would meet all of President Donald Trump's recent demands, which are unrelated, but would not get Democratic support and become law.

---

To translate - neither party gives one iota of a **** about the American public. Both are playing games while the people they represent suffer.

I have thoughts, but they are irrelevant. I wish more would recognize that neither side gives a **** about them

---

The first link is talking about negotiations between the WH and House. Regardless what they agreed upon, the senate still has to pass it. The House never blocked a bill passed by the Senate. The Senate has spent the pass 9 months refusing to join the negotiations.

The second link is the Republican party playing games while the people they represent suffer.

---

The negotiation is between the House, the Whitehouse, and the Senate. Pelosi absolutely plays political games with legislation as much as McConnell. She's passed many bills this congress that have no shot at clearing the Senate, mostly for political messaging. She's also locked down the house floor and amendment process as much as McConnell.
They both suck.

---

Pelosi runs the House much more efficiently than Mitch runs the Senate, margins has a lot to do with it but not all. She can pass ten symbolic bills and three "real" bills, but the Senate can't even come up with any type of bill and hold a vote. And then republican's will blame Pelosi for playing politics.

The negotiations for the majority of the year have been solely between Pelosi's office and Mnuchin's office. Mitch has sat it out. He also advised the WH to not make a stimulus deal before the election because he was worried about the "politics" of it.

As McConnell advises White House against pre-election stimulus deal, Pelosi and Mnuchin make headway in talks. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.

---

Repealing section 230 without replacement would force massive amounts of corporate censorships on all websites.

Imagine how heavy handed the moderation on this website would be if James Henderson was libel for everything every poster posted. Now expand that the all social media and ISPs.

Ground_Chuck said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.

---

Repealing section 230 without replacement would force massive amounts of corporate censorships on all websites.

Imagine how heavy handed the moderation on this website would be if James Henderson was libel for everything every poster posted. Now expand that the all social media and ISPs.

---

Yea, I'm not sure that's the way it will work...

I think this comes down to a positional stance (platform or publisher) of your company. James and/or Steve will have to chime in here.

Twitter, etc takes a position of a platform (section 230 is referring to platforms, I think - remember, this was passed a long time ago) yet are acting like a publisher. It's probably to do with the regulatory issues between the two. I'm not clear on the difference; so, someone please chime in.

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.

---

Repealing section 230 without replacement would force massive amounts of corporate censorships on all websites.

Imagine how heavy handed the moderation on this website would be if James Henderson was libel for everything every poster posted. Now expand that the all social media and ISPs.

---

Yea, I'm not sure that's the way it will work...

I think this comes down to a positional stance (platform or publisher) of your company. James and/or Steve will have to chime in here.

Twitter, etc takes a position of a platform (section 230 is referring to platforms, I think - remember, this was passed a long time ago) yet are acting like a publisher. It's probably to do with the regulatory issues between the two. I'm not clear on the difference; so, someone please chime in.

---

We can argue about replacing section 230 with something else, but a repeal without any replacement is awful and bad policy no matter how you slice it.
All section 230 does is make platforms not liable for content posted by their users. James and F5 sports would be liable for anything posted on this forum without it.
Social media companies moderating content as they wish does not define them as a publisher, as they aren't creating content. You don't like their moderation (it is biased), but repealing section 230 just means they will have to move to much more extreme levels of moderation on everyone.
Again, we can have a debate on what should replace it. But repeal without any other replacement legislation is stupid

Ground_Chuck said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

waynecountywolf said:

---

Mitch just blocked $2000

---

Why?

---

Same reason Pelosi did for so long in the house, an election

---

Pelosi blocked what? Was there a bill passed in the senate that the house refused to vote on? Didn't the house pass a bill in May with a second stimulus check that Mitch refused to bring to a vote?

---

From October 27th (Link)

Quote:

---

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ended any hopes of a Covid-19 relief bill before the Election Day, blaming the White House for failing "miserably" in a letter to House Democrats on Tuesday.

---

From today (Link)

Quote:

---

The Kentucky Republican later Tuesday introduced a bill that would boost the size of the checks to $2,000 from $600, repeal Section 230 legal liability protections for internet platforms and create a commission to study election issues. The bill would meet all of President Donald Trump's recent demands, which are unrelated, but would not get Democratic support and become law.

---

To translate - neither party gives one iota of a **** about the American public. Both are playing games while the people they represent suffer.

