I've seen my mother and father dwindle in health while following a 'Whole Food Plant Based Diet' over the last five years. They followed it to a T, going to see Campbell more than once. They have both suffered G.I. issues, connective tissue problems. My mother's osteoporosis is now bordering life threatening. Once fish and dairy were re-introduced, they got better. The level of zealotry made it difficult to talk to them about their condition.
Double think, double speak are alive and well. Using section 230 in an intelligent manner would require discernment. That doesn't forward anyone's agenda.
There is someone deciding on what content to post with the New York Times. If a site like twitter is engaging in that activity - then they should loose 230 immunity, because they are acting like a publisher instead of a platform. It seems relatively straight forward, doesn't it?
Seems like people aren't thinking very well these days.
There is someone deciding on what content to post with the New York Times. If a site like twitter is engaging in that activity - then they should loose 230 immunity, because they are acting like a publisher instead of a platform. It seems relatively straight forward, doesn't it?
It is not straightforward, because the law doesn’t draw that distinction. Additionally, almost any “platform” has to reserve the right to moderate content to keep its customers and stay in business. Nobody wants to advertise on a site that is filled with white supremacist memes and pornographic material.
Sometimes downvotes are used for disagreement instead of a signal that a comment thread is off-topic or boring. FWIW asking why you are downvoted also makes for boring reading so is also discouraged. I'm somewhat doing the same to explain this but I'd rather you know for future discourse.
As far as why they disagree, I'd suspect it is something more or less in the same ballpark as the below.
> If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher"
> I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that you've likely heard this from someone else -- perhaps even someone respected -- but it's just not true. The law says no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else.
> To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a "platform" or a "publisher." What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it.
Had to create a new account, and use a vpn to reply to you. I broke some rule that isn't clearly defined on the site, and it's not indicating when I will be able to post again. Is Hacker News actually a place for free discussion of curious minds?
Thank you for your answer - It's helped me in multiple dimensions. The sentiment that important discussion need be entertaining makes me sad, but it is what it is. Be well.
It sounds like you like a lot of people have insufficient understanding of what 230 is. Most people who express similar theories really just want the government to make it illegal to moderate deplorables with a thin justification. It's easier to vote down and move on the 95th time someone makes a bad argument.
What is a “deplorable”? If you’re using it in the same context as Hillary, that’s not really helping your argument because it’s an ill-defined slur used to describe millions of people.
A deplorable defined one who holds odious beliefs or views that aren't merely wrong but actively harmful to themselves and others.
Bigots, anti vaxxers, anti science (the process not a particular theory), people who support violence as a means to political change it n functional societies.
Yep, keep in mind she described half of the people who voted for Trump like that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables) so the word basically means “Republican”. Using it is only useful as a Shibboleth to indicate you’re aligned with American leftist views.
The republican party in its present incarnation is a deplorable group with no ethics and bad intentions. It embodies none of the virtues it purports to represents and many vices. The only non deplorable reason to support it is to obtain tax breaks which still means that you are putting a lower tax rate ahead of everything else including ethics, your fellow man, and even basic competence.
Deplorable aptly wraps this up in a bow whereas the converse charges of "Marxist" "Communist" "Anarchist" are entirely detached from reality.
> The republican party in its present incarnation is a deplorable group with no ethics and bad intentions.
Source? It’s not clear to me how an intelligent person could think this about 40 million people without some severe brainwashing. Rather than “this group appears to have different priorities than I”, it has become, “these people clearly have no ethics”.
How would you feel about right-wingers saying the entire Democratic Party has no ethics and bad intentions because it continually supports baby murder? If you don’t think that’s a fare assessment of the party’s ethics, perhaps you should reconsider how you arrived at your conclusion.
