Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

18889919394607

Comments

  • Posts: 30,955
    Biden
    pjl44 said:
    Threatening to shut down or regulate the speech of private companies is a concern, eh? It's something that Trump and Biden are both interested in.


    Well as soon as Trump discusses it as a modification of section 230, then maybe I'll agree with you.  Trump is pissed because that put a fact check on him, that's quite a bit different than modifying 230, which could be as simple as mandating a fact check.  That's not eliminating free speech.  Was this a serious rebuttal or cheeky?
  • Posts: 42,946
    pjl44 said:
    No evidence of creepiness you say?

    http://www.cc.com/video-clips/yfmksi/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-audacity-of-grope
    Re-read my post, particularly the part in parenthesis. Sorry, in advance, for attacking you.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Posts: 30,955
    Biden
    pjl44 said:
    Also, "I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just explaining that their concerns are petty and need to be smothered out" is


    Sorry again about your libertarian sensibilities.  I'll try not to disagree with you in the future.  Just don't post things that I won't like.  Pretty easy equation. 
  • Posts: 10,607
    I'm sitting this one out
    mrussel1 said:
    Well as soon as Trump discusses it as a modification of section 230, then maybe I'll agree with you.  Trump is pissed because that put a fact check on him, that's quite a bit different than modifying 230, which could be as simple as mandating a fact check.  That's not eliminating free speech.  Was this a serious rebuttal or cheeky?
    Mandating a fact check is absolutely limiting free speech, so now we're arguing process because winning an argument is the only thing that matters
  • Mar-A-Lago Posts: 22,642
    Biden
    pjl44 said:
    Mandating a fact check is absolutely limiting free speech, so now we're arguing process because winning an argument is the only thing that matters
    Disagree...editing the comment would be limiting free speech.  Or not allowing the comment at all.
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
    The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
  • Posts: 30,955
    Biden
    pjl44 said:
    Mandating a fact check is absolutely limiting free speech, so now we're arguing process because winning an argument is the only thing that matters
    Libel laws apply to news organizations today.  Section 230 can be modified to increase the accountability to libelous information, particularly from public officials. There's also a difference between a lawful modification legislated and signed vs the threatened EO.  This is a petty difference to you?   And you decided to pick the point, not me.  I was pointing out where Trump was insane IN THE LAST 24 HOURS.  
  • Posts: 10,607
    I'm sitting this one out
    Disagree...editing the comment would be limiting free speech.  Or not allowing the comment at all.
    A website can do whatever they want. If Kat edits or deletes a comment on here, it's not limiting anyone's free speech. Same goes for Twitter, Facebook, etc.
  • Posts: 10,607
    I'm sitting this one out
    Re-read my post, particularly the part in parenthesis. Sorry, in advance, for attacking you.

  • Posts: 30,955
    Biden
    pjl44 said:
    A website can do whatever they want. If Kat edits or deletes a comment on here, it's not limiting anyone's free speech. Same goes for Twitter, Facebook, etc.
    Why do you think that websites should be exempt from libel laws?  
  • Posts: 10,607
    I'm sitting this one out
    mrussel1 said:
    Libel laws apply to news organizations today.  Section 230 can be modified to increase the accountability to libelous information, particularly from public officials. There's also a difference between a lawful modification legislated and signed vs the threatened EO.  This is a petty difference to you?   And you decided to pick the point, not me.  I was pointing out where Trump was insane IN THE LAST 24 HOURS.  
    A website cannot and should not be held liable for something a user posts, regardless of who posts it. That is an impossible level of exposure given the sheer volume of activity some sites see. If you don't like how a site moderates content, don't use it.
  • Posts: 10,607
    I'm sitting this one out
    mrussel1 said:
    Why do you think that websites should be exempt from libel laws?  
    Because they're not making the statement. If a NY Times employee makes a libelous comment in a piece they wrote, they're on the hook. If someone in the comment section of that article makes a libelous comment, it's insane for the Times to be on the hook.
  • Posts: 30,955
    Biden
    pjl44 said:
    A website cannot and should not be held liable for something a user posts, regardless of who posts it. That is an impossible level of exposure given the sheer volume of activity some sites see. If you don't like how a site moderates content, don't use it.
    If you don't like what a newspaper prints, don't read it.  It's the same argument and that argument doesn't fly today.  

    Second, a law can be crafted that doesn't have a zero tolerance, rather certain platforms that have X reach (users, revenue, whatever opt in) can be required to have oversight on their users and a regulatory board can evaluate the efficacy of that regulation.  It's no different than SOX laws, OCC requirements, CFPB, etc.  Sorry, there are too many examples of regulation on organizations just as large so your argument doesn't pass the sniff test.  The gov't doesn't require zero defects, it requires a framework for management, a process, reporting, etc.  

    And this would constructed using laws, not EO's...again.  

  • Mar-A-Lago Posts: 22,642
    Biden
    pjl44 said:
    A website can do whatever they want. If Kat edits or deletes a comment on here, it's not limiting anyone's free speech. Same goes for Twitter, Facebook, etc.
    so then why are you arguing that fact checks limit free speech?  You lost me
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
    The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
  • Posts: 30,955
    Biden
    so then why are you arguing that fact checks limit free speech?  You lost me
    He's arguing that Biden wants the same as Trump, which is true if laws, details and penalties mean nothing to you.
  • Posts: 10,607
    I'm sitting this one out
    mrussel1 said:
    If you don't like what a newspaper prints, don't read it.  It's the same argument and that argument doesn't fly today.  

    Second, a law can be crafted that doesn't have a zero tolerance, rather certain platforms that have X reach (users, revenue, whatever opt in) can be required to have oversight on their users and a regulatory board can evaluate the efficacy of that regulation.  It's no different than SOX laws, OCC requirements, CFPB, etc.  Sorry, there are too many examples of regulation on organizations just as large so your argument doesn't pass the sniff test.  The gov't doesn't require zero defects, it requires a framework for management, a process, reporting, etc.  

    And this would constructed using laws, not EO's...again.  

    There's a metric ton of subjectivity involved in your second paragraph and I can guarantee that you will not enjoy how that's wielded by Republican appointees conducting said regulatory oversight
  • Posts: 10,607
    I'm sitting this one out
    so then why are you arguing that fact checks limit free speech?  You lost me
    Mandatory (government-required) fact checks. If a website wants to offer fact checks on posts, they should absolutely do that. If they don't want to bother, they should be able to do that, too.
  • Posts: 4,979
    Biden
    Clearly we need action on the 25th amendment. There's a president lunatic in the White House.





    Falling down,...not staying down
  • Posts: 10,607
    I'm sitting this one out
    mrussel1 said:
    He's arguing that Biden wants the same as Trump, which is true if laws, details and penalties mean nothing to you.
    Different avenues but they both want government oversight in ways that suit them. Just because a piece of legislation is passed appropriately vs. inappropriately doesn't make the intent better. See: Patriot Act.
  • Posts: 10,607
    I'm sitting this one out
    There's always that hand-wave of "well, experts will oversee this and obviously make good decisions." Lol...wanna bet?
  • Posts: 30,955
    Biden
    pjl44 said:
    Mandatory (government-required) fact checks. If a website wants to offer fact checks on posts, they should absolutely do that. If they don't want to bother, they should be able to do that, too.
    That's a fine opinion, but don't act like 1. It's not possible to do 2. Large platforms should be exempt from libel whereas newspapers should not and 3. Threatened EOs by Trump is the same as a thoughtful argument on section 230 on how to restructure laws using the legislative process.  

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.