Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Dave who wrote (12289)	12/5/2019 9:36:12 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

These are all examples of exercising a publisher's editorial discretion, which is specifically immunized from liability and lawsuit by Section 230, by specific design and intent. That's 180 degrees out... the opposite of the truth in what the law AS PASSED intends... as that's NOT what it says... The law, on its face, does not insulate anyone from liability for being a publisher... It insulates them from liability for being NOT a publisher... and you can't have it both ways... to have the immunity for being NOT a publisher... while being a publisher... And that's the problem... EXACTLY as I've been saying... because it has the law doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what we WANT... and WE... and not the media companies seeking to justify their imposition of censorship... are what matters. That they've been lying about the law... just like backpage was lying about not sex trafficking children... is the exact same pattern, too... So, no... not settled law... That's law that needs to be burned to the ground...

To: SI Dave who wrote (12289)	12/5/2019 10:16:21 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

It was a brilliant piece of legislation that gave everyone a soapbox... That was true... the operative word in yours being WAS... as long as it WAS interpreted to means what it actually says... Under the reading you just offered and defended... ? Now you're saying that the REAL benefit of that brilliant piece of legislation is that it... allows media companies to take the soapbox away from anyone they don't like... ? Where do you see that written in between the lines of a law that protects ONLY companies that DON'T exercise editorial control... but operate as neutral conduits of others work ? It is an obvious fraud... to claim that an immunity offered to non-publishers... applies to publishers only because they use the same technology. Fatuous... would be the right word... to describe the acceptance of that argument... by people who clearly know better... but seek a benefit from looking the other way ? Explain to me, if you will... how you get from immunizing NON publishers in CDA230... to citing "examples of a publisher exercising editorial discretion"... being a proof of the immunity applying to that publisher ? Publishers HAVE rights, of course.... what they don't have... is a right to be immunized for behaviors that are those of publishers. If you ARE a publisher... you have the liability... and are not immunized... under a law that intends to protect NON publishers ? This, at least, is pretty black and white. But, if YOU are confused about that... that, in itself, is ample reason to re-write the law to ensure we eliminate your confusion... And, then... of course... there's a WORLD of difference between exercising control over the words YOU use... in your exercise of editorial discretion... and your exercising control over the words OTHERS use... "Editors"... don't have the power to limit OTHERS speech... ? The limit of their reach... is in controlling their own speech... within the confines of the limit of their own PUBLICATION... for which they own the liability. Inside that set of limits they impose... they own it... The modern "I'm not liable as a publisher" publishers using newer technology to publish... seek to avoid the liability that MUST apply to publishers... which fact, should, in itself, be a red flag. Why... does a publisher want to avoid being held accountable ? If they are not held accountable... what are the likely consequences? How and why does the choice of technology... differentiate between one publisher and another in terms of their liability for the SAME act... when users of the new technology perform EXACTLY the same function in editorial control ? You are liable if you put it on paper... but not if you publish electronically? Yeah... that won't pass Constitutional muster... A newspaper editor... might not publish your letter... but he isn't going to turn your phone off so that you can't communicate your ideas to others ? The phone company... unlike the newspaper... isn't conditioning the transmission of your messages... or providing you service... based on the content of your calls ? So, the phone company doesn't have to worry about liability tied to their actions... because they ARE a neutral provider of a conduit for communication. CDA230 in the plain text... SAYS that as long as the technology is applied in the way the phone company does... it enables immunity from the liability a publisher would have... but it doesn't mean that if you behave like a newspaper editor instead of a phone company... if you are not content neutral in your provision of service... that you get to avoid the liability of editors like the phone company does. From there... stretch the law on the basis of what is determined to be "offensive" ? Fatuousness, again. That part of the law... as it is being applied now... will also fail a Constitutional test... because it is a simple fraud. That's true because its an obvious fraud in the use of the nouns... because the "editor" we're discussing isn't "editing" their own work... but is in fact a "censor"... who is "censoring" others work. CDA 230 doesn't intend to immunize censorship... which is the exact opposite of your "brilliant piece of legislation that gave (note the telling use of past-tense) everyone a soapbox and megaphone" ? The law does not intend... and does not say... that the "non-editors" immunity... actually empowers "editors" to reach across the technology to shut down others speech that they don't agree with... So, in the news TODAY ? Facebook testified in front of the Senate recently... with Dr. Evil hooking his little pinky and lying to the Senators while saying that Facebook DOES NOT shadow ban ? Yeah... Right. Exactly like backpage were "pioneers of free speech"... not sex traffickers selling kidnapped children into sex slavery... Twitter Censorship Confirmed: "Shadow Banning" Is Now Written Into The Platform's New Terms

To: SI Dave who wrote (12289)	12/6/2019 2:41:01 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

I think what's blatantly and bizarrely missing from the discussion is disclosure. For example, if a hundred people post what a great investment XYZ Corp is, which they are entitled to do, I might find that compelling. But if those so-called hundred people were all paid touts, employees of the company, or bots, I would find that deceitful and therefore highly suspect. Ditto for people rigging their book sales to get on the best seller list, companies anonymously writing negative reviews of their competitors, etc. Absent that, no matter the source of the message, we are prone to manipulation by either the state or bad-actors, the antithesis of what a true republic is all about. I wish I could be confident tech companies would see the urgency to do this on their own, but so far it appears greed is more important. - Jeff