Halloween 2024: the Question of Article 230

[CaddmannQ]

Should section 230 be revised or eliminated?

(Bear in mind, that very question may be what’s affecting the administration and performance of this very site.)

For a long time, Internet providers and site operators have been considered immune from certain lawsuits due to article 230, which treats them differently than ordinary publishers.

Claiming that they are only carriers of data, and not responsible for the contents of the data itself, websites & providers have a long secured themselves from legal action when people go off the rails due to things they saw online etc.

But now a federal court has decided that while the industry is perfectly welcome to abuse and propagandize adults, it happens to be a crime when you do that to children. The evidence, they say, is seen in the behavior of children who have been injured by their contact with the Internet and thereafter want to do horrible things like commit mass murder, commit suicide, cut off their genitals or who knows what horror.

Should the site or any of us here, be liable for things said by other people here?
Or should 230 stand?

 

[Ernst]

Cadd, maybe this is why several other sites have an over 18 check box when you initially log on to their forum link.

However, I have my doubts this has anything to do with our absentee owners and their lack of support!

Regards

 

[CaddmannQ]

Over 18?
Yes, well that’s like a mousetrap without a spring.
It’s never caught a single one.

 

[meanstreak]

Kind of like a no trespass sign around a swimming pool. You also need a 10 foot fence, just trying to make a point, around the pool to keep people from drowning that can’t swim for various reasons. They also might invite themselves when no one is home.

My guess is an attorney would argue if someone can’t legally own (purchase) a gun the site should everything it can to forbid them.

That being said, I think Ernst is correct.

 

[CaddmannQ]

. . . I have my doubts this has anything to do with our absentee owners and their lack of support!

My understanding is that a lot of website operators and content creators across the Internet have been threatened or pressured in one way or another to distance themselves from this whole business.

This is clearly going on right now on YouTube across a wide number of channels.

But some places even have concrete rules, like if you’re taking official photographs for our agency then you can’t do this or that.

That was my most basic thought about this business.

 

[CaddmannQ]

Again I will ask this:

Should the site or any of us here, be liable for things said by other people here?

Is there joint and several liability?

Does this push against 230 imply guilt by association?

Could our website be looked on as a corrupt organization?

 

[Bobster]

Should the site or any of us here, be liable for things said by other people here?

Is there joint and several liability?

Does this push against 230 imply guilt by association?

Could our website be looked on as a corrupt organization?

No x4.

 

[CaddmannQ]

Then in that case mossbergowners.com is just a conduit and not a publisher, particularly not a publisher of political opinion.

Even though you and I might have ours and publish those openly.

Unfortunately, we have some wacko liberal types that are infringing on what we consider as free-speech. Look at what has happened to Ben Shapiro and several other prominent Youtubers in the past couple days.

The social justice warriors are trying to get them suspended or punished for stating their beliefs.

 

[Ernst]

Agree with Bobster - no x4