I have thoughts, but they are irrelevant. I wish more would recognize that neither side gives a **** about them

---

The first link is talking about negotiations between the WH and House. Regardless what they agreed upon, the senate still has to pass it. The House never blocked a bill passed by the Senate. The Senate has spent the pass 9 months refusing to join the negotiations.

The second link is the Republican party playing games while the people they represent suffer.

---

The negotiation is between the House, the Whitehouse, and the Senate. Pelosi absolutely plays political games with legislation as much as McConnell. She's passed many bills this congress that have no shot at clearing the Senate, mostly for political messaging. She's also locked down the house floor and amendment process as much as McConnell.
They both suck.

---

Pelosi runs the House much more efficiently than Mitch runs the Senate, margins has a lot to do with it but not all. She can pass ten symbolic bills and three "real" bills, but the Senate can't even come up with any type of bill and hold a vote. And then republican's will blame Pelosi for playing politics.

The negotiations for the majority of the year have been solely between Pelosi's office and Mnuchin's office. Mitch has sat it out. He also advised the WH to not make a stimulus deal before the election because he was worried about the "politics" of it.

As McConnell advises White House against pre-election stimulus deal, Pelosi and Mnuchin make headway in talks. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

---

Pelosi cares about political messaging much more than McConnel, who relishes his boogyman reputation

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.

---

Repealing section 230 without replacement would force massive amounts of corporate censorships on all websites.

Imagine how heavy handed the moderation on this website would be if James Henderson was libel for everything every poster posted. Now expand that the all social media and ISPs.

---

Yea, I'm not sure that's the way it will work...

I think this comes down to a positional stance (platform or publisher) of your company. James and/or Steve will have to chime in here.

Twitter, etc takes a position of a platform (section 230 is referring to platforms, I think - remember, this was passed a long time ago) yet are acting like a publisher. It's probably to do with the regulatory issues between the two. I'm not clear on the difference; so, someone please chime in.

---

We can argue about replacing section 230 with something else, but a repeal without any replacement is awful and bad policy no matter how you slice it.
All section 230 does is make platforms not liable for content posted by their users. James and F5 sports would be liable for anything posted on this forum without it.
Social media companies moderating content as they wish does not define them as a publisher, as they aren't creating content. You don't like their moderation (it is biased), but repealing section 230 just means they will have to move to much more extreme levels of moderation on everyone.
Again, we can have a debate on what should replace it. But repeal without any other replacement legislation is stupid

---

I'm curious... what's your stance on the US Constitution? Old, outdated, needs reforming, or...

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.

---

Repealing section 230 without replacement would force massive amounts of corporate censorships on all websites.

Imagine how heavy handed the moderation on this website would be if James Henderson was libel for everything every poster posted. Now expand that the all social media and ISPs.

---

Yea, I'm not sure that's the way it will work...

I think this comes down to a positional stance (platform or publisher) of your company. James and/or Steve will have to chime in here.

Twitter, etc takes a position of a platform (section 230 is referring to platforms, I think - remember, this was passed a long time ago) yet are acting like a publisher. It's probably to do with the regulatory issues between the two. I'm not clear on the difference; so, someone please chime in.

---

We can argue about replacing section 230 with something else, but a repeal without any replacement is awful and bad policy no matter how you slice it.
All section 230 does is make platforms not liable for content posted by their users. James and F5 sports would be liable for anything posted on this forum without it.
Social media companies moderating content as they wish does not define them as a publisher, as they aren't creating content. You don't like their moderation (it is biased), but repealing section 230 just means they will have to move to much more extreme levels of moderation on everyone.
Again, we can have a debate on what should replace it. But repeal without any other replacement legislation is stupid

---

I'm curious... what's your stance on the US Constitution? Old, outdated, needs reforming, or...

---

We've had this discussion before and you know my position. Multiple updates/reforms are needed, as long as they are pushed through the formal amendment process, which requires a high amount of consensus.
However, that's not relevant to section 230 discussion. It's clearly constitutional, as it protects private organizations from punishment by government or private citizens which take issue with content posted by users. It protects private rights.

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.

---

Repealing section 230 without replacement would force massive amounts of corporate censorships on all websites.

Imagine how heavy handed the moderation on this website would be if James Henderson was libel for everything every poster posted. Now expand that the all social media and ISPs.

---

Yea, I'm not sure that's the way it will work...

