No, once you are aware of it you should do what is reasonably possible to remove said illegal activities from your premise and turn them over to the police.
No no this is entirely different you see. These are good statues.
I get the whole uniting against a bigger enemy, but if it is the voices from the Right screaming for more regulation, it isn't going to be the win the Right think it is.
I wasn't around when record companies came to be to be having this discussion then, but as for right now I suppose the key difference is ease of distribution. It used to be that in order to release a record it was a big financial matter, requiring distribution and manufacturing process, whereas nowadays its all digital and online and requires pressing 'send' from the user and very little from the companies. Also record companies have more direct control as to the content of the produced work since they are at least in part paying for its creation, therefor they should be responsible legally for the content, just like when you hire a hitman you are legally responsible for the crime.
I suspect you could live life just fine without using social media, but even if that's not the case there are alternate platforms such as the one we're on right now. Forcing Reddit or Facebook to platform us and our discussion is not justified.
Fundamentally I am against the notion of public utilities for precisely the sort of trouble such as this. If they're public, they must be allocated equally and without discern. Water, electricity, maybe roads, those things rational minds can disagree on. Facebook? I don't see how that case could be made.
As for 230 being a regulation, I don't think we should need a regulation to allow common sense of if Zuckerberg didn't post violent threats himself, then the person who actually posted them is ultimately responsible and not the company. In general the fewer regulation and government running the show we have, the better. I don't want Nancy Pelosi dictating what I can and can not do with my business, and what is or is not appropriate. If I violate somebody's rights, arrest and sue me. Otherwise leave me alone and stay out of my life. Don't like how I run my business? Don't deal with it.
When a record company publishes a record, it does so under their name and the record is effectively theirs. Therefor they would be responsible if a record they published encouraged criminal activities for example. I do not see it the same way when a website (or a business) allows posts from the public, then picks and chooses whichever ones they don't like and removes those. It is not the same in scope (record companies typically don't publish many millions of records), and it is not the same as in principle.
We've already established that they remove speech because they don't like it. That part we agree on.
How does it follow that they now own what speech remains?
I do think phone companies should have the option to remove customers for any reason. I would also financially support those companies' competitors, because this is a behavior I disagree with. Nevertheless, they should have that right. Just like private business owners should have the right to do or not do business with whomever they wish, hire or not hire anyone they wish, bake or not bake cakes, for any and no reason what so ever.
Surely the Media is above such behavior. /s
How does the logic follow that:
Choosing to remove some speech -> be legally responsible for all content under platform?
That would be the same as a business owner who kicked out a drunkard is now legally responsible for any criminal activities performed within his store (or even, using his products.)
Let's have a discussion.
We have transcended and are now breathing pure LARPium.
So what does that mean? Two more weeks?
No one even reads the KiA.win thread.
What's left to ban? Supermarkets refusing service? Windows operating system shutting down your PC for wrongthink?
Words are not a magical entity formed through a social democratic process. Word are a useful tool to formulate and convey information. That information relates to concepts. Concepts very much exist in the real world and pertain to the real world, not a magical fairy-land.
I'm shocked.
Must be all those alt-right, russian bots.
Aracheology is racist.
$2,739,000,000.
MacKenzie Scott (née Tuttle, formerly Bezos; April 7, 1970) is an American novelist and philanthropist.
'Suspect' preassumes suspicion. We should have a vote on how does suspecting this persxn makes us feel.
I'm completely against companies using governments to strong arm their way out of having to compete. My proposed solution is to make it so governments do not have the authority / ability to offer anything to companies. Governments should stay out of the economy. Still, private (actually private) companies should have the option to run their websites however way they see fit.
I didn't know we had leftists on this website. May I ask how you came to be here and what are you getting out of being on this site?
We are on our own 'Reddit' right now. While yes, Reddit is still the much larger website and we may not like it, it is however important to make sure we point our finger in the right direction. Private websites having control of their platform is not it.
Ivermectin is RACIST
Youtube HQ: 'You know what is wrong in the world? Those pesky biology professors with microphones.'
This effectively boils down to 'the law is so and so.' I am not interesting in debating what is currently in the law books, but rather how things ought to be.