Friendly Neighborhood Commie Scumbag
@fncommie.bsky.social
I’m just a guy, sitting in front of a computer, asking it to love me.
On what grounds would such a suit be successful? Go ahead and sue - you'll lose (as you aren't defaming or libeling anyone), and have to cover all legal costs on both sides.
July 25, 2025 at 6:23 PM
On what grounds would such a suit be successful? Go ahead and sue - you'll lose (as you aren't defaming or libeling anyone), and have to cover all legal costs on both sides.
Newspapers aren't required to publish letters to the editor, but if they do, then the newspaper (and the author) can be sued if the content of that letter is seriously screwed up.
Section 230 removes that accountability. That's not good.
Section 230 removes that accountability. That's not good.
July 24, 2025 at 10:43 PM
Newspapers aren't required to publish letters to the editor, but if they do, then the newspaper (and the author) can be sued if the content of that letter is seriously screwed up.
Section 230 removes that accountability. That's not good.
Section 230 removes that accountability. That's not good.
I don't suggest we should be able to sue for being blocked/banned from a moderated site, but if what they host is defamatory or libelous, they deserve no more protection than a newspaper.
July 24, 2025 at 10:39 PM
I don't suggest we should be able to sue for being blocked/banned from a moderated site, but if what they host is defamatory or libelous, they deserve no more protection than a newspaper.
The _government_ shouldn't be able to sue (that's 1A protected), but right now the People can't do it either, so the corporations are free to do whatever they want, in terms of censoring the web.
July 24, 2025 at 10:37 PM
The _government_ shouldn't be able to sue (that's 1A protected), but right now the People can't do it either, so the corporations are free to do whatever they want, in terms of censoring the web.
If they want to keep their free-from-litigation status, the corporations will have to remove their moderation, becoming a "common-carrier" like the post or phones.
If they want to maintain some sort of "community standards" (censorship), then they need to be civilly liable for what they present.
If they want to maintain some sort of "community standards" (censorship), then they need to be civilly liable for what they present.
July 24, 2025 at 10:33 PM
If they want to keep their free-from-litigation status, the corporations will have to remove their moderation, becoming a "common-carrier" like the post or phones.
If they want to maintain some sort of "community standards" (censorship), then they need to be civilly liable for what they present.
If they want to maintain some sort of "community standards" (censorship), then they need to be civilly liable for what they present.
You assume that all content will get wiped. I assume that all moderation - the _algorithms_ - will get wiped, and we'll have truly free speech OR the corporations that craft these algorithms will at least be accountable for how their algorithms behave.
Right now, they can censor whatever they like.
Right now, they can censor whatever they like.
July 24, 2025 at 10:31 PM
You assume that all content will get wiped. I assume that all moderation - the _algorithms_ - will get wiped, and we'll have truly free speech OR the corporations that craft these algorithms will at least be accountable for how their algorithms behave.
Right now, they can censor whatever they like.
Right now, they can censor whatever they like.
No it does not. If you were to try to post that on *his* platform, you'd get banned.
230 protects him from getting sued for letting hate crime threats through his filters at the same time it protects him from liability for banning you.
230 protects him from getting sued for letting hate crime threats through his filters at the same time it protects him from liability for banning you.
July 23, 2025 at 12:34 AM
No it does not. If you were to try to post that on *his* platform, you'd get banned.
230 protects him from getting sued for letting hate crime threats through his filters at the same time it protects him from liability for banning you.
230 protects him from getting sued for letting hate crime threats through his filters at the same time it protects him from liability for banning you.
230 removes civil liability from EDITORIAL DECISIONS by corporations. If they don't want liability, then they should provide a clear channel - no censorship - or they can enforce their "community standards" (edits) and be liable for the content they decide to publish - just like newspapers.
July 22, 2025 at 3:53 PM
230 removes civil liability from EDITORIAL DECISIONS by corporations. If they don't want liability, then they should provide a clear channel - no censorship - or they can enforce their "community standards" (edits) and be liable for the content they decide to publish - just like newspapers.
So, corporate censorship is fine, but governmental censorship is not? Welcome to oligarchy!
July 22, 2025 at 3:45 PM
So, corporate censorship is fine, but governmental censorship is not? Welcome to oligarchy!
The "Take It Down" act fails to accept the reality that there will always be a seedy underbelly to the Internet.
The only hope we have is to hold people accountable, and that means repealing section 230, so that we can hold publishers accountable for what they present to the world.
The only hope we have is to hold people accountable, and that means repealing section 230, so that we can hold publishers accountable for what they present to the world.
July 22, 2025 at 12:49 AM
The "Take It Down" act fails to accept the reality that there will always be a seedy underbelly to the Internet.
The only hope we have is to hold people accountable, and that means repealing section 230, so that we can hold publishers accountable for what they present to the world.
The only hope we have is to hold people accountable, and that means repealing section 230, so that we can hold publishers accountable for what they present to the world.
Section 230 is a problem. When it was first envisioned, it was meant to provide something akin to "common carrier protection" to ISPs and unmoderated forums.
The imposition of "community standards" is an act of editorial control, and should therefore be treated as would any other edited medium.
The imposition of "community standards" is an act of editorial control, and should therefore be treated as would any other edited medium.
July 22, 2025 at 12:45 AM
Section 230 is a problem. When it was first envisioned, it was meant to provide something akin to "common carrier protection" to ISPs and unmoderated forums.
The imposition of "community standards" is an act of editorial control, and should therefore be treated as would any other edited medium.
The imposition of "community standards" is an act of editorial control, and should therefore be treated as would any other edited medium.
When people feel that there's no hope of improving their own situation - that they will inevitably fall further and further behind the top-tier oligarchs - then the cruelty they receive gets relayed down the line.
It's not "the government" that's broken, it's Citizen's United.
It's not "the government" that's broken, it's Citizen's United.
July 6, 2025 at 11:00 PM
When people feel that there's no hope of improving their own situation - that they will inevitably fall further and further behind the top-tier oligarchs - then the cruelty they receive gets relayed down the line.
It's not "the government" that's broken, it's Citizen's United.
It's not "the government" that's broken, it's Citizen's United.