I think this comes down to a positional stance (platform or publisher) of your company. James and/or Steve will have to chime in here.

Twitter, etc takes a position of a platform (section 230 is referring to platforms, I think - remember, this was passed a long time ago) yet are acting like a publisher. It's probably to do with the regulatory issues between the two. I'm not clear on the difference; so, someone please chime in.

---

We can argue about replacing section 230 with something else, but a repeal without any replacement is awful and bad policy no matter how you slice it.
All section 230 does is make platforms not liable for content posted by their users. James and F5 sports would be liable for anything posted on this forum without it.
Social media companies moderating content as they wish does not define them as a publisher, as they aren't creating content. You don't like their moderation (it is biased), but repealing section 230 just means they will have to move to much more extreme levels of moderation on everyone.
Again, we can have a debate on what should replace it. But repeal without any other replacement legislation is stupid

---

I'm curious... what's your stance on the US Constitution? Old, outdated, needs reforming, or...

---

We've had this discussion before and you know my position. Multiple updates/reforms are needed, as long as they are pushed through the formal amendment process, which requires a high amount of consensus.
However, that's not relevant to section 230 discussion. It's clearly constitutional, as it protects private organizations from punishment by government or private citizens which take issue with content posted by users. It protects private rights.

---

I couldn't remember your position on the constitution; therefore I asked. The purpose of me asking was to get a better understanding of your world view. Thanks for reminding me...

That being said, I agree that it appears to be constitutional; however, I am not opposed to revisiting the law. Section 230 was done in 1996 (I think) and the internet has evolved since then. I'm not in favor of changing law, for changes sake...

Based on my understanding (subject to change with more info), the following should be what we protect.

Private business from unnecessary litigation
Platforms, of private business, as long as they state their rules and adhere to them
Publishers can be libel for destructive commentary (way too broad) but something needs to stated

Really, I'm not a policy maker; so, these things get tricky. What I wouldn't do is put a broad law in place that gives a government agency abilities to write regulations. That's when we get into real issues...

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.

---

The second that facebook, twitter, and all of the other social media platforms started censoring comments and adding additional information and warning tags to the bottom of post they should of lost their protections. These companies are more than welcome to censor and edit all they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to do it and then claim in the same breath that they should be protected because the aren't producing or editing anything. I don't see how you can have it both ways

---

They are allowed to moderate as they see fit, just like James and mods on this forum. They own the platform and can regulate speech on that privately owned platform.
And repealing section 230 won't even help you. It would increase moderation dramatically

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.

---

The second that facebook, twitter, and all of the other social media platforms started censoring comments and adding additional information and warning tags to the bottom of post they should of lost their protections. These companies are more than welcome to censor and edit all they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to do it and then claim in the same breath that they should be protected because the aren't producing or editing anything. I don't see how you can have it both ways

---

They are allowed to moderate as they see fit, just like James and mods on this forum. They own the platform and can regulate speech on that privately owned platform.
And repealing section 230 won't even help you. It would increase moderation dramatically

---

Do you not see a slippery slope of allowing tech companies to censor one side? I agree that repealing section 230 isnt the correct answer, but picking and choosing what they "censor" with no oversight is a disaster waiting to happen.

I know their argument is that they arent media companies and shouldnt be treated as such, but that argument is bull.

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.

---

The second that facebook, twitter, and all of the other social media platforms started censoring comments and adding additional information and warning tags to the bottom of post they should of lost their protections. These companies are more than welcome to censor and edit all they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to do it and then claim in the same breath that they should be protected because the aren't producing or editing anything. I don't see how you can have it both ways

---

They are allowed to moderate as they see fit, just like James and mods on this forum. They own the platform and can regulate speech on that privately owned platform.
And repealing section 230 won't even help you. It would increase moderation dramatically

---

There are terms and conditions for this forum that have to be followed, if the moderators here were working outside if that and playing favorites I would take issue. On this message board both GP and Cisco have a right to post whatever they want as long as they don't breach the TOS, and I don't have a problem with either of them posting what they want. Now if a moderator like Glass decided to play favorites and start to censor what GP was posting just because he disagreed with GP's politics I would take exception to that.

