• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Matthew Dowd is out at MSNBC

Status
Not open for further replies.
The government is trying to make this about "big tech." But now the president himself owns a social media site. He could be held liable. Elon Musk owns a social media site. He could be held liable. So that really changes this Section 230 debate.
 
The government is trying to make this about "big tech." But now the president himself owns a social media site. He could be held liable. Elon Musk owns a social media site. He could be held liable. So that really changes this Section 230 debate.
Big tech doesn’t care, they have lawyers on the payroll. This site doesn’t.
 
Big tech doesn’t care, they have lawyers on the payroll. This site doesn’t.

It's not about this site. The president has "big tech" under his thumb, whether it's Apple, Facebook, Twitter, or Google. They were all at the white house a week ago praising him. So it won't be about big tech being sued. It's about big tech controlling speech under the guise of doing it for national security and public safety.

There are discussions about passing a "Charlie Kirk Act," which would be a law that would somehow control certain kinds of speech. So they're blaming social media and other media. Which is once again aimed at limiting rights and freedom.


The Mundt Act doesn't apply to domestic media. At least not now. What they're talking about is the government restricting domestic media. Which sounds like an attack on the first amendment.
 
Bringing this back to broadcasting, Lindsey Graham was on NBC's Meet The Press today saying this shooting is a reason to repeal Section 230 of the communications act, which shields media companies from lawsuits over user generated content:




The Utah governor said the shooter was "radicalized" by social media. The irony is that Kirk used the same social media to further his cause. So what the government wants to do is find a way to shut down only one side of the conversation.

My view is that taking away more rights, including the rights to free speech, isn't going to defuse the situation. The social media companies aren't "radicalizing our nation." It's the people who use them.

Actually, the situation is a bit more complicated as reported by NPR in past stories. While it is true that users decide what they want to post on social media, it is also true (and former executives from Facebook have stated this publicly) that social media sites have, by using profiles of their users, sent more radicalized responses to those users in hopes those users will react to them online.

That said, I very much agree with your analysis that one side is trying to put all of the blame on the other side. And that starts with the top person on the one side.
 
Bringing this back to broadcasting, Lindsey Graham was on NBC's Meet The Press today saying this shooting is a reason to repeal Section 230 of the communications act, which shields media companies from lawsuits over user generated content:




The Utah governor said the shooter was "radicalized" by social media. The irony is that Kirk used the same social media to further his cause. So what the government wants to do is find a way to shut down only one side of the conversation.

My view is that taking away more rights, including the rights to free speech, isn't going to defuse the situation. The social media companies aren't "radicalizing our nation." It's the people who use them.

Actually, the situation is a bit more complicated as reported by NPR in past stories. While it is true that users decide what they want to post on social media, it is also true (and former executives from Facebook have stated this publicly) that social media sites have, by using profiles of their users, sent more radicalized responses to those users in hopes those users will react to them online.

That said, I very much agree with your analysis that one side is trying to put all of the blame on the other side. And that starts with the top person on the one side.
Doesn’t matter, if a lawsuit is filed they can’t fight it. These sites don’t have the lawyers to fight these
claims that would come up.

Depends on the site. Facebook *most* certainly has the lawyers to fight these kinds of claims.
 
While it is true that users decide what they want to post on social media, it is also true (and former executives from Facebook have stated this publicly) that social media sites have, by using profiles of their users, sent more radicalized responses to those users in hopes those users will react to them online.

That's Facebook. I was monitoring Twitter after the shooter was caught, and there were a lot of very far right radical posts about public executions and various similar things. There were also threads attacking public education, saying he was "radicalized" by public schools. My question is which is the radical view here? Because I doubt the public school system in rural areas of Utah is very radical.

Once again, I'm asking do we want the government deciding what speech is radical? We know who they mean when they use that word. It seems to me there is a lot of radicalizing happening on talk radio. Of course nobody is looking at that.
 


One Social media outlet is getting attention because of the fallout of Charlie Kirk’s death it’s his Discord profile because the accused killer used that outlet around the time of the shooting. Discord is like Facebook but the user base is younger than other social media outlets.

An update the Charlie Kirk Funeral is at State Farm Stadium according to the current management of Turning Point.


 
Bringing this back to broadcasting, Lindsey Graham was on NBC's Meet The Press today saying this shooting is a reason to repeal Section 230 of the communications act, which shields media companies from lawsuits over user generated content

I expect this to be the next step in Trump's tightening grip on authoritarianism while Democratic lawmakers remain powerless to stop it.

There are discussions about passing a "Charlie Kirk Act," which would be a law that would somehow control certain kinds of speech. So they're blaming social media and other media. Which is once again aimed at limiting rights and freedom.

The highest priority of all authoritarian regimes is to control the news narrative and silence dissent. Most people thought this could never happen in America because of the free speech protections of the First Amendment, but we have already seen how Trump has put the news media under his thumb using threats and coercion. The next natural step in the evolution away from democracy is to stifle the platforms that provide a place for public dissent. We're probably about to witness how that happens.

The government is trying to make this about "big tech." But now the president himself owns a social media site. He could be held liable. Elon Musk owns a social media site. He could be held liable. So that really changes this Section 230 debate.

Not really. The President believes that the gerrymandering and voter suppression measures that are being undertaken now will ensure the Republican party remains in power in perpetuity. I don't believe they're worried about lawsuits against platforms that distribute their own rightwing propaganda. They'll just ensure anything like that gets appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court which is stacked in their favor. This is how democracies fall, and we're watching it unfold here before our eyes.
 
I don't own these boards, but I think it's pretty safe to say that if Lance faced legal liability for anything anyone here posted (which is basically what would happen if 230 is eliminated), this site would be gone pretty quickly. There are no deep pockets here to handle that level of risk.
As the former more-than-brief owner of this site, I agree totally with Scott. If liability exemption is removed, even "Message us Now" sections on sites would likely disappear. Almost all "electronic dialog" would similarly disappear.
 
Because I doubt the public school system in rural areas of Utah is very radical.
There is practically no "rural area" population in Utah. People are all concentrated in the sprawling Salt Lake City metro, which extends from Ogden to Provo, and a much smaller "little metro" around Cedar City - St George. In other words, nearly all the population is in those two city areas and is urban.
 
There is practically no "rural area" population in Utah. People are all concentrated in the sprawling Salt Lake City metro, which extends from Ogden to Provo, and a much smaller "little metro" around Cedar City - St George. In other words, nearly all the population is in those two city areas and is urban.

Regardless, there are no "far left radicals" running the schools in the state of Utah. If there were, we'd see a lot more protest there.
 
It's not about this site. The president has "big tech" under his thumb, whether it's Apple, Facebook, Twitter, or Google. They were all at the white house a week ago praising him. So it won't be about big tech being sued.

There is practically no "rural area" population in Utah. People are all concentrated in the sprawling Salt Lake City metro, which extends from Ogden to Provo, and a much smaller "little metro" around Cedar City - St George. In other words, nearly all the population is in those two city areas and is urban.

I have been to Utah a few times in my life (my younger brother lived in Orem during the late 1980s) and I can say without a doubt that while a majority of the population lives in either the Salt Lake City or Cedar City/St. George areas, there are quite a few folks who live in small rural communities between these two urban areas (Delta, Nephi, Manti) as well as some farmers living in and around Vernal/Roosevelt. Price and Montecello also have that rural town feel though those towns survive off of mining (Price) and outdoor trips by city folk (monticello). All of these small towns are certainly much more conservative than Salt Lake City whose last mayor, Rocky Jordan, was a Democrat.
 
I have been to Utah a few times in my life (my younger brother lived in Orem during the late 1980s) and I can say without a doubt that while a majority of the population lives in either the Salt Lake City or Cedar City/St. George areas, there are quite a few folks who live in small rural communities between these two urban areas (Delta, Nephi, Manti) as well as some farmers living in and around Vernal/Roosevelt. Price and Montecello also have that rural town feel though those towns survive off of mining (Price) and outdoor trips by city folk (monticello). All of these small towns are certainly much more conservative than Salt Lake City whose last mayor, Rocky Jordan, was a Democrat.
Not to argue, but the rural areas have such a low percentage of the total state population that one could consider them statistically insignificant. Any of those little towns you mention has about the population of some subdivision in the greater SLC metro (Delta, for example, has just over 3 thousand inhabitants).
 


One Social media outlet is getting attention because of the fallout of Charlie Kirk’s death it’s his Discord profile because the accused killer used that outlet around the time of the shooting. Discord is like Facebook but the user base is younger than other social media outlets.

An update the Charlie Kirk Funeral is at State Farm Stadium according to the current management of Turning Point.


Discord is all ages. It’s not just young people.
 
I'm confused. Conservatives are claiming that social media is radicalizing our kids, and needs to be restricted. They say we should repeal Section 230. So today I wake up and the president says he has a deal to make TikTok legal. Isn't TikTok social media? Isn't it owned by big tech?


What am I missing? Will they be paying tariffs like other Chinese imports?
 
I'm confused. Conservatives are claiming that social media is radicalizing our kids, and needs to be restricted. They say we should repeal Section 230. So today I wake up and the president says he has a deal to make TikTok legal. Isn't TikTok social media? Isn't it owned by big tech?


What am I missing? Will they be paying tariffs like other Chinese imports?
TikToc will likely be bought by Ellison.
 
I expect this to be the next step in Trump's tightening grip on authoritarianism while Democratic lawmakers remain powerless to stop it.



The highest priority of all authoritarian regimes is to control the news narrative and silence dissent. Most people thought this could never happen in America because of the free speech protections of the First Amendment, but we have already seen how Trump has put the news media under his thumb using threats and coercion. The next natural step in the evolution away from democracy is to stifle the platforms that provide a place for public dissent. We're probably about to witness how that happens.



Not really. The President believes that the gerrymandering and voter suppression measures that are being undertaken now will ensure the Republican party remains in power in perpetuity. I don't believe they're worried about lawsuits against platforms that distribute their own rightwing propaganda. They'll just ensure anything like that gets appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court which is stacked in their favor. This is how democracies fall, and we're watching it unfold here before our eyes.
We are in the McCarty era 2.0, only turbocharged with snitch/doxxing sites
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom