If you look at the gates foundations goals they have been building infrastructure and helping starvation as well. But whatever. Evil.
I mean the entire race as a whole. Not one individual. Were like locusts that use up everything around us with virtually zero benefit to the planet. We broke the goods chain. We broke the environment. We broke the wildlife. Were the equivalent of a slow motion disaster.
They downvote anything I write and usually call me a faggot too because I'm critical of Trump. Doesn't matter of its true or not. In reality I'm pretty critical of any bullshit and call it out of I see it, usually with some pretty good facts. How far we have falken when i can't question the veracity of an NSA agents claims on a conspiracy site.
You can't have user generated content without protection from litigation for the hosting service. How would something like twitter exist? They have something like 300 million tweets per day. Should they be liable for all of them, or none of them?
Should they be forced to host legal sex videos if they don't want a part of that?
Neither is posting bullshit on the internet.
I knew it was found to be this or the stupid 50,000 paralyzed in India shit. Don't think I haven't looked into any of this. From what I've read before in this matter, if the vaccine is not stopped at the property temperatures and sanitary conditions aren't his, this can happen. Compared to hundreds of thousands of wild polio cases this is nothing. Sometimes you need to look at the biggest picture.
Also gates giving funding to a company and that company doing something bad doesn't mean he should go to jail.
That's pretty vague. Any specific crimes you'd list?
I dunno, the whole thing would have to be rethought if they took out 230 because the internet doesn't work without it.
So which one does someone who takes every word Trump and the GOP say as gospel fall into?
What would you charge him with if you were to arrest him?
The problem is they are now a publisher so they are liable for having published it, doesn't matter who wrote it.
If the NY Times publishes a story by Michael Parsons that says Donald Trump is a transsexual hooker, the NY Times gets sued as the distributed the story, and maybe Michael too.
Dirty socialists.
It's about liability. If the website is liable for what users post they will just choose all user content.
Imagine if the win owner could be sued for someone saying "Hillary eats baby faces". This is what could happen without the 230 protections.
Only allow moderation of text with a court order? Why should I, who is paying for servers and made the site, have to go to court to remove your bullshit post? You're going to force me to pay for you?
Oh god FFS.
Again... As the law currently stands there's no distinction. You can moderate out of the ass, you still do not lose the protection.
Are you advocating for the gouvernement too décidé how a website should moderate content?
The law right now is that the website is not responsible for anything a user posts due to section 230. People want to get the law changed because they think twitter is unfairly removing content from Trump lovers and wasn't them to be liable for removing content, essentially making big day government the boss.
The thing about the kraken is that it's a story that's been passed around for ages, and people want to believe, but at the end of the day its just a big smelly squid that was spun up to be something special.
There is no distinction online in any laws between a platform and a publisher. So as current laws stand, the distinction between the two is worthless.
So, how would you change the laws? Just screaming platform and publisher into the clouds is worthless.
The difference is that taking out the 230 protections would impact the websites and companies themselves and they would have to fundamentally change their business.
I'm sorry, but if my webpage is not doing anything illegal, fuck any government person, in fact, fuck any person that comes up and tells me how I should run out and what's fair.
Fuck that bullshit.
Attitude? Wtf man I asked you an honest question. You suggested reform, how do we reform this in any meaningful way? If you don't want to have a conversation maybe you should take the attitude somewhere else.
Which currently had zero meaning online. How would this fix anything?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/
Or any of the other 50-60 labs around the world. This is where you say they are all lying for x reason , or that it's not isolated enough for your standards of isolation when you never knew a thing about viruses and isolation last year. You'll parrot what you heard from some fringe site and call me a parrot at the same time.
Then I'll say I don't give a fuck, believe whatever the fuck you want. Nice conversation have a good one.
Q drop #14: When has POTUS ever said anything that hasn't turned out to be true?
Laugh worthy North Korea level propaganda.
Personally think we're fine the way it is. If you want a site with no moderation, find one or make it.
The government should be involved only if the content is illegal.I don't think they should decide anything else. Now there could be a problem with the government deciding what's illegal, but that's another issue altogether and we could go around in circles.
As it exists now, I think there's a good balance. Child porn, death threats, straight up scams and harmful malware. That's about the only time the government gets involved right now and I don't think it should be any more than that.
Telling the owner of a site who pays the bills for a server that they can't delete a post they deem shitty because some asshole in Alaska wants to be asshole to some other asshole in Canada.... Well, to me that seems unfair. Why am I paying for content I don't want?