Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 month ago
#61
(Original post by Rakas21)
Repeal 230?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Basically by scrapping this and replacing it the Trump admin will be able to force companies particularly tech and social media giants like Facebook to choose whether they are publishers or content providers. Publishers are responsible for their content (so could be liable for the content) and content providers who are merely providing a service to everyone and aren't anyway near as liable.

As it stands today, tech platforms like Facebook can more or less pick and choose what they are. This leads to the insane situation where somebody can be day banned from YouTube for saying "offensive" things but videos including Isis recruitment videos or all sorts of other disgusting things which clearly break T&C's stay up.

Basically by changing it, it will make it next to impossible for tech platforms to discriminate against people they dislike politically.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 month ago
#62
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I don't believe Trump will be running in '24. There will be too much come out about him by then - he will probably also have at least one criminal conviction and there are more shocking revelations about his misconduct on office to come. He knows this - the speeches and the ranting and the horse manure are all about raising yet more money, for his legal battles and to sponsor other candidates, especially his kids, into office.
I don't think so....

-Trump has shown that Trump can walk away from most "scandals" either because his base don't care, think it's funny or agree with Trump.
-Trump already has a huge warchest to fight legal battles with.
-Trump isn't going to prison or get charged with anything, though I'm sure they would love to.
- He has more or less the entire GOP behind him
- Why wouldn't he?
-Even without all the above I don't think Trumps ego would let him agree to go down as a one term president.

....You could be right though but I guess we'll see.👍
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 month ago
#63
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
-Trump has shown that Trump can walk away from most "scandals" either because his base don't care, think it's funny or agree with Trump.
Why did he lose 2020, then? 🤔
0
reply
parmezanne
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 month ago
#64
the thought alone is awful. there was so much hope when biden won, I'm from the UK but I felt such a wash of relief over me.

Biden is by no means perfect but Trump's ethics and leadership has caused so much trauma and hatred across the US which has spilled over to the rest of the world. I'd hate to take a step backwards and return to the racist, sexist, homophobic, ignorant, misleading, arrogant orangutan again.
2
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 month ago
#65
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Why did he lose 2020, then? 🤔
He didn't 😉🤣
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 month ago
#66
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
He didn't 😉🤣
Out of curiosity, do you actually believe that Trump won and had the election "stolen" from him?
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 month ago
#67
(Original post by Tempest II)
Out of curiosity, do you actually believe that Trump won and had the election "stolen" from him?
Honestly I don't really have an opinion nor do I care if he really did lose. Democracy is overrated (see Aristotle)

... That said I DO genuinely think there was some dodgy stuff going on and a lot of coincidences which Trump brought up including the bellwether seats and states all going for Trump, his vote increasing but still losing. I think it's all far too convenient. Also all these lefties having complete faith in the integrity of *check* honest Joe Biden and the DNC is hilarious.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 month ago
#68
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
That said I DO genuinely think there was some dodgy stuff going on
Why?
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 month ago
#69
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Basically by scrapping this and replacing it the Trump admin will be able to force companies particularly tech and social media giants like Facebook to choose whether they are publishers or content providers. Publishers are responsible for their content (so could be liable for the content) and content providers who are merely providing a service to everyone and aren't anyway near as liable.

As it stands today, tech platforms like Facebook can more or less pick and choose what they are. This leads to the insane situation where somebody can be day banned from YouTube for saying "offensive" things but videos including Isis recruitment videos or all sorts of other disgusting things which clearly break T&C's stay up.

Basically by changing it, it will make it next to impossible for tech platforms to discriminate against people they dislike politically.
I think he may find he is a race that he loses.

The tech companies have badly misjudged the position and at the moment the only friends they have in politics are the ones they buy and pay for.
Everyone else, Republican and Democrat, want to give them a kicking but because the administration is Democrat, the Democrats will get the credit.
0
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 month ago
#70
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Trump's speech
. . .
Fact check: 100% True and Based
Can you fact check what he said about the Biden administration?
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 month ago
#71
(Original post by nulli tertius)
I think he may find he is a race that he loses.

The tech companies have badly misjudged the position and at the moment the only friends they have in politics are the ones they buy and pay for.
Everyone else, Republican and Democrat, want to give them a kicking but because the administration is Democrat, the Democrats will get the credit.
The 'friends they've bought and paid for' include the entire Biden administration.

I will be surprised if Democrats do what I suggested. What they probably will do is add extra legislation holding them accountable for any "extremist" (IE Trump supporters) content but keep it as it is (, deliberately vague to provide the allusion of dissent/ free speech).
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 month ago
#72
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Honestly I don't really have an opinion nor do I care if he really did lose. Democracy is overrated (see Aristotle)

... That said I DO genuinely think there was some dodgy stuff going on and a lot of coincidences which Trump brought up including the bellwether seats and states all going for Trump, his vote increasing but still losing. I think it's all far too convenient. Also all these lefties having complete faith in the integrity of *check* honest Joe Biden and the DNC is hilarious.
The practical logistics of this were wholly against widespread fraud.

However the reason Trump supporters think there was fraud is that only 28% of non-college educated white men backed Biden. Given that this will have a significant geographical bias, many Trump supporters in swing states would literally not know anyone who voted Biden. Hence they can’t understand why Trump lost.

They probably consider themselves typical Americans but the combination or race, education and the diverging political views of female voters mean that they are actually political outliers.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 month ago
#73
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Basically by scrapping this and replacing it the Trump admin will be able to force companies particularly tech and social media giants like Facebook to choose whether they are publishers or content providers. Publishers are responsible for their content (so could be liable for the content) and content providers who are merely providing a service to everyone and aren't anyway near as liable.

As it stands today, tech platforms like Facebook can more or less pick and choose what they are. This leads to the insane situation where somebody can be day banned from YouTube for saying "offensive" things but videos including Isis recruitment videos or all sorts of other disgusting things which clearly break T&C's stay up.

Basically by changing it, it will make it next to impossible for tech platforms to discriminate against people they dislike politically.
Not particularly. What it would do is essentially force Facebook and other social media companies to be more restrictive, to shut off anything potentially inciteful, harassing or defamatory. Within whatever remained after that, they could still choose to exercise whatever discretionary rules they wanted on top.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 month ago
#74
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
The 'friends they've bought and paid for' include the entire Biden administration.

I will be surprised if Democrats do what I suggested. What they probably will do is add extra legislation holding them accountable for any "extremist" (IE Trump supporters) content but keep it as it is (, deliberately vague to provide the allusion of dissent/ free speech).
Hardly.

Look at the reaction of Democrats to Facebook’s attempt to bully Australia.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 month ago
#75
(Original post by Drewski)
Why?
The 'coincidences' I mentioned above mainly. Eg Biden performing better than Obama in swing states but worse than Obama overall.

I also watched it live and there was a three hour "break" that went on in some of these swing seats which seemed very odd at the time.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#76
Report 1 month ago
#76
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Look at the reaction of Democrats to Facebook’s attempt to bully Australia.
Talk is cheap. The GOP often talked tough but didn't do anything about it either
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 month ago
#77
(Original post by anarchism101)
Not particularly. What it would do is essentially force Facebook and other social media companies to be more restrictive, to shut off anything potentially inciteful, harassing or defamatory. Within whatever remained after that, they could still choose to exercise whatever discretionary rules they wanted on top.
If it did that then it would be a publisher notbs content provider.

Private Companies can and should let whoever they want on and discriminate freely. What they shouldn't be able to do is market themselves as a free speech public platform (which is a monopoly) and then start censoring people they don't like arbitrarily.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 month ago
#78
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
The 'coincidences' I mentioned above mainly. Eg Biden performing better than Obama in swing states but worse than Obama overall.

I also watched it live and there was a three hour "break" that went on in some of these swing seats which seemed very odd at the time.
Because Democrats were voting against Trump whilst they voted for Obama.

You get a warm feeling inside by voting for Obama even if you live in Hawaii or Alaska and your vote makes no difference because what matters is that you supported the first black President.

However, you only get a warm feeling from
blocking Trump’s election and not from supporting Biden and so it is less important to vote in DC or Idaho where your vote makes no difference to whether Trump wins.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 month ago
#79
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
The 'coincidences' I mentioned above mainly. Eg Biden performing better than Obama in swing states but worse than Obama overall.

I also watched it live and there was a three hour "break" that went on in some of these swing seats which seemed very odd at the time.
Is that not suitably answered by the fact that those in the swing states were targeted far more than they have in years by a ramped up Democratic party who'd had a few years to get ready for a massive anti-Trump effort? Those in safe states suffer a blow out because there's no pressure on it.

Edit: not trying to catch you out, genuinely interested.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 month ago
#80
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
If it did that then it would be a publisher notbs content provider.

Private Companies can and should let whoever they want on and discriminate freely. What they shouldn't be able to do is market themselves as a free speech public platform (which is a monopoly) and then start censoring people they don't like arbitrarily.
You'd have to pass new legislation to do that, scrapping Section 230 in itself would just strip legal protections of companies for what their users post.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (144)
4.88%
Uncertainty around my education (433)
14.68%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (332)
11.25%
Lack of purpose or motivation (409)
13.86%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (136)
4.61%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (178)
6.03%
Loneliness (254)
8.61%
Financial worries (109)
3.69%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (121)
4.1%
Exposure to negative news/social media (135)
4.58%
Lack of real life entertainment (158)
5.36%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (261)
8.85%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (280)
9.49%

Watched Threads

View All