General Discussion

JI7

(93,561 posts)

6. They are protected but they should be held accountable

Reply to DonaldsRump (Original post)

Sat Feb 6, 2021, 08:33 PM

Feb 2021

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please help me understand: why shouldn't online sites be held accountable [View all] DonaldsRump Feb 2021 OP

should DU be liable for what you post/say here? after all what you think is fine may by msongs Feb 2021 #1

Doesn't that apply to print media as well? DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #3

How many readers' letters do print media publish? Very few. muriel_volestrangler Feb 2021 #10

but they do publish comments dsc Feb 2021 #26

When they publish comments on the web, they're covered by section 230 as well muriel_volestrangler Feb 2021 #47

What does it matter if destroys sites like DU or Daily Kos? Demsrule86 Feb 2021 #25

I think perhaps frazzled Feb 2021 #5

You could be sued even if it is taken down...it will be abused by the right. Demsrule86 Feb 2021 #27

Good article here. Cattledog Feb 2021 #2

Great cite, and thank you DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #4

TV broadcasts, newsprint articles, etc. have editors. Make7 Feb 2021 #12

I'm actually fine with that DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #13

It is quite simple, they can control what is printed. Demsrule86 Feb 2021 #28

Then there is no accountability and anything goes? DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #46

They are protected but they should be held accountable JI7 Feb 2021 #6

Think of a hosting service or website as a house with owners. cayugafalls Feb 2021 #7

Not exactly DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #8

I'm pretty certain the paper would be found not liable. cayugafalls Feb 2021 #11

I am not talking about opinions DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #16

I do not agree with holding them to the same standards. cayugafalls Feb 2021 #22

It is PRECISELY because of the "massiveness" (if that's a word) of data DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #23

Fight misinformation with information. cayugafalls Feb 2021 #33

No need to make ad hominem arguments DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #35

My apologies, I will edit... cayugafalls Feb 2021 #37

It won't stop there...leave the internet free. Demsrule86 Feb 2021 #29

Ok. So shall we allow allow media to dispense whatever lies they want to? nt DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #32

I, like you, want the internet to remain a free an open community. cayugafalls Feb 2021 #36

Suppose a person put up a fence and invited people to do graffiti and post messages on it Klaralven Feb 2021 #9

If the fence owner takes it down right away, that's relevant DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #14

The fence owner may not know whether the message is defamatory Klaralven Feb 2021 #15

And if the fence owner doesn't, does that make them liable? nt DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #17

I think they have a duty to take it down just as if a copyright holder complains about an owned work Klaralven Feb 2021 #18

I totally agree DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #19

It is a very bad idea... Demsrule86 Feb 2021 #30

How much time should the owner of DU spend reading every post? brooklynite Feb 2021 #20

What about a small town newspaper? DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #21

An editorial decision to publish false statements as fact is already liable for civil action... brooklynite Feb 2021 #39

Just Consider the Volume of the Posts on DU TuskMoar Feb 2021 #43

That's exactly the issue DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #44

No, the jury system is not a vetting system muriel_volestrangler Feb 2021 #48

It is the start of a vetting system DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #49

You'd be laughed out of Court if you presented the Jury system as a defense..... brooklynite Feb 2021 #53

Glad to hear you think DU's jury system is worthless DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #54

It works terribly as an arbiter of FACT.... brooklynite Feb 2021 #55

I kinda' understand the issue of civil liability DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #56

An example of the jury system in action on Discussionist muriel_volestrangler Feb 2021 #67

I totally agree DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #68

DU's Vetting System Would Not Hold Legal Muster TuskMoar Feb 2021 #59

I have said this multiple times DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #61

GAWKER was Bankrupted for Reporting the Truth TuskMoar Feb 2021 #63

DU has a system in place to remove posts . Twitter KNEW the shit Trump was posting and did nothing JI7 Feb 2021 #50

If you allow websites to be sued for content posted by others, you open the door for Demsrule86 Feb 2021 #24

I am totally in favor of DU, but I am not in favor of other sites DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #31

And that's fine. Dr. Strange Feb 2021 #64

In Spite of What People Say TuskMoar Feb 2021 #34

So you are say anything is fine? nt DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #38

I am Saying You Are Proposing the Wrong Solution TuskMoar Feb 2021 #40

So you're fine with anything goes then? DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #45

That is Not at All What I Said TuskMoar Feb 2021 #57

The critical issue is with those fora that have no rules DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #58

Hold the Person Who Made the Post TuskMoar Feb 2021 #71

See posts 69 and 70 DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #72

I understand that you want something done Marrah_Goodman Feb 2021 #66

True, but you could say that about many small businesses, online or not? DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #69

Might as well just imprison everyone who opposes you if you want to go that far ansible Feb 2021 #41

That's the way it is for print and broadcast media. DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #42

Right , there are ALREADY standards in place to control these things. Just apply it to social media JI7 Feb 2021 #51

Agreed. DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #52

My opinion, Trump is an immoral, dishonest skunk who deserves jail. KentuckyWoman Feb 2021 #60

Better options: BarackTheVote Feb 2021 #62

Frankly, the courts would be overwhelmed with lawsuits Marrah_Goodman Feb 2021 #65

See my post at #69 DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #70