Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

[Daedalus X]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?



This is a MUST WATCH.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[historia]

So here’s the law
. . .

When Twitter decides to moderate content, restrict some voices and promote others, they then become a publisher and become liable for content and restriction of speech

This is not the law.

[Purple Knight]

So here’s the law
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc are not considered publishers

The public posts whatever they want and these sites are simply forums for free speech

When Twitter decides to moderate content, restrict some voices and promote others, they then become a publisher and become liable for content and restriction of speech

They can’t just say they are a public business and deny a constitutional right anymore that Walmart could refuse handicap spaces and ramps cause they are a private business

That’s America

That either is the law, or at one time, was. It was written primarily for newspapers, because they do carefully decide what to publish and arguably should be held legally accountable for it. However, it's not respected anymore (arguably) because deciding who may and may not use your property, and for what, is a natural right on the level of the natural right to not be murdered.

It's a natural right I wish I could throw away and live only among other people who want to throw it away but that's called tyranny, and it's wrong. And if one person who lived in that society decides to reassert his natural property right, he's a liar, but he's morally in the right, because he does have that right, whereas people do not have a natural right not to be lied to. Just like I can sell myself into slavery, keep the money, and desert my master, because slavery is something fundamentally invalid due to natural rights. You might argue that I'm a floating goldfish turd for doing that, but I have a right to be a floating goldfish turd and nobody has a right to enslave me. That's what a libertarian will tell you and as far as I see, it's airtight. (Depending on the flavour of libertarian they are and the wording of the contract, I might have to give back the money.)

[oldbadger]

So here’s the law
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc are not considered publishers

The public posts whatever they want and these sites are simply forums for free speech

When Twitter decides to moderate content, restrict some voices and promote others, they then become a publisher and become liable for content and restriction of speech

Twitter has and does restrict content and some people.....even now. Facebook does all the time, Almost every section or group has its moderators and they can remove stuff.... well they can in the UK.

They can’t just say they are a public business and deny a constitutional right anymore that Walmart could refuse handicap spaces and ramps cause they are a private business

That’s America

Just a sec........ Walmart can ban an individual from their stores....yes they can. And Walmart no doubt does!
Walmart staff can even ask an stranger standing in-shop to leave and if the stranger demands to hear a reason the staff can simoply reply 'We don't have to give a reason'. If the stranger wants to complain on the media, or make claim, or stand outside in the street with a banner then I guess they can.
If an unwanted person demands that they have a right to be on the premises then staff could put them outside.......definitely.

Again....... if you have the funds to start up your own media website and somebody starts posting up stuff that offends you, see what you would do.

[Ozzy_O]

So here’s the law
. . .

When Twitter decides to moderate content, restrict some voices and promote others, they then become a publisher and become liable for content and restriction of speech

This is not the law.

I'd direct you to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , and Executive Orders pertaining to it

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

[Ozzy_O]

So here’s the law
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc are not considered publishers

The public posts whatever they want and these sites are simply forums for free speech

When Twitter decides to moderate content, restrict some voices and promote others, they then become a publisher and become liable for content and restriction of speech

Twitter has and does restrict content and some people.....even now. Facebook does all the time, Almost every section or group has its moderators and they can remove stuff.... well they can in the UK.

They can’t just say they are a public business and deny a constitutional right anymore that Walmart could refuse handicap spaces and ramps cause they are a private business

That’s America

Just a sec........ Walmart can ban an individual from their stores....yes they can. And Walmart no doubt does!
Walmart staff can even ask an stranger standing in-shop to leave and if the stranger demands to hear a reason the staff can simoply reply 'We don't have to give a reason'. If the stranger wants to complain on the media, or make claim, or stand outside in the street with a banner then I guess they can.
If an unwanted person demands that they have a right to be on the premises then staff could put them outside.......definitely.

Again....... if you have the funds to start up your own media website and somebody starts posting up stuff that offends you, see what you would do.

They can't ban a person because they are handicapped, do you think the can?

in Florida, private business weren't allow to prevent non maskers with medical exemptions from entering the premises .....
Deep, private business and all


You know Jesus said m an words too, right ?

[historia]

So here’s the law
. . .

When Twitter decides to moderate content, restrict some voices and promote others, they then become a publisher and become liable for content and restriction of speech

This is not the law.

I'd direct you to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , and Executive Orders pertaining to it

Cool. I'd direct you to (c)(1) and especially (c)(2) within Section 230 of the CDA, as that directly contradicts what you said above.

[oldbadger]

They can't ban a person because they are handicapped, do you think the can?

Of course not, but they can ban a person who happens to be handicapped. Can you see the difference?
Disabled people can get banned for the same kinds of reasons as anybody else.

in Florida, private business weren't allow to prevent non maskers with medical exemptions from entering the premises .....
Deep, private business and all

Of course medical exemptions are good reason not to wear masks, or car seat belts, etc.....
But that's not you, is it?

You know Jesus said m an words too, right ?

That sentence is a bit garbled. What do you think Jesus said?
What I can tell you is that Jesus was very strongly in favour of a return of all the laws which the fat corrupted hypocritical priesthood had ignored for so long.

[Purple Knight]

They can't ban a person because they are handicapped, do you think the can?

Of course not, but they can ban a person who happens to be handicapped. Can you see the difference?

The question is whether the court will see the difference when the handicapped person complains, and they might not. "No, Your Honour, we banned him for some other reason, which we do not have to give, not because he was handicapped," is likely not going to fly. It especially won't fly in the case of racial discrimination. It might fly if the discrimination is not racial and they give another reason and they have evidence for it. For example, if the handicapped person was making a fuss and throwing things and everybody saw it.

But no, Walmart may have the right on paper to ban anyone for any reason and not even provide a reason, but they do not have that right effectively if the person in question is a member of a protected class. The court will assume (I mean, rightly, if they can't say why they really banned them) that the person's protected class was the reason. Otherwise racial anti-discrimination laws would be pointless, since you could just ban every minority from your store because, "Some other reason I don't have to give you."

[oldbadger]

The question is whether the court will see the difference when the handicapped person complains, and they might not.

You are trying to dream up reasons why shops cannot ban anybody, but you are wrong because they can ban anybody if that person is stealing, breaking stuff, upsetting other customers and shops find it more easy to show such evidence to courts these days because of technology like closed circuit cameras.

"No, Your Honour, we banned him for some other reason, which we do not have to give, not because he was handicapped," is likely not going to fly.

Now you are dreaming up silly situations....if a court asks the question then the shop can show reason, but they don't have to explain themselves if they choose to ban a shopper, any shopper. You certainly have never worked in the loss prevention department of any shop chain, that's for sure.

It especially won't fly in the case of racial discrimination. It might fly if the discrimination is not racial and they give another reason and they have evidence for it. For example, if the handicapped person was making a fuss and throwing things and everybody saw it.

Now why do you think that shops ban certain folks, eh? You've just thought of one good reason amongst many.

But no, Walmart may have the right on paper to ban anyone for any reason and not even provide a reason, but they do not have that right effectively if the person in question is a member of a protected class. The court will assume (I mean, rightly, if they can't say why they really banned them) that the person's protected class was the reason.

But store staff would show a court why they banned somebody, they just aren't obliged to give reason why they don't want certain folks in their stores.

Otherwise racial anti-discrimination laws would be pointless, since you could just ban every minority from your store because, "Some other reason I don't have to give you."

Quite often retailers would be delighted to give reasons for banning certain people........... but they don't have to if they choose not to.

Which part of this don't you understand? I've known of situations where disabled elderly ladies in wheelchairs have been banned from stores, one old lady in a wheelchair was caught pulling a used 'diaper' from under her skirts and pushing it under a display with one of her crutches. Would you want such as her in your shop? In that case the store just banned her, it didn't have to give a reason at the time, but would have been delighted to show any court.

Sadly you don't know what you're talking about.

[Purple Knight]

Which part of this don't you understand?

The part where you think a court won't/shouldn't take the side of a member of a protected group who accuses a facility that banned them of illegal racial discrimination when the facility presents either no other reason, or a weak one. If that was enough, no racial discrimination case would ever succeed.

I'm not arguing they won't or can't ban the old lady for dumping her dirty diaper in the store. I am arguing that if the old lady is a member of a protected group, not only does something like that have to happen, but the store has to establish that it probably did.

Sadly you don't know what you're talking about.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying then.