Real World Event Discussions
Fixing the internet
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Thursday, December 11, 2025 20:16
VIEWED: 1732
PAGE 4 of 5
Friday, September 20, 2024 4:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
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 prop. 230.
No shit, you dumb cunt.
Nobody is arguing that Alex Jones had Section 230 protections or even that he should have had Section 230 protections. Info Wars is a Publisher and does not get Section 230 protections.
Learn how to fucking read.
And it's Section 230, not "Prop 230". It's not a referendum that's been proposed.
--------------------------------------------------
Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, September 20, 2024 4:52 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. 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.
Infowars is/was, owned and operated by Alex Jones. It is/was an internet platform used to disseminate information; lies and propaganda. They violated the user agreement they signed to use the internet. Much the same as signing an agreement to use Microsoft. If you have a platform, you've signed the agreement. Which is why you hear sometimes google forced users off their platforms.
T
America owns the internet Vinton Cerf, born on June 23, 1
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, September 20, 2024 5:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Infowars is/was, owned and operated by Alex Jones.
Correct.
Quote:
It is/was an internet platform
Incorrect. Info Wars is/was a PUBLISHER! Get that through your thick fucking skull or we're not going to discuss this any further. I'm tired of wasting my time conversing on an issue with somebody who refuses to properly make the distinction between the two, whether that decision comes from bias or stupidity or a combination of both.
Quote:
used to disseminate information; lies and propaganda.
Opinion.
Quote:
They violated the user agreement they signed to use the internet. Much the same as signing an agreement to use Microsoft.
Show me this so-called "User Agreement To Use The Internet" that you just made up. I won't bother waiting for this because no such document(s) exists.
Quote:
If you have a platform, you've signed the agreement.
What agreement? Show me what agreement that Info Wars signed.
And once again... Info Wars is/was a PUBLISHER. Not a platform.
Quote:
Which is why you hear sometimes google forced users off their platforms.
No. This is because of a violation of the TOS that you signed when you signed up for Gmail and Google's various other PLATFORMS available to you when you sign up for their services.
They are able to force every one of the people using their PLATFORM into signing these documents, because the only alternatives are to either use another platform that gets 1/100th of the traffic. Or to raise the cash necessary to host your own news/video site, and that's not cheap. You are agreeing to Google's TOS when you sign up because there is zero chance that 99.9% of us would ever be able to invest in their own web platform or become a publisher and not lose all of that money.
Info Wars did NOT sign a TOS with Google or Microsoft when they made their own website.
They DID sign a TOS with Google when they started their YouTube channel, so it was within Google's right to ban Alex Jones/Info Wars from their platform, although the optics on Google's stance were not good for the company. This all happened right around the time where Google dropped their long-time company slogan "Do No Evil".
--------------------------------------------------
Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, September 20, 2024 7:08 AM
Quote:
Infowars is/was, owned and operated by Alex Jones. It is/was an internet platform used to disseminate information; lies and propaganda. They violated the user agreement they signed to use the internet. Much the same as signing an agreement to use Microsoft. If you have a platform, you've signed the agreement. Which is why you hear sometimes google forced users off their platforms.
Do you realize how ridiculous this statement is??
Alex Jones owns and operates Infowars. And he violated the terms of service that he wrote and signed ....with HIMSELF????
And Alex Jones was not "fined" by the government. He was SUED. By Sandy Hook parents. For defamation!
Quote:
What we know about the fight between conspiracist Alex Jones and Sandy Hook families over his assets
https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook-0
c3576e3c4bd853ac2cc5342118fca8c
Dood, you have SERIOUS misunderstandings about who owns what.
Among other things, you seem to think "the government owns the internet".
"The USA government" DOESN'T own the internet. The Internet was DARPA'S idea: how to communicate by phone, or airwaves, to permit communication over various routes in case emergency or hostilities shut some routes down. The idea is that messages are sent out in parallel so that they can't be disrupted, but that they find their destinations anyway. It is now based on a communication protocol that is shared by the whole world.
The hardware, tho. That's a different story.
The HARDWARE... fiber optic cables, routers, switches, massive computers, microwave relay stations, etc etc... is owned by the telecoms. In the USA that's AT&T, Verizon, Spectrum etc. In Britain it's BT, KCOM, etc.
Platforms and publishers own their own domain names, i.e. how they are uniquely identified on the internet. Facebook, CNN, Infowars etc. No two entities can have the same domain name. They have their own URL and website. These websites and software allow them to receive, store, and post content, remember what was posted when, retrieve on request, and display the content to your web browser.
Some large entities own their own servers. Others rent server space.
