Will you take the Covid Vaccine?

[jamil]

NYT is responsible for anything they write. NYT is not responsible for anything that some random person writes in the comments.

No law or regulation compels any private entity to host any speech that they don't want to. There are no "open forums" in private spaces. An act of Congress can't undo the protections of the First Amendment.

A single entity can be both a publisher and a platform; nearly every news/info site is. Any article that allows third-party comments is functioning in both roles, from NYT to Fox News to Ammoland. The article is publisher content, and the comments are platform content. Platforms can be moderated and still have liability protections re: third-party content (comments, user posts, etc.).

NYT would be responsible for something that random people post in the comments if they remove points of view they don't like while leaving points of view they do like, for example. At that point they're effectively "publishing" the content.

 

[jamil]

You are just flat out wrong on the intent of the law. Yes NYT is responsible for what they write and without section 230 would be responsible for comments posted on their site. However, section 230 was not intended that they would police the comments and have protections. Section 230 was exactly because the sites said they could not police comments and needed protections which obviously they have the ability to police those comments now, because they are, and no longer need the protections.

It was an act of congress that gave them the protections of section 230 that they claim they cannot live without and an act of Congress can remove them. The NYT can just shut off comments if they wish, but FB and Titters is just comments, an open forum. They asked for 230 protections so they were not responsible for comments but now police for political reasons while enjoying protections.

Right. So let's say a "rogue" scientist posted a comment that explained how HCQ works to help people survive covid. And let's say the scientist was actually right, and could prove he was right. But NYT removed all his comments about the benefits of HCQ, while leaving other comments from people saying HCQ is a hoax promulgated by the evil orange man.

And then, say, someone sued NYT for removing information that could have been helpful to a loved who decided against taking HCQ because of those negative comments about it. NYT maybe has the cover of "science" in a way because there were some early studies that said it had no effect. But there was other science to the contrary. At the point they made the editorial decision to leave the negative HCQ posts and remove the positive ones, they're a publisher. And they effectively published that people shouldn't take HCQ. Section 230 protections should not be a defense for them.

 

[Ingomike]

Right. So let's say a "rogue" scientist posted a comment that explained how HCQ works to help people survive covid. And let's say the scientist was actually right, and could prove he was right. But NYT removed all his comments about the benefits of HCQ, while leaving other comments from people saying HCQ is a hoax promulgated by the evil orange man.

And then, say, someone sued NYT for removing information that could have been helpful to a loved who decided against taking HCQ because of those negative comments about it. NYT maybe has the cover of "science" in a way because there were some early studies that said it had no effect. But there was other science to the contrary. At the point they made the editorial decision to leave the negative HCQ posts and remove the positive ones, they're a publisher. And they effectively published that people shouldn't take HCQ. Section 230 protections should not be a defense for them.

The suit would not move forward, the judges would hide behind "standing". LOL

I believe that is the way it should work, by moderating content of others they are in fact "publishing" a view, no different than the letters to the editor they chose to publish over others they did not. If they had published a letter to editor that defamed someone they can be sued for the writing of that third party if they publish it.

 

[Ford Truck]

I have no intention of taking the jab. I've yet to wear a mask or comply with the rest of the plandemic mandates.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Getting mine in half an hour.

 

[mbills2223]

Getting mine in half an hour.

The 5G really is incredible

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The 5G really is incredible

So far I'm not seeing it. Maybe after these seizures and the foaming at the mouth stops. I guess that's why they want you to wait 15 minutes before leaving.

 

[Jaybird1980]

So far I'm not seeing it. Maybe after these seizures and the foaming at the mouth stops. I guess that's why they want you to wait 15 minutes before leaving.

The seizures and foaming are just your system rebooting. You're gonna love the new operating system.

 

[JettaKnight]

The 5G really is incredible

I heard there's a place in Defiance, OH that has brain sandwiches, and I really got a hankering for that in the last couple of months.

 

[printcraft]

I heard there's a place in Defiance, OH that has brain sandwiches, and I really got a hankering for that in the last couple of months.

Hilltop in Evansville, if it's open I'm stopping in the next time I'm down that way.

 

[BigRed]

I have no intention of taking the jab. I've yet to wear a mask or comply with the rest of the plandemic mandates.

What?
Shouldn't you be dead by now?

 

[jamil]

I heard there's a place in Defiance, OH that has brain sandwiches, and I really got a hankering for that in the last couple of months.

With pineapple?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

2 1/2 hours in, and not even any soreness in my arm.

 

[CampingJosh]

I don't know if he believes that a private company banning speech really violates the constitution. Obviously the constitution limits government not private business. But that's not really what the post was about. It violates the idea of free speech.

If it's so obvious, why do so many consistently get it wrong? It's complained about here in situations where it doesn't apply nearly every week.

He lead with calling it "a brazen violation of the First Amendment," which sure felt like the main idea of the post to me.

A subreddit about Wall Street is a weird thing to think of as "the media" when thinking about free speech as a principle. Reddit doesn't owe him anything, and certainly not when he's posting off topic. That's functionally graffiti.

With online postings--Reddit, INGO, or anywhere else--the content is the conduct. They are inseparable because there is no conduct other than the posted content.

 

[DadSmith]

I have no intention of taking the jab. I've yet to wear a mask or comply with the rest of the plandemic mandates.

Maybe you had covid19 and didn't even notice it. Millions have had it and thought it was a light cold or allergies acting up. I am pretty sure I had it around Nov of 2019 I was having a lot of problems with my lungs but about 3 weeks later I pulled through. Dr couldn't figure out what was causing it so she just treated me as if I has bronchitis. I was on Z-pack and steroids for about 10 days. I do the same as you no mask unless it's required such as medical buildings etc. Haven't caught it been tested 3x all negative. Those tests were all in 2020 different times of the year.

 

[jamil]

With online postings--Reddit, INGO, or anywhere else--the content is the conduct. They are inseparable because there is no conduct other than the posted content.

Bull****. In my reply to this post I could call you all kinds of bad names and tell you you’re full of all kinds of ****, insult your mother, you, or anything you like. Not that I would. But I could. But, if I did, that’s against INGO’s rules of conduct. Or, I could reply within INGO’s rules and simply say that you’re wrong, that conduct is not inseparable from content for the purposes of determining whether a publisher or platform. INGO is a family friendly platform for talking about guns, and in this subforum, politics. What I have posted here is not an express publication of INGO.

Now, if INGO only allowed your point of view and not mine, they would be curating the content; making it their own opinion. Effectively publishing.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The seizures and foaming are just your system rebooting. You're gonna love the new operating system.

Still no after effects. Not even a sore arm.

 

[jamil]

Josh, I was hoping you’d address this:

It violates the idea of free speech. Never in the internet age have we had this level of bias in the public square where all the major social media sites work vigorously together to control conversation to this degree.

I think this is a valid explanation for why people talk as if a private media company (yes reddit is a media company) selectively censoring content is violating free speech. All the manor companies are now controlling what people may talk about in a way that they’ve never done before. They’ve all had rules of conduct. They’ve never outright banned people from talking about the efficacy of a drug as they have over the past year or more. It’s not their right to shape public opinion, but that’s what they’re doing. It IS a violation of free speech. It even is a violation of our 1A rights. It’s just that technically the 1A does not apply to private corporations.

I’d be okay with passing a law to say that private companies that have effective monopolies on the public square may controll conduct—how people treat each other—but may not prohibit a point of view. And I know that’s imprecise language. Such a law would have to tread carefully around all rights. The idea is not to allow companies to effectively control society through selective control of public discourse.

And if the idea of “public accommodation” is constitutional for the civil rights act. This would be too.

I get the feeling that if the far right controlled all the institutions and major social media companies, and they forbid any discussion of progressive points of view, and to the point of this thread, you couldn’t discuss pro mask, pro-vaccine points of view, I’m pretty sure you might be more in agreement that we can’t sustain a free society when technology allows a monopoly on speech.
It’s a shock to the free market absolutists. But it is what it is.

 

[Bugzilla]

Just an observation. Most stores are now having signs stating that vaccinated people need not wear masks. Recent data states not even 70% are vaccinated. Estimate 98% of people are not wearing masks In the store, most being employees. This is a perfect example of non violent civil disobedience toward a ridiculous government overreach!

 

[mbills2223]

Just an observation. Most stores are now having signs stating that vaccinated people need not wear masks. Recent data states not even 70% are vaccinated. Estimate 98% of people are not wearing masks In the store, most being employees. This is a perfect example of non violent civil disobedience toward a ridiculous government overreach!

Just a friendly reminder that mandates are gone, only recommendations remain. On top of that, blanket federal mandates never existed and the state mandate was never enforced. Rosa Parks sitting in the front of a bus was civil disobedience, y'all not wearing a mask is just ignoring advice.