Posts: 273
Threads: 200
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
56
If it ever gets repealed this site will shut down. Or any involvement on my part will cease to exist. Just an FYI...
Is this thing on?
Quote: @savannahskol said:
Yep, this seems to go on both sides of the aisle. Honestly, I don't think its very well understood by the vast majority of people regardless of political slant.
yeah, not sure i know the merits of all the arguments. The issue, as I see it, these protections were given as the online enviroment was developing to promote “growth and inovation”. My question is things have changed shouldn’t there be some tweeks. My personal belief is a lot of social media has been used to promote a lot of bs and propaganda and that has caused significant social conflict. You have some very sophisticated purveyors who for whatever reason, profit, power or ego, utillizing the environment to manipulate an unprepared consumer.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
yeah, not sure i know the merits of all the arguments. The issue, as I see it, these protections were given as the online enviroment was developing to promote “growth and inovation”. My question is things have changed shouldn’t there be some tweeks. My personal belief is a lot of social media has been used to promote a lot of bs and propaganda and that has caused significant social conflict. You have some very sophisticated purveyors who for whatever reason, profit, power or ego, utillizing the environment to manipulate an unprepared consumer.
but ask yourself... will changing the law to allow for punitive action against site operators be used to punish the big tech offenders.... or as Mike is concerned will it become a tool to go after the Mike Olsons of the world for allowing the BigAls to post things that arent popular with somebody with deeper pockets and the long reach of the US govt?
I dont see this as a thread to the megatech giants, facebooks and such, as much as it is to the small town main street type sites.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
yeah, not sure i know the merits of all the arguments. The issue, as I see it, these protections were given as the online enviroment was developing to promote “growth and inovation”. My question is things have changed shouldn’t there be some tweeks. My personal belief is a lot of social media has been used to promote a lot of bs and propaganda and that has caused significant social conflict. You have some very sophisticated purveyors who for whatever reason, profit, power or ego, utillizing the environment to manipulate an unprepared consumer.
but ask yourself... will changing the law to allow for punitive action against site operators be used to punish the big tech offenders.... or as Mike is concerned will it become a tool to go after the Mike Olsons of the world for allowing the BigAls to post things that arent popular with somebody with deeper pockets and the long reach of the US govt?
I dont see this as a thread to the megatech giants, facebooks and such, as much as it is to the small town main street type sites.
I don't know enough about the topic, I read a brief history and a synopsis of intent. I work behind a corporate firewall and I am beholding to my client, the employer, and they have very simple guidelines what I can and can't say on their behalf. I don't know how it affects site operator's, so I would like to know more before I get all wound up. Trump and McConnell are making this about the Facebooks and Twitter, tell me more how this will change what I or you write on a Football board. I know we have issues with posting copyrighted material, what else will this impact if modified from the original 1996 version?
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
yeah, not sure i know the merits of all the arguments. The issue, as I see it, these protections were given as the online enviroment was developing to promote “growth and inovation”. My question is things have changed shouldn’t there be some tweeks. My personal belief is a lot of social media has been used to promote a lot of bs and propaganda and that has caused significant social conflict. You have some very sophisticated purveyors who for whatever reason, profit, power or ego, utillizing the environment to manipulate an unprepared consumer.
but ask yourself... will changing the law to allow for punitive action against site operators be used to punish the big tech offenders.... or as Mike is concerned will it become a tool to go after the Mike Olsons of the world for allowing the BigAls to post things that arent popular with somebody with deeper pockets and the long reach of the US govt?
I dont see this as a thread to the megatech giants, facebooks and such, as much as it is to the small town main street type sites.
I don't know enough about the topic, I read a brief history and a synopsis of intent. I work behind a corporate firewall and I am beholding to my client, the employer, and they have very simple guidelines what I can and can't say on their behalf. I don't know how it affects site operator's, so I would like to know more before I get all wound up. Trump and McConnell are making this about the Facebooks and Twitter, tell me more how this will change what I or you write on a Football board. I know we have issues with posting copyrighted material, what else will this impact if modified from the original 1996 version?
my cliffnotes understanding is that the site admin (Mike) could be held liable/responsible for anything that gets posted on this board over and above copyright related issues.
well that would suck, why the hell are they gonna do that?
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
well that would suck, why the hell are they gonna do that?
tinfoil hat version?
if it was really going to hurt big tech and social media giants... it wouldnt be being talked about by both parties. IMO this would be a tool that would allow the govt to do the bidding of the tech giants by harassing the small startups and shit like that, say you come out with a platform that competes with facebook and its gaining traction... well that pisses off some powerful people with a lot of financial interest in facebook so this give them the power to come after you for your users transgressions which then destabilizes your business so the tech giants can come in and buy you up cheap. imagine buying the next great thing for pennies on the dollar instead of having to fork over billions.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ BigAl99 said:
well that would suck, why the hell are they gonna do that?
tinfoil hat version?
if it was really going to hurt big tech and social media giants... it wouldnt be being talked about by both parties. IMO this would be a tool that would allow the govt to do the bidding of the tech giants by harassing the small startups and shit like that, say you come out with a platform that competes with facebook and its gaining traction... well that pisses off some powerful people with a lot of financial interest in facebook so this give them the power to come after you for your users transgressions which then destabilizes your business so the tech giants can come in and buy you up cheap. imagine buying the next great thing for pennies on the dollar instead of having to fork over billions.
The intent seems good, draw liability barriers between publishers and distributers. But as soon as a distributer takes on a editorial role, like not allowing a Dave Chappelle video, you become a publisher and responsible for content. That is what put's this site and Facebook / Twitter on the same playing field.
Now I get why Trump is pitching a tent, Twitter and Facebook have been labeling his output and he just don't like that. They should have just banned him then, like we do here. Learned at an early age don't piss in your own sandbox.
|
