Kamala harris will prosecute social media account holders for hate speech .
That is suppression of free speech and they spread lies that Trump wants to destroy democracy. 🤔
36-40
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Ontheroad · M
I find it interesting, to say the least, how people defend lies and misinformation.
The old and quite tired line of "who decides what is a lie/misinformation" is just that, old and tired.
A fact is a fact, all else is a lie or misinformation.
A fact is provable, a lie isn't.
Those who argue against this... yeah, it tells me all I need to know about them.
The old and quite tired line of "who decides what is a lie/misinformation" is just that, old and tired.
A fact is a fact, all else is a lie or misinformation.
A fact is provable, a lie isn't.
Those who argue against this... yeah, it tells me all I need to know about them.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Ontheroad OP gave a link that said
In 2019, Harris vowed to use the DOJ and law enforcement to 'hold social media platforms responsible' for 'misinformation' as part of the 'fight against this threat to our Democracy'
Holding platforms responsible is VERY VERY DIFFERENT from "prosecute social media account holders." Platforms and account holders are very very different.
OriginalDumbMan · 36-40
@ElwoodBlues @Ontheroad [media=https://youtu.be/a2yL8IC1zic]
OriginalDumbMan · 36-40
@Ontheroad how can media platform be held accountable? They don’t post anything, people there account holders post.
Ontheroad · M
@OriginalDumbMan they can take down posts and ban repeat offenders. Algorithm's work wonder to catch liars and misinformation. A business, any business.
Not talking about the harmless B.S. artists, just those who post with intent to defraud, cause unrest, incite violence or harm, etc.
Not talking about the harmless B.S. artists, just those who post with intent to defraud, cause unrest, incite violence or harm, etc.
ElwoodBlues · M
@OriginalDumbMan asks
News organizations - publishers - can be held accountable for libel and/or defamation. Why not social media platforms - that's the real question here!
And the answer is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Translation: Social media platforms don't have the same responsibilities as publishers, but they do have some responsibilities to uphold federal law by removing federally illegal content. And they also have to uphold their posted terms of service.
As you may or may not be aware, social media platforms are for-profit businesses, and they set terms of service designed to attract and keep customers. Those terms of service have nothing to do with the US Constitution.
You can create a social media platform that only allows discussion of activities of pet cats, and removes all non-cat discussion. The Constitution has no say over cat oriented social media.
how can media platform be held accountable?
You've got it backwards!!News organizations - publishers - can be held accountable for libel and/or defamation. Why not social media platforms - that's the real question here!
And the answer is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.
Source: wikipedia.Translation: Social media platforms don't have the same responsibilities as publishers, but they do have some responsibilities to uphold federal law by removing federally illegal content. And they also have to uphold their posted terms of service.
As you may or may not be aware, social media platforms are for-profit businesses, and they set terms of service designed to attract and keep customers. Those terms of service have nothing to do with the US Constitution.
You can create a social media platform that only allows discussion of activities of pet cats, and removes all non-cat discussion. The Constitution has no say over cat oriented social media.