I feel the same way about social media as well. All of them have obviously decided to allow or disallow different stories because of their political bias. For the last four years democrats have been allowed to scream things like "not my president" all they want without any type warning from the social media companies, but go and start posting Biden isn't my president or disagree with the election results and your get a disclaimer posted at the bottom of your tweet. Look at what happened to the New York Post twitter account - they posted a story about the Biden's kid's laptop (that turned out to be true) and their social media account was blocked because "it was possibly obtained illegally" but look at what happened when Trump's taxes were illegally leaked...Twitter allowed it to run. Neither of of these situations were against the TOS of the site, but Twitter decided to take an editorial stand. As a company they are allowed to do that, but if Twitter has decided that they are going to decide what they allow and not allow to run then the company shouldn't be allowed to claim that they deserve protections due to section 230 because they aren't editing or publishing anything. That is exactly what Social Media companies have decided to do.

If social media accounts decide that they want to start editing what is and isn't allowed that is the perogitive, but they shouldn't be allowed protections if that is how the company decides to manage their business

One of the things that create a difference with Inside Pack Sports and Twitter is that Inside Pack Sports is a pay site, whereas, Twitter is an open platform. Now, I'm not a person that knows the laws regarding this; however, that's a big difference.

If I were the owners of Inside Pack Sports, I would be careful with the Open Forums as they are not pay. Additionally, the moderators can cause issues with the way they moderate. If they show bias, that "might" become an issue for Inside Pack Sports.

Again, I'm not a lawyer and do not know the laws regarding this. If I were an owner, these are questions I would be asking...

One other thing with Twitter, YouTube, Google, Facebook, etc... they can control what gets boosted and what doesn't through algorithms. That is a major understanding change since when Section 230 was passed.

I think most of the initial thinking, when section 230 was passed, was based on these companies being platforms, without any inflection by the company. Obviously, that's not what is happening today.

Example: anyone, including the President, calling out election irregularities have a notice pointing the viewer to another opinion. That is, on the surface, censorship...

I cant wait to get my check(well, DD). Gonna buy a kitty tower for my fat cat, and blow the rest at the mall lol

I haven't been keeping up with the news on this as much as I would have liked. Did it end up going through? I closed the bank account that it would typically direct deposit into.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.

---

The second that facebook, twitter, and all of the other social media platforms started censoring comments and adding additional information and warning tags to the bottom of post they should of lost their protections. These companies are more than welcome to censor and edit all they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to do it and then claim in the same breath that they should be protected because the aren't producing or editing anything. I don't see how you can have it both ways

---

They are allowed to moderate as they see fit, just like James and mods on this forum. They own the platform and can regulate speech on that privately owned platform.
And repealing section 230 won't even help you. It would increase moderation dramatically

---

Do you not see a slippery slope of allowing tech companies to censor one side? I agree that repealing section 230 isnt the correct answer, but picking and choosing what they "censor" with no oversight is a disaster waiting to happen.

I know their argument is that they arent media companies and shouldnt be treated as such, but that argument is bull.

---

It is a slippery slope and IMO they've handled it poorly and have opened themselves up to attack from both sides.

That said, getting the government involved in how a private company moderates their own platform is a far more dangerous slippery slope. Government should regulate speech as little as humanly possible. I am 1000 times more concerned with that then with a private platform that has a completely voluntary user base

Section 230 literally allows them to moderate as they see fit. Editing posts does not invalidate their existing protections.

IseWolf22 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.

---

The second that facebook, twitter, and all of the other social media platforms started censoring comments and adding additional information and warning tags to the bottom of post they should of lost their protections. These companies are more than welcome to censor and edit all they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to do it and then claim in the same breath that they should be protected because the aren't producing or editing anything. I don't see how you can have it both ways

---

They are allowed to moderate as they see fit, just like James and mods on this forum. They own the platform and can regulate speech on that privately owned platform.
And repealing section 230 won't even help you. It would increase moderation dramatically

---

Do you not see a slippery slope of allowing tech companies to censor one side? I agree that repealing section 230 isnt the correct answer, but picking and choosing what they "censor" with no oversight is a disaster waiting to happen.

I know their argument is that they arent media companies and shouldnt be treated as such, but that argument is bull.

---

It is a slippery slope and IMO they've handled it poorly and have opened themselves up to attack from both sides.

That said, getting the government involved in how a private company moderates their own platform is a far more dangerous slippery slope. Government should regulate speech as little as humanly possible. I am 1000 times more concerned with that then with a private platform that has a completely voluntary user base

---

I can see that argument. My issue is that Twitter/FB/etc drive so much of whats being reported, they should be considered media companies as I stated above and treated as such. Due to their censorship, other true media companies followed suit, then course corrected after Biden won. That is a recipe for disaster moving forward.

