• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump threatens defense bill veto over social media protections

HomerJS said:
Putting aside another heinous act by Trump proving he is unfit for office, I don't think companies have anything to worry about. Fox News showed how impervious they are to these suits. There was a lawsuit against them for peddling misinformation on COVID endangering the lives of the public. Seems 1A protected them.

Click to expand...
Getting rid of section 230 would be catastrophic for social media and it's not something anyone, Trump included, actually wants. Basically they would either need to give up ALL attempts to moderate their content, turning them into /b/, or they would become massively liable. I imagine the result would be that places like ATPN would just shut down entirely while other companies would flee the country.

The issue isn't about spreading false information, it's that Twitter, Facebook, etc. could be held liable for defamation because they would be 'publishing' defamatory tweets. Today if I went around saying 'HomerJS is a sex offender' I could personally potentially be held liable for defaming you. Without section 230 Anandtech could be held liable for what I wrote. I doubt they're interested in that.
 
fskimospy said:
Getting rid of section 230 would be catastrophic for social media and it's not something anyone, Trump included, actually wants. Basically they would either need to give up ALL attempts to moderate their content, turning them into /b/, or they would become massively liable. I imagine the result would be that places like ATPN would just shut down entirely while other companies would flee the country.

The issue isn't about spreading false information, it's that Twitter, Facebook, etc. could be held liable for defamation because they would be 'publishing' defamatory tweets. Today if I went around saying 'HomerJS is a sex offender' I could personally potentially be held liable for defaming you. Without section 230 Anandtech could be held liable for what I wrote. I doubt they're interested in that.
Click to expand...

I'd have no problem if section 230 was eliminated. If it kills social media I view that as a positive. Social media is, for far too many, an echo chamber to reinforce non-reality based fantasies. It has had a huge detrimental effect.
 
Do we really care what trump says anymore? Have we not learned that what trump says means very little. I’ll care when actual actions are taken. In the meantime I’ll treat trump like I would someone else’s horrible acting child, I’ll ignore the child while chiding the parents (the gop).
 
Thump553 said:
I'd have no problem if section 230 was eliminated. If it kills social media I view that as a positive. Social media is, for far too many, an echo chamber to reinforce non-reality based fantasies. It has had a huge detrimental effect.
Click to expand...
I agree that social media is bad, generally speaking. I don’t think it’s a good idea for the government to essentially regulate it to death.
 
Thump553 said:
I'd have no problem if section 230 was eliminated. If it kills social media I view that as a positive. Social media is, for far too many, an echo chamber to reinforce non-reality based fantasies. It has had a huge detrimental effect.
Click to expand...

You realize that Anandtech Forums are also covered by section 230? Repealing it would likely shutter not just the social forums, but also the technical ones.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
MrPickins said:
You realize that Anandtech Forums are also covered by section 230? Repealing it would likely shutter not just the social forums, but also the technical ones.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Click to expand...

If you were troubleshooting a pc build or something and got bad advice that ended up bricking some of your kit, could you then sue AT for letting bad advice be posted by one of their forum members?
 
At this rate he'll refuse to sign a CR to keep the government running until the secret moon base server where Dominion keeps the real votes is turned over to Matt Gaetz, newly confirmed FBI director.
 
I’m sure next he will threaten a veto if he does not get two scoops of ice cream with his dessert cake.

I can understand an authoritarian mindset. To them ... It’s comforting if you think there is a Strong Man Leader looking after everything. What I don’t understand is how an authoritarian follower would put up with such a whiney, spoiled crybaby loser as their “strong man”

I guess compared to the cowering, sniveling, integrity challenged, honor deficient, Slinky-spined rest of the GOP, he is a “strong man”?
 
I'm not sure Trump understands the repercussions of what he wants. He is one of the main benefactors of section 230, being able to lie and go after people with untrue statements. Ending it will make it harder for him to tweet anything as the orgs would have to be even stricter.
 
Thump553 said:
I'd have no problem if section 230 was eliminated. If it kills social media I view that as a positive. Social media is, for far too many, an echo chamber to reinforce non-reality based fantasies. It has had a huge detrimental effect.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that it's more an issue of section 230 being misused, IE, they're using it to defend themselves from lawsuits, but not actually engaging in good stewardship which was the expectation.
 
emperus said:
I'm not sure Trump understands the repercussions of what he wants. He is one of the main benefactors of section 230, being able to lie and go after people with untrue statements. Ending it will make it harder for him to tweet anything as the orgs would have to be even stricter.
Click to expand...
He's a fucking moron, of course he doesn't understand the repercussions!
 
emperus said:
I'm not sure Trump understands the repercussions of what he wants. He is one of the main benefactors of section 230, being able to lie and go after people with untrue statements. Ending it will make it harder for him to tweet anything as the orgs would have to be even stricter.
Click to expand...

