GL1800Riders Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I hope this doesn't trigger "political repercussions"..it discusses how ALL of the internet (including this forum) could be greatly affected by some possible changes in section 230...well worth a read...


Very briefly, this 26 word section is what has allowed platforms like this forum, FB, and others to NOT HAVE TO 100000000% police every comma in every post.

You want to post your belief in the virtues of non-Honda oil? of which trailer hitches are best? of which (forgive me) DS tires are best...even which vendors MIGHT have wronged you?

That can only happen because of section 230.

The possible costs and penalties of it going away or being significantly altered could be huge.

I won't say any more to avoid really starting a post in which all of the evils of the anonymous internet are discussed,..just suggest that as a member of a forum that depends on it, it is worth a read.

End of soapbox..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
You have posted an alarmist view of only one side of a potentially divisive issue, then ducked behind a shield of "just providing information." The title is misleading. This is not "Political but not"; it's political. I hope the mods take this down immediately.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
4,023 Posts
Just so everyone understands, peacock sent me this post, asking for permission to post it on the OT board. Although it's not something I'm real wild about seeing on the board, in the interest of "we're all adults", I told him he could post it. If you choose it read it or not, your call. But if anyone starts posting "it's those darm replublicans'/democrates' fault", down it comes. I feel I've really stuck my neck out here, trying to treat everyone as a responsible adult, and to respond/NOT respond to this post in a responsible way. Help prove me right here guys.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
The problem is that there's no way to respond to this without becoming partisan, which is why the rules sgainst political posts are there in the first place. If Peacock had simply posted the announcement without the editorial, that would be one thing; posting it with what amounts to an apocalyptic warning is something else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I apologize. I knew it would be divisive, but thought it was balanced enough to inform. It was not my intent to ram my views down anyone's throat. If you think it is in error or alarmist or propaganda...good for you...all are entitled to opinion. I only posted because I thought that it might have the potential to impact this forum someday...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
I have no idea what this is about.
Kinda think it says there is a clause in something that will let ya talk about whatever ya want on forums like this one, but on the other hand, forums have mods and policies that determine what will be talked about because, forums are privately owned places.
Am I right?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
Good for me? You think saying that "The possible costs and penalties of it going away or being signicantly altered could be huge" is neutral? How about mentioning the possible benefits, like being able to have some control over the lies and deep fakes proliferating across the internet and distorting our democracy? I was raised to believe that a good-faith attempt to present both sides of an issue represented neutrality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I have no idea what this is about.
Kinda think it says there is a clause in something that will let ya talk about whatever ya want on forums like this one, but on the other hand, forums have mods and policies that determine what will be talked about because, forums are privately owned places.
Am I right?
The WORST CASE (which might never happen) is that the penalties to the forum host for something a member posted could be so great as to have the forum owner decide risks outweigh benefits of operating the forum. I tried to qualify my comments with "could" and "might" and such. It's just that we all have grown up (me for 66+ years) with the notion of internet allowing almost anything to be posted without repercussions for the PLACE that allows folks to post. This COULD change that. I believe our forum owner and mods tread a fine line very well...things like the DS disclaimer and such. I do see gkarasik's point of view also..I am disturbed by deepfakes, and stories originated and posted by foreign troll farms and such (or domestic ones for that matter. I am not really advocating any particular actions, was just trying to bring a relevant discussion into the group.

If Bob wants to pull this discussion, I am completely fine with that
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
It seems to me that this proposed bill by Senator Graham is a way to bring leverage against the tech companies that think they can do whatever they want. I believe this is a tactic to get them to self regulate so the government doesn't get involved. Youtube is a good example of why things need to be regulated. Currently on Youtube if you have views that don't coincide with the progressive views of the monitors then your posts are demonetized. It's a way of censoring and punishing the content they don't like.

This thread could really get out of hand. I'll be curious to see how this ends up. Will it stay or will it go?
Do you have any data to support your assertion that YouTube's monitors are progressives?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
Is it your intent to stir something up? Why state as fact something that can at best be an opinion based on observing a tiny sample of billions of YouTube videos? As far as me looking it up, it's a basic rule of responsible discourse that the person making an assertion provide evidence supporting it. The reason for that is to discourage people making wild, unsubstantiated claims and then attempting to shift the burden of proof onto the listener.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
How many of you remember the movie Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace? To jog the collective memories, it was the one that had the bumbling character "Jar Jar Binks" in it.

Everyone questioned why the character was included at all, as it seemed to add nothing to the movie but juvenile humor and rank distraction from the core story. One enterprising videographer re-made the movie by removing every single scene that included Jar Jar Binks, and the movie became a little shorter, a lot more concise, and just that much less annoying.

And so it is that not so long ago, in a forum not so far away, I took up the challenge to be like that enterprising videographer. And you can too...
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top