I dont have the answer for this. All I know is that what they are currently doing is causing way more harm than good

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.

---

The second that facebook, twitter, and all of the other social media platforms started censoring comments and adding additional information and warning tags to the bottom of post they should of lost their protections. These companies are more than welcome to censor and edit all they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to do it and then claim in the same breath that they should be protected because the aren't producing or editing anything. I don't see how you can have it both ways

---

They are allowed to moderate as they see fit, just like James and mods on this forum. They own the platform and can regulate speech on that privately owned platform.
And repealing section 230 won't even help you. It would increase moderation dramatically

---

Do you not see a slippery slope of allowing tech companies to censor one side? I agree that repealing section 230 isnt the correct answer, but picking and choosing what they "censor" with no oversight is a disaster waiting to happen.

I know their argument is that they arent media companies and shouldnt be treated as such, but that argument is bull.

---

It is a slippery slope and IMO they've handled it poorly and have opened themselves up to attack from both sides.

That said, getting the government involved in how a private company moderates their own platform is a far more dangerous slippery slope. Government should regulate speech as little as humanly possible. I am 1000 times more concerned with that then with a private platform that has a completely voluntary user base

---

I can see that argument. My issue is that Twitter/FB/etc drive so much of whats being reported, they should be considered media companies as I stated above and treated as such. Due to their censorship, other true media companies followed suit, then course corrected after Biden won. That is a recipe for disaster moving forward.

I dont have the answer for this. All I know is that what they are currently doing is causing way more harm than good

---

What exactly are you looking for, having them treated like "media companies"? They do not principally create content, the overwhelming 99.9%+ of content is user generated.

It the status quo perfect? No. But not every problem in society is best solved by further regulation. I've yet to see a single proposal to replace Section 230 that doesn't amount to government taking a much more active role in regulating speech. I'm not happy with how big Tech has handled this either, but for now, I'm mostly just not using their platforms anymore. Our society would be better with significantly less social media anyways

IseWolf22 said:

---

Section 230 literally allows them to moderate as they see fit. Editing posts does not invalidate their existing protections.

---

That is exactly the problem. They now become a publisher and completely at odds with Section 230 original intent.

IseWolf22 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.

---

The second that facebook, twitter, and all of the other social media platforms started censoring comments and adding additional information and warning tags to the bottom of post they should of lost their protections. These companies are more than welcome to censor and edit all they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to do it and then claim in the same breath that they should be protected because the aren't producing or editing anything. I don't see how you can have it both ways

---

They are allowed to moderate as they see fit, just like James and mods on this forum. They own the platform and can regulate speech on that privately owned platform.
And repealing section 230 won't even help you. It would increase moderation dramatically

---

Do you not see a slippery slope of allowing tech companies to censor one side? I agree that repealing section 230 isnt the correct answer, but picking and choosing what they "censor" with no oversight is a disaster waiting to happen.

I know their argument is that they arent media companies and shouldnt be treated as such, but that argument is bull.

---

It is a slippery slope and IMO they've handled it poorly and have opened themselves up to attack from both sides.

That said, getting the government involved in how a private company moderates their own platform is a far more dangerous slippery slope. Government should regulate speech as little as humanly possible. I am 1000 times more concerned with that then with a private platform that has a completely voluntary user base

---

I can see that argument. My issue is that Twitter/FB/etc drive so much of whats being reported, they should be considered media companies as I stated above and treated as such. Due to their censorship, other true media companies followed suit, then course corrected after Biden won. That is a recipe for disaster moving forward.

I dont have the answer for this. All I know is that what they are currently doing is causing way more harm than good

---

What exactly are you looking for, having them treated like "media companies"? They do not principally create content, the overwhelming 99.9%+ of content is user generated.

It the status quo perfect? No. But not every problem in society is best solved by further regulation. I've yet to see a single proposal to replace Section 230 that doesn't amount to government taking a much more active role in regulating speech. I'm not happy with how big Tech has handled this either, but for now, I'm mostly just not using their platforms anymore. Our society would be better with significantly less social media anyways

---

I agree about less regulation. In fact, we should look at other areas for less regulation, like health care providers (not health insurance); then we can look at reducing regulations on insurance companies...

I agree that they generally don't create content; however, they influence content significantly. Social media doesn't have a hands off operating model without influence!