Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes. They can.Read the judgement..
PRODIGY commenced operations in 1990. Plaintiffs base their claim that PRODIGY is a publisher in large measure on PRODIGY's stated policy, starting in 1990, that it was a family oriented computer network. In various national newspaper articles written by Geoffrey Moore, PRODIGY's Director of Market Programs and Communications, PRODIGY held itself out as an online service that exercised editorial control over the content of messages posted on its computer bulletin boards, thereby expressly differentiating itself from its competition and expressly likening itself to a newspaper. (see, Exhibits I and J to Plaintiffs' moving papers.) In one article PRODIGY stated:
and the subsequent law from the prima facie case.
(3)
The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
They can’t be a publisher and editor while silencing political debate and simultaneously claiming protections under the same law,
..
only a fascist would argue otherwise.
PRODIGY
You argue like a 1st year uni student..Yes. They can.
And if you don't like being called a rwnj, stop peddling their sh*t.
And the first thing a fascist country would do is put what media companies can allow/disallow under state control.
This is not an attempt to free public discourse from the tyranny of corporations, it's an attempt to control public discourse by political actors from the far right.
On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app
You argue like a 1st year uni student..
Stop placing opinions as facts, im happy to keep going if you can reference what you’re saying otherwise this exercise is pointless.
Go back read up on media and commutation law, why the prima facie case of Stratton Oakmont vs Prodigy needed to define what social media is and the argument between whether they were a publisher or an editor.. understand the obligations and special protections both these titles cover. What that means in the context of the argument..
Your second statement lacks the nuanced understanding the difference between an authoritarian vs fascist regime..
So yeah if big tech wants to be a publisher and editor, claiming those protections, while simultaneously silencing political debate, those protections should be removed, as they are not appropriate.
This is the same stuff they tried to pull SOPA..
So yeah if big tech wants to be a publisher and editor, claiming those protections, while simultaneously silencing political debate, those protections should be removed, as they are not appropriate.
My understanding of the Stratton Oakmont case was that it hinged on the fact that Prodigy had made a previous choice to gain the benefits of editorial control through guidelines, moderators, etc, and was therefore liable for the content created by its users. Without the subsequent legislation passed as section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996 the implications for the social media platforms would have been that to avoid legal liability for user content they would have to be completely free of any moderation. By passing Section 230 surely it was congresses intent that they actually wanted the platforms to moderate the content posted by users, and that will include from time to time banning users that violate their terms of use.
The irony is that if Prodigy had run a truth defense of the post about Stratton Oakmont they probably would have won the case as the post proved to be factual.
I think the problem your argument runs into is that you're advocating stripping the social media platforms of their first amendment rights.
Are you saying they were the fire starter?My understanding of the Stratton Oakmont case was that it hinged on the fact that Prodigy had made a previous choice to gain the benefits of editorial control through guidelines, moderators, etc, and was therefore liable for the content created by its users. Without the subsequent legislation passed as section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996 the implications for the social media platforms would have been that to avoid legal liability for user content they would have to be completely free of any moderation. By passing Section 230 surely it was congresses intent that they actually wanted the platforms to moderate the content posted by users, and that will include from time to time banning users that violate their terms of use.
The irony is that if Prodigy had run a truth defense of the post about Stratton Oakmont they probably would have won the case as the post proved to be factual.
Are you saying they were the fire starter?
Yep but when Congress enacted the law/protections they stated pretty clearly what they thought was protected speech..My understanding of the Stratton Oakmont case was that it hinged on the fact that Prodigy had made a previous choice to gain the benefits of editorial control through guidelines, moderators, etc, and was therefore liable for the content created by its users. Without the subsequent legislation passed as section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996 the implications for the social media platforms would have been that to avoid legal liability for user content they would have to be completely free of any moderation. By passing Section 230 surely it was congresses intent that they actually wanted the platforms to moderate the content posted by users, and that will include from time to time banning users that violate their terms of use.
The irony is that if Prodigy had run a truth defense of the post about Stratton Oakmont they probably would have won the case as the post proved to be factual.
They didn't light it, but they tried to fight it.They didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the earth was turning.
There is zero chance the world will be locked down indiscriminately for at least a couple to a few years.The only thing that currently matters is in bold and I hate to break it to you - it won't solve the current outbreak, crushing the outbreaks will only happen with the tools at our current disposal. On current rates we're looking at at least a year to get even close to enough of our population fully vaccinated.
I have another important piece of information, as much of the world is currently discovering, this is far from over and even 100% vaccination in the next 12 months with current vaccines will not be a panacea and ticket to no lockdowns or changes to what was "normal" 2 years ago. My money is on this lasting to some extent for at least the next few years. Best enjoy the small blessings and do everything we all can to be safe and look after each other.
Could be worse IMO, 40 years ago we were shipping poor young bastards off to SE asia to kill people minding their own business in their own countries and get shot at. A couple of decades before the main chance at a European holiday for Australian males under the age of 40 involved the possibility of being obliterated into a million pieces. Could always be worse and there is nothing to say that we can't make improvements to our society in general from these events.
Yep but Congress enacted the law/protections they stated pretty clearly what they thought was protected speech..
‘true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.’
The moment big tech became partisan is the moment those protections should be removed.
Well Mickey from Malvern seems to think he is a Test opener. Has now faced an over of wrong uns from our Dan, the new sheik of tweak and has pretty much shouldered arms to each new delivery. Quite an insipid display.Would somebody please take the masterkey off this lockdown dungeon master.
yes, they’re completely neoliberal at the moment and they pull the shade cloth off the liberal part when they have too.I think the notion that big tech is partisan is problematic or at least very difficult to prove. Research has proven that Facebook, for example, actually leans conservative. I am also sure that every person they have suspended or banned from the platform they can point to a violation of T & Cs that was the trigger.
If congress removes the protection offered by Section 230 then the CEOs of the platforms will say they can't moderate anything at all due to the liability it confers on them and all the things that government wants them to filter like child trafficking, terrorism etc gets a free run.
There is zero chance the world will be locked down indiscriminately for at least a couple to a few years.
Targets will be 60% to 80% vaccination, covid safe precautions and back to it.
That's it and that's how we will live with it.
Those that are concerned can lock themselves down.
The rest of us need to feed our families.
Yes I agree, the virus will continue to mutate , and that's how i predict what is meant by "we need to learn to live with it".
On Pixel 4 using BigFooty.com mobile app
All weren't in quarantine. Sigh.Friday 6th and six more cases... Yay
In a random manner.Who said anything about locking down "indiscriminately"?