This effects everything (please no politics)

[Fudster]

Admins...if I am posting something too uncomfortable, please erase it with my apologies.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear two cases that challenge the 26 words of section 230 of the Communication Decency Act.

"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."

In short, if you take somebody's advise here to "rotate your wrench to 12 degrees off center, and as a result, your tire falls off," you, and you alone are on the hook.

And I think this is the way it should be--not because I and so many others like me don't strive to provide accurate and safe Wrangler information.

But without such protections the US internet may become a watered down version of itself, which will only cause people to seek freer content from sites outside our territory.

I am not blind to the particular issues at hand in one of these cases that involve just how responsible an internet provider should be when their algorithms indiscriminately suggest you content based on your interests, whether that's "sauteying in butter," or "automatic weapons," but don't we have to be allowed to make up our own minds?

Sponsored

 

[Craigzjeep]

What?

 

[Fudster]

Ok Craig, I'll bite. @Craigzjeep. If the laws change such that internet providers are more liable for the things people say on their websites, and what they do to run them then to avoid lawsuits, content will be policed to the point where information will be stifled.

Yeah, pretty obscure...not much in the news (not):

https://www.google.com/search?q=sup...AU-IAU-SAQExmAEAoAEBwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Rephrase: here's potentially your new jlwranglerforums website: https://www.crayola.com/

 

[Whaler27]

In the eyes of the moderator of this forum, topics like this one are considered “politics”.

I don’t think adding “NO POLITICS” to the topic offers any protection if the discussion itself is focused on an important non-Jeep topic about which opinions may differ.

I think you can probably discuss this via PM, or you can email each other, but an open discussion is certain to get you and/or others spanked, or banned.

 

[TheBirdie72]

Discussing “politics” on here…

Yup, that guy.

 

[grimmjeeper]

The question I think will rest on whether promoting content makes you a publisher and not just a host.

If you just let people upload content that's one thing. If you actively push content other people loaded that's different. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Sublime]

Ask GunTube of what they think about the current actions of Youtube. They are acting as publishers and censoring LEGAL content. Many people have built channels according to the rules in place and are now facing complete demonetization and being banned for actions on video that are not illegal.

Social media is trying to play both sides of the coin, they want protection under section 230 but still want to control content. That's like your cellphone provider deciding to ban you for words you speak on their network.

Having been on the internet since 1999, in the last 5 years it's rapidly becoming "a watered down version of itself."

 

[1Evil55]

We should just ban the internet and go back to what we had before including less problems domestically. Isn't that what they always push for anyway? Don't like it? Ban it!

 

[AcesandEights]

The Supreme Court is a political body, a separate but equal branch of the union. This thread is a discussion of a political nature.

 

[Fudster]

I would think the forum tries to keep the discussion away from politics to both keep the peace and have the conversation centered around the forum's core objectives of Wrangler JL related topics. There's reason why I placed this discussion in an off-topics sub-forum and perhaps why one exists.

To this objective I'd argue that nobody has expressed opinion so far here that's solicited more than civil discussion, both sides of the aisle want "230" refined, and that, as the subject title of this thread suggests, such court decisions can affect whether this (or any) forum will be able to keep to its core objectives of Wrangler JL related topics intact.

If the discussion was about, by way of pure example, "water rights in the US," sure, that's distant enough from our beloved Wrangler to suggest its discussion elsewhere, but these decisions will affect discussion in general, which of course has applicability here in specific.

Like virtually everyone presenting and viewing this case, I believe that lines need to be drawn, but I'll be darned if I know where they are best drawn, let alone at any point in time. So I'm not here defending a position or holding a line, because I don't know where that line best be marked.

In the same way that newspapers have historically held back publishing stories when national interest were at stake, I'm not sure that "kidsmakeyourownbomb.com" belongs on the internet, but I'm also willing to accept that the internet's "Wild West" nature trades off the pros freedom with the cons of some stuff I find distasteful, but am free, like any of us, to walk away from.

That's just my $0.02. It's perfectly ok for your $0.02 to be different. You may even help me or others form where I should stand on this topic, as no way do I have all the answers here: a level of humility I might add, also shared by our top justices.

Sponsored