Fixing the internet

POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Thursday, December 11, 2025 20:16
VIEWED: 1732
PAGE 3 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

THG

Thursday, September 19, 2024 3:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

I may be splitting hairs, but platforms don't CREATE content. They only host it. AFA intellectual property claims ... this is a platform. You would hold Haken responsible for the copyrighted material that gets posted here?

I don't know but, Fox news had to pay dominion $787.5M million-dollar fine for spreading lies and propaganda.

Alex Jones same thing for Sandy Hook. It was determined what he was saying was harmful to others. Again, I don't know.

T

HOUSTON (AP) — Bombastic conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been ordered to liquidate his personal assets as he owes $1.5 billion for his false claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which killed 20 first graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, was a hoax.

But the immediate future of his Infowars media platform,

https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook-0
c3576e3c4bd853ac2cc5342118fca8c

Oh look Jack. It says media platform. Well, what do ya know? And his show was on the internet. Go figure...

T

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, September 19, 2024 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

I may be splitting hairs, but platforms don't CREATE content. They only host it. AFA intellectual property claims ... this is a platform. You would hold Haken responsible for the copyrighted material that gets posted here?

I don't know but, Fox news had to pay dominion $787.5M million-dollar fine for spreading lies and propaganda.

Alex Jones same thing for Sandy Hook. It was determined what he was saying was harmful to others. Again, I don't know.

T

HOUSTON (AP) — Bombastic conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been ordered to liquidate his personal assets as he owes $1.5 billion for his false claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which killed 20 first graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, was a hoax.

But the immediate future of his Infowars media platform,

https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook-0
c3576e3c4bd853ac2cc5342118fca8c

Oh look Jack. It says media platform. Well, what do ya know? And his show was on the internet. Go figure...

T

AP misspoke. I can throw more than a few possible reasons why they would have done that, but we could just call it a simple misnomer and human error. Or maybe since this wasn't specifically an article about Section 230, they didn't bother to make the proper distinction.

Info Wars is a Publisher. Info Wars is not a Platform. This is an objective fact.

Now... If they have a comment section at Info Wars, there's a great chance that the comment section portion of the site was protected under Section 230. At least I hope it is. I would hope that was the case for all Media outfits and local news organizations that allow for public discourse to take place. I wouldn't even want New York Times to ever get in deep shit for things that users on their sites say in the comment section. In a future where news agencies can get sued for a $100 Million because of something that you or I said on there, that's the immediate end of any of them allowing comment sections overnight, and we're going right back to a time when information was a one-way exchange over TV and radio with zero input from people without the power and the money.

But the news portion, which is 99% of Info Wars' website is all published work, in written, audio and video format, which is created by paid employees of a company with a mission statement and an agenda, just like all the other media outlets are.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

THG

Thursday, September 19, 2024 3:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

I may be splitting hairs, but platforms don't CREATE content. They only host it. AFA intellectual property claims ... this is a platform. You would hold Haken responsible for the copyrighted material that gets posted here?

I don't know but, Fox news had to pay dominion $787.5M million-dollar fine for spreading lies and propaganda.

Alex Jones same thing for Sandy Hook. It was determined what he was saying was harmful to others. Again, I don't know.

T

HOUSTON (AP) — Bombastic conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been ordered to liquidate his personal assets as he owes $1.5 billion for his false claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which killed 20 first graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, was a hoax.

But the immediate future of his Infowars media platform,

https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook-0
c3576e3c4bd853ac2cc5342118fca8c

Oh look Jack. It says media platform. Well, what do ya know? And his show was on the internet. Go figure...

T

AP Misspoke. I can throw more than a few possible reasons why they would have done that, but we could just call it a simple misnomer and human error. Or maybe since this wasn't specifically an article about Section 230, they didn't bother to make the proper distinction.

Info Wars is a Publisher. Info Wars is not a Platform. This is an objective fact.