He doesn't really want 230 gone. He's just trying to strongarm social media into allowing the free flow of deliberate right wing disinformation.
 
nakedfrog said:
My understanding is that it's more an issue of section 230 being misused, IE, they're using it to defend themselves from lawsuits, but not actually engaging in good stewardship which was the expectation.
Click to expand...
You can bet Republicans don't want to repeal section 230 because it is giving companies unwarranted legal protection, lol.

As for the cases where companies are using this law to quash lawsuits related to harassment and whatnot, the solution isn't to throw out the law, but to adjust the shielding provision slightly to maybe require them to take reasonable steps under x, y, and z conditions.
 
So it's "I get to sue people who insult me on twitter" or no funding for the troops?

Such a fucking child, and once again showing how he earned that massive flip in votes from enlisted. Hang in there guys and gals of every branch, come Jan 21st you go back to having a real CiC.
 
fskimospy said:
Getting rid of section 230 would be catastrophic for social media and it's not something anyone, Trump included, actually wants. Basically they would either need to give up ALL attempts to moderate their content, turning them into /b/, or they would become massively liable. I imagine the result would be that places like ATPN would just shut down entirely while other companies would flee the country.

The issue isn't about spreading false information, it's that Twitter, Facebook, etc. could be held liable for defamation because they would be 'publishing' defamatory tweets. Today if I went around saying 'HomerJS is a sex offender' I could personally potentially be held liable for defaming you. Without section 230 Anandtech could be held liable for what I wrote. I doubt they're interested in that.
Click to expand...
On the positive side, Facebook would become filled to the berm with gore and shit porn overnight and people would flee. Basically ending all social media is likely a net positive.
 
iRONic said:
He's a fucking moron, of course he doesn't understand the repercussions!
Click to expand...

Just like Dubya, I can't say I've once heard Trump opine on any subject and sound like he knew what he was talking about. >90% of what comes out of his mouth is some form of dodge, misrepresentation or outright lie. His quickly shrinking English vocabulary and clear difficulties reading, the threats to keep his school records locked, his actual teachers affirming the guy is as sharp as a bowling ball...

Yeah, he's a moron. I don't think I've ever seen someone on the political stage shoot themselves in the foot more often, or with such results. Planning ahead is clearly not one of his strong suits, which really sucks when you pair that with his contempt for experts. I don't think he'll ever understand/accept the amount of blood on his hands, same for his cult.
 
If democrats were any good at messaging this would secure the Senate for them. They however suck at messaging, so republicans won't face any consequences.
 
Zorba said:
If democrats were any good at messaging this would secure the Senate for them. They however suck at messaging, so republicans won't face any consequences.
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty clear that 47% of the electorate would electrocute themselves if they thought they could watch a libtard cry while they did it.

There is no "winning them over". It's about getting more sane people to the polls than the lunatics.
 
nickqt said:
I think it's pretty clear that 47% of the electorate would electrocute themselves if they thought they could watch a libtard cry while they did it.

There is no "winning them over". It's about getting more sane people to the polls than the lunatics.
Click to expand...
They are not all unreachable.
 
fskimospy said:
Getting rid of section 230 would be catastrophic for social media and it's not something anyone, Trump included, actually wants. Basically they would either need to give up ALL attempts to moderate their content, turning them into /b/, or they would become massively liable. I imagine the result would be that places like ATPN would just shut down entirely while other companies would flee the country.

The issue isn't about spreading false information, it's that Twitter, Facebook, etc. could be held liable for defamation because they would be 'publishing' defamatory tweets. Today if I went around saying 'HomerJS is a sex offender' I could personally potentially be held liable for defaming you. Without section 230 Anandtech could be held liable for what I wrote. I doubt they're interested in that.
Click to expand...
Fox News makes shit up all the time about people and is never held accountable. Why wouldn't the same rule apply to social media companies?
Washington Judge Rejects Lawsuit Over Fox News’ Supposed Coronavirus Misrepresentations – Reason.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top