In order to access all kinds of websites ... banks, utilities, healthcare, news, social media etc. you will probably need to agree to Terms Of Service which vary, of course, depending on what the website does.
It's up to the website owner to define their terms of service.
But, and here's the take-home message.
It's up to the publisher or platform to determine their terms of service. They can allow almost anything or almost nothing. But except for violating CRIMINAL LAW, the government can't MAKE them censor ANYTHING.
And furthermore, the government is PROHIBITED from REQUIRING that platforms and publishers follow any sort of editorial line. It's called FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS.
So YOUR call to "fix the internet", and HILLARY'S call for censorship? UNCONSTITUONAL. Violates the very first Amendment!
I'm shocked that you both would feel so free to violate our freedoms, the ones that the FF thought were so important that they added a whole bunch of Amendments just to protect us from tyranny.
Like I said: you claim you're all about freedom. But in reality, I think freedom scares you.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Americans support America
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, September 24, 2024 4:33 PM
'Lobbying for unfettered innovation is bad for democracy'
https://www.ft.com/content/ab2761bd-ace7-428b-aa3e-b7412ef69b48
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, September 27, 2024 2:58 AM
Newsmax Settles Smartmatic Defamation Suit One Week Before Trial Opening Statements
Newsmax says it has reached a settlement in a defamation lawsuit filed by Smartmatic, averting a civil trial that was scheduled to begin in earnest next week.
Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but the 11th-hour accord echoes the $787 million settlement Fox News forged with Dominion Voting Systems, which came abruptly as a jury was being seated in April of last year.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/newsmax-settles-smartmatic-defama
tion-suit-one-week-before-trial-opening-statements/ar-AA1rgQq6
Newsmax, Inc. is an American cable news, political opinion commentary, and digital media company founded by Christopher Ruddy in 1998.
Newsmax Media divisions include its cable and broadcast channel Newsmax TV; its website Newsmax.com, which includes Newsmax Health and Newsmax Finance; and Newsmax magazine, its monthly print publication.
Newsmax launched a cable television channel on June 16, 2014, to 35 million satellite subscribers through DirecTV and Dish Network. As of May 2019, the network claimed to reach about 70 million households via cable television. As of September 2023, the average audience for Newsmax was 129,000.
I never said lawsuits would not play a part in cleaning up the internet.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, September 27, 2024 3:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
They violated the user agreement they signed to use the internet. Much the same as signing an agreement to use Microsoft.
Show me this so-called "User Agreement To Use The Internet" that you just made up. I won't bother waiting for this because no such document(s) exists.Quote:
If you have a platform, you've signed the agreement.
In the United States, website terms and conditions are legally binding, given that the user has actively consented to them.
If you operate a website and create content, you must have a user agreement to safeguard your company. In short, a user agreement’s real purpose is to protect the company from the ever growing and changing rules with how you are required to interact with users online.
https://www.websitepolicies.com/blog/are-terms-and-conditions-legally-
binding#global-perspectives-and-regulations
tisk tisk...
Given enough rope, you guys will hang yourselves every time.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, September 27, 2024 3:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
They violated the user agreement they signed to use the internet. Much the same as signing an agreement to use Microsoft.
Show me this so-called "User Agreement To Use The Internet" that you just made up. I won't bother waiting for this because no such document(s) exists.Quote:
If you have a platform, you've signed the agreement.
In the United States, website terms and conditions are legally binding, given that the user has actively consented to them.
If you operate a website and create content, you must have a user agreement to safeguard your company. In short, a user agreement’s real purpose is to protect the company from the ever growing and changing rules with how you are required to interact with users online.
https://www.websitepolicies.com/blog/are-terms-and-conditions-legally-
binding#global-perspectives-and-regulations
tisk tisk...
Given enough rope, you guys will hang yourselves every time.
T
It took you days to come up with this bullshit?
Show me the contract, dummy.
I want to see specifically where it says that nobody has freedom of speech and that we live in China where they can dictate what can and can't be said online.
I guaranty you the only rules they had was about policing CP, grooming minors and gratuitous violence. There is NOTHING in those contracts regarding political speech.
And this begs the question... Why the hell would you be absolutely giddy at the prospect that freedom of speech was being stomped on? What the fuck is wrong with you?
--------------------------------------------------
Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, September 27, 2024 5:11 AM
How the fuck can you claim to be a patriot and advocate for censorship?
And stop hiding behind "the rules". The government is Constitutionally prohibited from requiring censorship.
*****
Quote:
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.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Americans support America
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, January 14, 2025 4:20 AM
Telegram Hands U.S. Authorities Data on Thousands of Users
https://www.404media.co/telegram-hands-u-s-authorities-data-on-thousan
ds-of-users/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME