LogFAQs > #948973140

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, Database 7 ( 07.18.2020-02.18.2021 ), DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Not getting $2,000 to protect Section 230 is stupid
MarcyWarcy 12/31/20 9:46:52 PM #9:	DeadBankerDream posted... Wat. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html Charlie Warzel: Sure. Mr. Vice President, in October, your campaign sent a letter to Facebook regarding an ad that falsely claimed that you blackmailed Ukrainian officials to not investigate your son. Im curious, did that experience, dealing with Facebook and their power, did that change the way that you see the power of tech platforms right now? No, Ive never been a fan of Facebook, as you probably know. Ive never been a big Zuckerberg fan. I think hes a real problem. I think CW: Can you elaborate? No, I can. He knows better. And you know, from my perspective, Ive been in the view that not only should we be worrying about the concentration of power, we should be worried about the lack of privacy and them being exempt, which youre not exempt. [The Times] cant write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued. But he can. The idea that its a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms. CW: Thats a pretty foundational law of the modern internet. Thats right. Exactly right. And it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy. You guys still have editors. Im sitting with them. Not a joke. There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. Its irresponsible. Its totally irresponsible. <cite>MarcyWarcy posted [p:948973140] in Not gettin... [t:79211474]...</cite> <quote>DeadBankerDream posted... </cite> <quote>Wat.</quote> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html Charlie Warzel: Sure. Mr. Vice President, in October, your campaign sent a letter to Facebook regarding an ad that falsely claimed that you blackmailed Ukrainian officials to not investigate your son. Im curious, did that experience, dealing with Facebook and their power, did that change the way that you see the power of tech platforms right now? No, Ive never been a fan of Facebook, as you probably know. Ive never been a big Zuckerberg fan. I think hes a real problem. I think CW: Can you elaborate? No, I can. He knows better. And you know, from my perspective, Ive been in the view that not only should we be worrying about the concentration of power, we should be worried about the lack of privacy and them being exempt, which youre not exempt. [The Times] cant write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued. But he can. The idea that its a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms. CW: Thats a pretty foundational law of the modern internet. Thats right. Exactly right. And it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy. You guys still have editors. Im sitting with them. Not a joke. There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. Its irresponsible. Its totally irresponsible. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1