I'd be interested in a summary of your stance (or the whole one, if you're inclined). Also, what do you feel should be done about it, from the perspective of legislation, or realistic response from the masses.

Conservatives themselves don't have a good grasp on what they believe. Their views change based on who is in office and whether their so-called principles align with the current will to power.

If Twitter and Google are using unfair trade practices or government regulation that only applies to them to crowd out competition, I'm unaware of it. But that's not the reason you guys want them regulated. It's because there's a perception that they pick on conservatives. Without that perception, you wouldn't care about these so-called monopolies.

Conservatives with principles opposed monopolies because they were partly a government creation. I don't follow the section 230 debate, but why would removing it create a better outcome? My understanding is that it would force Twitter to regulate speech on the platform even more, because they would be liable. And it wouldn't just apply to Twitter, it would apply to any site. So you're advocating the use of government regulation that would drastically limit speech and impose costs on many Americans.

BTW, let's not pretend your view is the conservative position. It's just the illiberal one. Plenty of leftists would love to be able to regulate Facebook more.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 17 2020 08:05am

I saw the notification yesterday and was going to make a thread but was too busy.

I've looked around trying to find which zero hedge & federalist articles warranted this advertising deplatforming. Really can't seem to find anything. The CNBC article didn't give specifics just threw some buzzwords around nor did i find google specific examples as to why they demonetized those sites. Any luck on your end?

I think what's more concerning is the opaqueness. Like if you show how zerohedge was calling the protesters some racist term or what not you could justify it but they literally don't show anything and just dropped the ban hammer.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jun 17 2020 08:25am

Conservatives fought in the 80s to get rid of regulation requiring similar air time and even coverage of political parties on the news. That is the conservative opinion, getting the government out of regulating content.

Removal of 230 would literally destroy all social media, including d2jsp. Imagine njag getting sued for defamation because Ghot posted about Hillary Clinton and pizzagate, because that's exactly what would happen. If they could prove any moderator saw it and didnt remove it jsp becomes liable

it's like literally the first amendment.



not conservatives' fault that liberals think amendments have expiration dates.

This is what I mean when I say criticisms are misinformed and confused.

Section 230 is government regulation, just poorly written and worded, with an intent (to allow service providers to censor pornography without civil liability) that is now incredibly dated. The intent was not to empower service providers to censor mainstream political thought (and the Federalist qualifies as such), in fact the section contains wording that makes it clear that's the exact opposite of the original intent.

Correcting bad legislation, or removing bad legislation, can't in any reasonable way be spun as "the use of government regulation that would drastically limit speech". It's the same brand of neo-Orwellian logic that leads us to conclude that "speech is violence" and therefore warrants actual violence (now termed "self-defense") in response.

The vast majority of takes on this are of incredibly poor quality. I'd encourage you to read through it on your own and come to your own conclusion.

What is like the first amendment? I don't see what connection you're trying to make.



If you read it, it's clearly not "big government" since it's entire purpose is to remove government from being able to get involved in moderation of websites and not holding services accountable for things they didn't write. At least section 230 is.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 17 2020 08:36am

requirements of similar air time are an infringement on freedom of the press. for several reasons, 1) more people could just demand more conservative or liberal news naturally, requiring equal air time is infringement. 2) its creates a binary of enforcement that ignores 3rd party news, which will invariably be pidgeonholed into the binary (ala libertarians = conservative, green = liberal, etc).

and in any case, if that law had passed we'd have MORE conservative news. with the meta being WSJ + fox news vs. 20 or so networks all leaning left and virtually no centrist news sources we have a lack of conservative air time, not a lack of liberal air time. this 1980s legislation would have been dated by the 90s or early 2000s when air time became a bad metric. so it was short term at best and unconstitutional to boot.

You simply ignored all my other arguments, lol.

What does removing section 230 look like for Twitter, Facebook, and other websites? Does it further limit speech or expand speech? Basic questions you seem unwilling to answer. Trump couldn't express his neurosis on Twitter if section 230 was removed.

True, I worded that incorrectly, at least on removing 230. It's a law created that works to expand speech on websites. But right-wingers on this issue typically support more than just getting rid of 230.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 17 2020 08:42am

Yes, it would be unconstitutional for the same reason that forcing Twitter to be politically neutral in its moderation would be unconstitutional. The point I was supporting is that conservatives have moved from their principled position against this kind of thing to the exact opposite position because they now see themselves as being at a disadvantage.