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: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (12326)	5/28/2020 9:39:31 PM
From: Graystone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

The Twitter Broadcasting Corporation or Sorry Jill, oops I mean Jack. Funny thing that, getting kicked off by Jill was never specifically an endorsement of Section 230 but it sure seemed like it. She would just turf your ass without recourse. Off you went and the only thing you could do was go to Stockhouse and whine over there. Eventually we got a Raging Bullshit forum and then an IH forum so when you got turfed from SI you had somewhere to go. The only thing bad about those places is they are not SI. It was really annoying being there because they all knew you were only there until your bad ass was kindly invited to participate again by Jill. Brad and Jeff were like two Dads hanging out somewhere on the property but rarely seen. How many think this is the first time the duck has been turfed from his pond? Raise your hands, ooooh, everyone. How many think Jack can't play? How many think Jack will back down and let the duck take over and screw his little bluebird? Do birds have genitals to grab? What kind of bird is that Jack? Inquiring minds want to know. I am not sure the Pwoclamation will be all that terrible, what is a duck to do? If he screws the little bluebird then he is in everyone's face as well, the evil empire is involved, the alphabet gets all mixed up by the duck, we should have all a googleplex of plans preparing for a quack in the internet. Ok the announcement went off as I was writing this post. Off to have some cheesecake and look at my googleplex of plans. Ok, is everyone shut down now? Does the duck have the keys? Is Jack fired? Does Wikipedia have to change the entry on election fraud? Who is going to jail? Is it the duck, is it Jack? The <tweet> quacks don't seem right anymore, who owns Twitter, doesn't it belong to the duck? This <tweet> quack is coming soon I think. Ok everyone, we are all going to have to go to Discord, we are leaving Twitter, this is our last tweet.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (12326)	5/28/2020 10:16:26 PM
From: SI Dave	3 Recommendations Recommended By EL KABONG!!! Graystone HooterHanna Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Here were my comments when asked about it over at that other place I frequent: It's noise that will get a lot of politicians and political talking heads spewing their narrative. It'll go nowhere. It's just bluster and rhetoric. The FCC [or any other agency] doesn't have statutory authority to change or interpret the CDA, and the "good faith" clause has been attacked untold times by plaintiffs (without success). Moreover, Twitter has a 1st Amendment right to express their opinions of others' speech. I think Twitter is ill-advised to become a self-appointed arbiter of truth, but that's just a bad business decision (in my opinion), not something that Trump or anyone else can do anything about. Many people want platforms to be arbiters of truth, as long as it doesn't result in moderation of their "truth." It's a slippery slope to tread upon and is highly susceptible to personal bias. The free market should decide if any given platform is doing it or not doing it to their individual satisfaction, not the government, which is precluded from interfering by the 1A. So, this is just the controversy de jour until attention is directed to another shiny object. and "by allowing regulators to rethink Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act." It's not within the purview of regulators whether he wants to "allow" it or not. Section 230 is an affirmative defense, a resource available to interactive computer services when someone attempts to hold them liable for third-party content or their editorial decisions to publish or remove. It isn't a tool that can be used for offense; that that's been tried many times before and always gets shown to the door by the courts. Only Congress can change it, as they (stupidly) did with FOSTA.