Now... If they have a comment section at Info Wars, there's a great chance that the comment section portion of the site was protected under Section 230. At least I hope it is. I would hope that was the case for all Media outfits and local news organizations that allow for public discourse to take place. I wouldn't even want New York Times to ever get in deep shit for things that users on their sites say in the comment section.

But the news portion, which is 99% of Info Wars' website is all published work, in written, audio and video format, which is created by employees of a company with a mission statement and an agenda, just like all the other media outlets are.

Like I said. Section 230 does not protect anyone if what they do is harmful to others. I.E. Alex Jones and Sandy Hook. Just like I said Jack. An internet platform is an internet platform. All Media outlets are held accountable if what they report was harmful to others and done with malice. This shit with the internet is relatively new so it is learn as you go. And remember, we have other countries spreading bullshit in an attempt to hurt us. We need to take this on.

T

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, September 19, 2024 3:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Section 230’s protections are not absolute.

It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.

I may be splitting hairs, but platforms don't CREATE content. They only host it. AFA intellectual property claims ... this is a platform. You would hold Haken responsible for the copyrighted material that gets posted here?

I don't know but, Fox news had to pay dominion $787.5M million-dollar fine for spreading lies and propaganda.

Alex Jones same thing for Sandy Hook. It was determined what he was saying was harmful to others. Again, I don't know.

T

HOUSTON (AP) — Bombastic conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been ordered to liquidate his personal assets as he owes $1.5 billion for his false claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which killed 20 first graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, was a hoax.

But the immediate future of his Infowars media platform,

https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook-0
c3576e3c4bd853ac2cc5342118fca8c

Oh look Jack. It says media platform. Well, what do ya know? And his show was on the internet. Go figure...

T

AP Misspoke. I can throw more than a few possible reasons why they would have done that, but we could just call it a simple misnomer and human error. Or maybe since this wasn't specifically an article about Section 230, they didn't bother to make the proper distinction.

Info Wars is a Publisher. Info Wars is not a Platform. This is an objective fact.

Now... If they have a comment section at Info Wars, there's a great chance that the comment section portion of the site was protected under Section 230. At least I hope it is. I would hope that was the case for all Media outfits and local news organizations that allow for public discourse to take place. I wouldn't even want New York Times to ever get in deep shit for things that users on their sites say in the comment section.

But the news portion, which is 99% of Info Wars' website is all published work, in written, audio and video format, which is created by employees of a company with a mission statement and an agenda, just like all the other media outlets are.

Like I said. Section 230 does not protect anyone if what they do is harmful to others. I.E. Alex Jones and Sandy Hook. Just like I said Jack. An internet platform is an internet platform. This is still new so it is learn as you go. All Media outfits are held accountable if what they report was harmful to others and done with malice.

T

It doesn't matter what your opinion on Sandy Hook was. Info Wars is a Publisher and is not protected by Section 230.

An internet Platform IS an internet Platform. These include but are not limited to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and FireFlyFans. They have Section 230 protections.

Info Wars is a Publisher. ALL Media Outfits are Publishers. They very much are held accountable for what they put out there. They do not have Section 230 protections.

Currently, there is a two-tiered system in place where only &quo

THG

Thursday, September 19, 2024 3:47 AM

InfoWars is an American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Alex Jones.

He hosts The Alex Jones broadcasted Show from Austin Texas

Jones's website, InfoWars, promotes conspiracy theories and fake news

Here you go dummy. Website, broadcaster, fake news and conspiracy theorist. Exactly what I started this thread to talk about. And don't look now, he was fined a billion dollars.

T

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:02 AM

Alex Jones is a content CREATOR, not a platform.

And he wasn't fined (by the government), he was sued, by individuals.

Dood, what is so hard about the concepts "platform" and "host"?

A plain-English interpretation of those words should tell you all you need to know.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Americans support America

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:20 AM

BTW, the government has no business, or should have no business, censoring or approving even Infowars, except where Infowars violates a criminal law.

Free speech means free speech. It's a lot broader than you'd apparently like, THUGR

We've been thru this before. Apparently it didn't stick

Quote:
The Limits of Free Speech

You can say that whites are the superior race.
Or that women are better than men,
You can say that Jews control the world.
Or that you want to see the world genocided "down to the last hundred".
You can claim the earth is flat.
Or that last summer's riots were "mostly peaceful".
You can spin endless conspiracy theories (for example, Russian collusion) or endless conspiracy facts.

You can claim any fool thing .... or wise thing... that you want. It's protected free speech. And the answer to stupid speech is rebuttal, not censorship or defamation.

There are some thing you CAN'T do:

You can't slag someone's reputation by making false claims about them, incite IMMINENT violence, defraud people, distribute child pornography, threaten people, violate copyright laws, or plan illegal behavior. Advertising is also not protected free speech.

I know that free speech disturbs a bunch of libtards here, and that they want to get rid of it right away, but free speech clause protects them, too, when they post hate speech or idiocies.

It doesn't protect defamation, tho. Might want to keep that in mind.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=64170

So yeah, you might want to stop defaming me as a Russian troll. Otherwise you might wind up like Alex Jones.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Americans support America

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:47 AM

I fail to understand how Ted is not grasping this concept.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
InfoWars is an American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Alex Jones.

He hosts The Alex Jones broadcasted Show from Austin Texas

Jones's website, InfoWars, promotes conspiracy theories and fake news

Here you go dummy. Website, broadcaster, fake news and conspiracy theorist. Exactly what I started this thread to talk about. And don't look now, he was fined a billion dollars.

T

Why did you bother making this post? It does nothing to refute anything I said.

Info Wars is not a Platform and does not have Section 230 protections.

Conversely, FireFlyFans IS a Platform, and Haken has Section 230 protections.

You clearly don't even have a basic grasp on this concept, and at this point one could argue that you don't even have a clear message or any idea what point you're even trying to make.

What you are arguing for wouldn't make things worse for Alex Jones and Info Wars. They don't have the protections. They never had the protections. And arguably, it couldn't get any worse for Alex Jones and Info Wars.

What you are arguing for would hurt HAKEN, and put him in life-destroying legal jeopardy for what other people have posted on his site over more than 2 decades.

--------------------------------------------------

Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.

THG

Friday, September 20, 2024 4:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Alex Jones is a content CREATOR, not a platform.

And he wasn't fined (by the government), he was sued, by individuals.

Dood, what is so hard about the concepts "platform" and "host"?

A plain-English interpretation of those words should tell you all you need to know.

At its core, an online platform is any website that facilitates a service or interaction between itself and the visitor Online platforms include search engines, marketplaces, social media, online financial systems, informative websites, and more.

Your wrong again comrade. And yes, he was sued by the families, but the point is, he was using the internet to cause harm to others. He was not protected by section 230.

Also, I take offense to a Russian troll having the American flag show up with every post as though you are the one who loves this country; bullshit. You degradate America every chance you get. I am going to start reposting them in your garden thread by the thousands if you continue.

T

AND! Apparently, section 230 does not protect users of the internet platform from government oversight. If said users are using people's personal information inappropriately. I said it's time to crack down on bullshit, propaganda and inappropriate behavior. Due to foreign disrupters, it looks like that is starting.

US accuses social media giants of 'vast surveillance'

A years-long analysis shows that social media titans engaged in "vast surveillance" to make money from people's personal information, according to the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

A report based on queries launched nearly four years ago aimed at nine companies found they collected troves of data, sometimes through data brokers, and could indefinitely retain the information collected about users and non-users of their platforms.

"The report lays out how social media and video streaming companies harvest an enormous amount of Americans' personal data and monetize it to the tune of billions of dollars a year,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a release.

"Several firms' failure to adequately protect kids and teens online is especially troubling."

Khan contended that the surveillance practices endangered people's privacy and exposed them to the potential of identity theft or stalking.

Business models that typically involve targeted advertising incentivized mass collection of user data at many of the companies, pitting profit against privacy, according to the report.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/us-accuses-social-media-gian
ts-of-vast-surveillance/ar-AA1qR5fH?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9460b557b57d42c4a745606f8c5c5ee9&ei=55

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE