I just got a letter from them asking me to sign up – can you explain why they’re so bad? I get the need to seriously vet contractors who post on that site and the scams that happen there, but it seems like a decent platform to discuss things happening in your area with your neighbors. Am I missing something?
These social media companies are no longer platforms that should not be held responsible for the content of their users posts. These companies edit and censor the content of their users and thus should be treated as publishers and should be responsible for the content of what they allow to be posted.
Not only does Goo-gul censor posts it disagrees with, politically speaking. IJ does too, whenever I post something negative about Goo-gul. [Recorded for review by legal counsel]
I think most people–conservative and liberal alike–can agree that the broadened immunity these monopolistic tech corporations have is no longer appropriate. After all, if someone can use a tech platform to target and murder someone, there are massive civil right infringements that the platform in question is a party to. For example, I know that ISIS and the drug cartels have used both Twitter and Facebook to extend their actions against the general public–how can these platforms have sweeping immunity from that? Do we classify them as a traditional publisher, or do we need to create an entirely new system of regulation (I tend to lean towards the latter)?
I guess I’m not “most people”. I disagree. Unless tech corporations are misusing consumer information, they should not be held liable for the things you mentioned.
Nextdoor is the worst offender of content control and they should be held liable as Attorney General Barr is talking about.
I just got a letter from them asking me to sign up – can you explain why they’re so bad? I get the need to seriously vet contractors who post on that site and the scams that happen there, but it seems like a decent platform to discuss things happening in your area with your neighbors. Am I missing something?
These social media companies are no longer platforms that should not be held responsible for the content of their users posts. These companies edit and censor the content of their users and thus should be treated as publishers and should be responsible for the content of what they allow to be posted.
Oh Goody- using that as a standard – IJ would liable as well. HA
Not only does Goo-gul censor posts it disagrees with, politically speaking. IJ does too, whenever I post something negative about Goo-gul. [Recorded for review by legal counsel]
Be sure to let your legal counsel know that I downvoted this post 18 times.
Oh no!!! A downvote…likely a conspiracy.
My lawyer will hear about this.
I think most people–conservative and liberal alike–can agree that the broadened immunity these monopolistic tech corporations have is no longer appropriate. After all, if someone can use a tech platform to target and murder someone, there are massive civil right infringements that the platform in question is a party to. For example, I know that ISIS and the drug cartels have used both Twitter and Facebook to extend their actions against the general public–how can these platforms have sweeping immunity from that? Do we classify them as a traditional publisher, or do we need to create an entirely new system of regulation (I tend to lean towards the latter)?
I guess I’m not “most people”. I disagree. Unless tech corporations are misusing consumer information, they should not be held liable for the things you mentioned.