Laura Loomer banned from Twitter

#152
#152
Velo Vol said:
The judge's ruling was based on the Fifth Amendment, not the First. And no, it's not a fundamental right.
Click to expand...
This.

We have these two threads going simultaneously: one where people debate a congress woman’s poor grasp of civics and another where people demonstrate their own fundamental misunderstanding of civics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#162
#162
utvolpj said:
Of course they can in the same way VN can be biased based on college sports team affiliation. Where is it written that life must be fair?
Click to expand...
Before we get to my post, I somehow didn't☝️see this. Volnation is a Vols board. Is it biased in that way? No. It is named that. You know what you're entering. Besides, you have all kinds of different forums on this board to talk about whatever.

What this thread was started over and compared to your comparison, would be like someone saying they loved Alabama in a post and getting banned for it on here. Ridiculous. Anyways, I thought Facebook and Twitter would run in to problems, it was just a matter of time. 😉






GOP Sen. Josh Hawley takes aim at Big Tech's legal protection with new bill

The Missouri senator’s bill specifically targets Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.


The Act, which became law in 1996, provides key legal protection to big tech. Section 230 states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”


Hawley, however, says that the Communications Decency Act was passed when the Internet was still in its infancy, whereas big tech firms are now among the world’s most powerful companies. His legislation, the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, would remove the protection that big tech receives under Section 230 unless the firms submit to an external audit that proves their algorithms and content moderation are politically neutral.

“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Sen. Hawley, in a statement. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”

Big tech firms such as Facebook and Google have repeatedly been accused of political bias, allegations that the companies deny.

“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley added. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public. This legislation simply states that if the tech giants want to keep their government-granted immunity, they must bring transparency and accountability to their editorial processes and prove that they don’t discriminate.”

The Republican senator’s legislation does not apply to small and medium-sized tech firms.

Under Hawley’s bill, big tech firms would have to provide evidence to the FTC proving that their algorithms and content-removal practices are neutral. Tech titans would also be responsible for the costs of performing audits, and would also have to re-apply for immunity every two years.

Other politicians have also eyed Section 230. Earlier this year, for example, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, hinted that Silicon Valley could lose the protection it receives under the current legislation.

Supporters of Section 230, however, says that it is a cornerstone of the Internet that must be protected. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, for example, describes Section 230 as “one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet.”

“Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation adds, on its website. “This legal and policy framework has allowed for YouTube and Vimeo users to upload their own videos, Amazon and Yelp to offer countless user reviews, craigslist to host classified ads, and Facebook and Twitter to offer social networking to hundreds of millions of Internet users.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a nonprofit organization that describes its role as defending civil liberties in the digital world.

Critics of Hawley's bill say that it undermines free speech. "Senator Hawley’s misguided legislation sets the table for stricter government control over free expression online," said Americans for Prosperity Policy Analyst Billy Easley, in a statement. "Eroding the crucial protections that exist under Section 230 creates a scenario where government has the ability to police your speech and determine what you can or cannot say online."

The legislation would also cement big tech's market dominance, according to Easley. "This bill would punish success in the next generation of innovative startups and prevent them from achieving their full potential," he said, urging lawmakers to reject the legislation.

Americans for Prosperity is a political advocacy group that promotes free-market policies and limited government.

Internet industry association NetChoice also condemned the legislation, warning that it would embolden extreme political groups. “This bill prevents social media websites from removing dangerous and hateful content, since that could make them liable for lawsuits over any user’s posting” said Carl Szabo, General Counsel at NetChoice, in a statement. “Sen. Hawley’s bill creates an internet where content from the KKK would display alongside our family photos and cat videos.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#163
#163
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Before we get to my post, I somehow didn't☝️see this. Volnation is a Vols board. Is it biased in that way? No.
Click to expand...
Yes, it absolutely is. Opposing fans get a much shorter leash on here. Sometimes they hang themselves after a single post
 
#164
#164
Weezer said:
Seems like anything critical of anyone could be considered hateful conduct. Twitter needs to better define their rules and definitions.
Click to expand...

They do not Define them so that they can do exactly this type of thing.
 
#165
#165
Is this hateful conduct?
Aside from the obvious being called a ignorant racist i then look at his last sentence and shake my head. This was in response to an actual government statistic i posted in response to his embellishment. Not my first encounter with a " tolerant" liberal. It made me laugh.
C89E0985-B7FB-40E3-85CE-94463DAAECD1.jpeg

😳
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321 and ajvol01
#166
#166
utvolpj said:
Yes, it absolutely is. Opposing fans get a much shorter leash on here. Sometimes they hang themselves after a single post
Click to expand...
A shorter leash? They have been able to say what they want as long as they aren't cussing from what I've seen since being on here in 2012 as it should be. That's what makes this one of the best sports boards/forum (besides being a Vols board). The only opposing fan I've known to be banned from the FF was LG. Lol

Look, here's all I was saying about this when starting this thread. Hypothetical Twitter examples.

I'm pro life. *banned*

I'm pro choice. *crickets*

You have to see the problem here and I understand TOS/code of conduct and all that bs.
There is a huge difference between Platform and Publisher. Right now these social media platforms say they are platforms, which grants them various legal protections and *should* prevent them from removing people based on ideology.

But what they are doing is saying they are a platform, but acting like a publisher, which would remove those protections and at the same time do whatever they want on their sites.

Currently these companies eat their cake and have it too. They curate content based on their own personal editorial standards (Code of Conduct), which makes them publishers, but they enjoy the protections being a neutral "platform" provides. This opens up a gray area for these "platforms" (really publishers) to be sued.
 
#167
#167
Orange_Vol1321 said:
A shorter leash? They have been able to say what they want as long as they aren't cussing from what I've seen since being on here in 2012 as it should be. That's what makes this one of the best sports boards/forum (besides being a Vols board). The only opposing fan I've known to be banned from the FF was LG. Lol

Look, here's all I was saying about this when starting this thread. Hypothetical Twitter examples.

I'm pro life. *banned*

I'm pro choice. *crickets*
Click to expand...
Here's a VN scenario following a UT loss to UGA (this happens a lot)

Utvolfan1234 - good grief Tennessee sucks

StupidDawgsfan - good grief Tennessee sucks

One is likely to get banned. That's how it is and there is nothing they can do about it. VN runs on clicks but they will still get run. It's what the customers want
 
#168
#168
Orange_Vol1321 said:
A shorter leash? They have been able to say what they want as long as they aren't cussing from what I've seen since being on here in 2012 as it should be. That's what makes this one of the best sports boards/forum (besides being a Vols board). The only opposing fan I've known to be banned from the FF was LG. Lol

Look, here's all I was saying about this when starting this thread. Hypothetical Twitter examples.

I'm pro life. *banned*

I'm pro choice. *crickets*

You have to see the problem here and I understand TOS/code of conduct and all that bs.
There is a huge difference between Platform and Publisher. Right now these social media platforms say they are platforms, which grants them various legal protections and *should* prevent them from removing people based on ideology.

But what they are doing is saying they are a platform, but acting like a publisher, which would remove those protections and at the same time do whatever they want on their sites.

Currently these companies eat their cake and have it too. They curate content based on their own personal editorial standards (Code of Conduct), which makes them publishers, but they enjoy the protections being a neutral "platform" provides. This opens up a gray area for these "platforms" (really publishers) to be sued.
Click to expand...


I'm banned from FF?

Fake news.
 
#170
#170
utvolpj said:
Here's a VN scenario following a UT loss to UGA (this happens a lot)

Utvolfan1234 - good grief Tennessee sucks

StupidDawgsfan - good grief Tennessee sucks

One is likely to get banned. That's how it is and there is nothing they can do about it. VN runs on clicks but they will still get run. It's what the customers want
Click to expand...
Well, after the last ten years I understand you all getting rid of opposing fans pretty quick on a Saturday. It's the stick in the hornets nest and some of our own fans can get pretty vile after a loss.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top