Libs of TikTok Suspended From Facebook

[Webster]

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch 'cause one of these days, their shit's going to get someone killed....

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Tik Tok where you go to have all your private information stolen by the Chinese government.

 

[Webster]

Their company, their rules.

 

[Webster]

By the way, @WHO IS SERAFIN, here's the reason Facebook finally shut them down.....

(The Guardian) Boston children’s hospital is dealing with a campaign of threats after rightwing activists began attacking it for providing care to transgender youth, prompting a warning from the justice department.

Axios reports that the threat campaign centers around allegations the hospital provides gender-affirming care to children, and have spread to other health care facilities in the nation, including Phoenix children’s hospital and another facility in Nebraska. One of the loudest voices has been Libs of TikTok, which has 1.3 million followers on Twitter, but Boston children’s hospital says its allegations are false.

Yesterday, Rachael S Rollins, the US attorney for Massachusetts, issued a warning against people who threaten the hospital. “I want to make it clear that the Department of Justice will ensure equal protection of transgender people under the law,” she wrote. “While free speech is indeed the cornerstone of our great nation, fear, intimidation and threats are not. I will not sit idly by and allow hate-based criminal activity to continue in our District.”

Boston Children's Hospital faces threats over gender-affirming care

The hospital is boosting security and working with law enforcement.

www.axios.com

Statement from U.S. Attorney Rachael S. Rollins Regarding Alleged Threats Made to Boston Children's Hospital

www.justice.gov

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Their company, their rules.

Yup, while you read the rules a guy named Chen is enjoying private access to another Americans information

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

By the way, @WHO IS SERAFIN, here's the reason Facebook finally shut them down.....

(The Guardian) Boston children’s hospital is dealing with a campaign of threats after rightwing activists began attacking it for providing care to transgender youth, prompting a warning from the justice department.

Axios reports that the threat campaign centers around allegations the hospital provides gender-affirming care to children, and have spread to other health care facilities in the nation, including Phoenix children’s hospital and another facility in Nebraska. One of the loudest voices has been Libs of TikTok, which has 1.3 million followers on Twitter, but Boston children’s hospital says its allegations are false.

Yesterday, Rachael S Rollins, the US attorney for Massachusetts, issued a warning against people who threaten the hospital. “I want to make it clear that the Department of Justice will ensure equal protection of transgender people under the law,” she wrote. “While free speech is indeed the cornerstone of our great nation, fear, intimidation and threats are not. I will not sit idly by and allow hate-based criminal activity to continue in our District.”

Boston Children's Hospital faces threats over gender-affirming care

The hospital is boosting security and working with law enforcement.

www.axios.com

Statement from U.S. Attorney Rachael S. Rollins Regarding Alleged Threats Made to Boston Children's Hospital

www.justice.gov

Hopefully they called for every piece of shit in that hospital that did this to children to be arrested and face the gas chamber for the mutilation of minors.

 

[Webster]

Hopefully they called for every piece of shit in that hospital that did this to children to be arrested and face the gas chamber for the mutilation of minors.

Oh, so you're justifying violence then, huh?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Oh, so you're justifying violence then, huh?

Through the courts, absolutely! This is hurting children and that deserves nothing less when you do.

 

[Webster]

Through the courts, absolutely! This is hurting children and that deserves nothing less when you do.

You're still advocating violence though.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

You're still advocating violence though.

Ok!

 

[Nebulous]

Their company, their rules.

 

[Bluezone777]

Seeing as how much of a cesspool social media is, I'd say it would be more of a punishment to force you to stay then to keep you out. I'd say if anything getting banned from social media is a blessing in disguise. Social media is the place where honest discourse and reasoned discussion goes to die.

 

[Nebulous]

Seeing as how much of a cesspool social media is, I'd say it would be more of a punishment to force you to stay then to keep you out.

Good point!

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Well since they are getting special benefits and certain rules from the government specifically for these social media platforms no it’s not there rules only. Cut ties from government completely and then it’s there rules.

 

[Webster]

Well since they are getting special benefits and certain rules from the government specifically for these social media platforms no it’s not there rules only.

Section 230's a special benefit?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Section 230's a special benefit?

You may keep up with some random numbers but I’m going to need to know what that one is for.

 

[Webster]

You may keep up with some random numbers but I’m going to need to know what that one is for.

Read up and learn, Serafin...

Section 230

47 U.S.C. § 230 The Internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Our unprecedented ability to communicate online—on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia...

www.eff.org

47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act
Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230.

This comes somewhat as a surprise, since the original purpose of the legislation was to restrict free speech on the Internet. The Internet community as a whole objected strongly to the Communications Decency Act, and with EFF's help, the anti-free speech provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court. But thankfully, CDA 230 remains and in the years since has far outshone the rest of the law.

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

This legal and policy framework has allowed for YouTube and Vimeo users to upload their own videos, Amazon and Yelp to offer countless user reviews, craigslist to host classified ads, and Facebook and Twitter to offer social networking to hundreds of millions of Internet users. Given the sheer size of user-generated websites (for example, Facebook alone has more than 1 billion users, and YouTube users upload 100 hours of video every minute), it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site. Rather than face potential liability for their users' actions, most would likely not host any user content at all or would need to protect themselves by being actively engaged in censoring what we say, what we see, and what we do online. In short, CDA 230 is perhaps the most influential law to protect the kind of innovation that has allowed the Internet to thrive since 1996.

 

[Webster]

And if Section 230 were eliminated?

https://www.cato.org/commentary/repealing-section-230-would-limit-americans-speech

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prevents digital intermediaries from being treated as the “publisher or speaker” of their users’ speech and blocks litigation over platforms’ decisions to remove speech they deem violent, obscene or otherwise objectionable. Platforms are under no obligation to remove speech, with some exceptions, but cannot be required to carry speech either. The law applies universally to digital intermediaries; Facebook is not liable for its users’ speech, and The New York Times is not liable for its comments section. By properly placing responsibility for harmful or unlawful speech with the speaker, Section 230 maximizes the ability of companies to produce publishing tools.

In the 25 years since its passage, this prescient rule has paid tremendous dividends. Americans are served by a dizzying array of publishing intermediaries, allowing us to communicate in real time via text, audio and video. We have created forums for work, worship, play and romance, serving every imaginable nice interest and minority. Of course, not all interconnection has been positive. Extremists and criminals use the internet too. Some argue that amending or repealing Section 230 would compel platforms to suppress extremist speech and criminal activity.

However, exposing platforms to broad liability for user speech would lead to the removal of much more than dangerous speech.

Platforms already make extensive use of their ability to remove unwanted speech, filtering spam, threats, advertisements for illegal goods, foreign propaganda and even simply off‐topic speech. Popular platforms review millions of posts a day, often with the assistance of imperfect software. At this scale, some innocent speech will inevitably be misunderstood, mislabeled and removed. Over the past few years, major platforms’ rules have become more stringent and expansive, prompting concerns about censorship and bias.

Demanding that platforms assume liability for their users’ speech will at best exacerbate the accidental removal of innocent speech. However, it also runs the risk of limiting who can speak online at all. Digital intermediaries usually review speech after publication. Speech may be flagged, either by other users, human moderators, or algorithms, and placed in queue for adjudication. Section 230 allows platforms to remain open by default and worry about excluding misuse when it occurs, giving a voice to everyone with an internet connection.

In contrast, newspapers and other traditional publishers filter, edit and modify submissions before publication. While this allows them to safely assume full ownership of the speech they publish, it dramatically limits who can speak. Editing is a laborious and time‐consuming process. Even if a newspaper wanted to publish every letter to the editor, it would have neither the space nor the time to do so. This model often produces consistently high‐quality speech, but tends to favor some perspectives over others, offering only a narrow slice of elite sentiment.

Repealing Section 230 would make social media more like traditional media by making it exclusive. With limited resources to review speech before publication, platforms would have to determine whose perspectives should be prioritized. There is little reason to think their selections would differ greatly from newspapers. If replies and responses had to be reviewed as well, social media would lose most of its interactivity, becoming another conduit through which speech is passively received.

Without Section 230, platform moderators would not become more deliberate, they would simply remove more. The threat of costly litigation does little to inspire thoughtful decision making — moderators will act quickly to eliminate any source of legal risk. When Congress amended Section 230 in 2017 to expose platforms to liability for speech promoting prostitution or sex trafficking, Craigslist did not moderate its personal advertisements page more cautiously, it shut the page down.

Repealing Section 230 is a drastic step that would upend the internet, punishing successful firms and internet users for the behavior of an antisocial minority.

Indeed, without Section 230’s protections, many smaller forums would simply shut down, or look to be acquired by larger firms. Could the operators of V8Buick.com, a forum for antique car collectors with 38,000 users, afford even a single yearslong defamation lawsuit? The easiest way to avoid legal liability is acquisition.

Apart from suppressing speech, repealing Section 230 would suppress competition, agglomerating activity onto large platforms such as Facebook. Without Section 230, Facebook, but not V8Buick.com, could afford to litigate controversies over user speech.

Repealing Section 230 is a drastic step that would upend the internet, punishing successful firms and internet users for the behavior of an antisocial minority. Heaping legal liability on platforms will not render them more thoughtful or judicious. It will cause some to close, and others to exclude all but the most inoffensive sentiments.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Read up and learn, Serafin...

Section 230

47 U.S.C. § 230 The Internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Our unprecedented ability to communicate online—on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia...

www.eff.org

Ok, yes that one needs to go or be seriously redone.

 

[Webster]

Ok, yes that one needs to go or be seriously redone.

How? Tell us, oh wise steward of the Constitution.... *turns snark meter off*