Posted on 06/26/2019 3:11:29 PM PDT by tcrlaf
It allows censorship of “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” content. It does not allow them to remove anything they wish.
This article explains it well.
Maybe they should have looked at the guidelines for the service they were using:
How does Vimeo define hateful, harassing, defamatory, and discriminatory content? The Guidelines state:
No videos that are hateful, harass others, or include defamatory or discriminatory speech. This means that Vimeo moderators will generally remove videos that:
Make derogatory or inflammatory statements about individuals or groups of people
Are intended to harm someone’s reputation
Are malicious
Include someone’s image or voice without their consent (Exception! Public figures and/or political officials are generally fair game.)
Or do you want to throw contract law out the window along with the Bill of Rights?
Who would want to trust the GOVERNMENT - you know, the same people who bring your the DMV and the EPA and every other error-prone public sector operation - to get THIS right?
...is "consistent with theoretical libertarian principles, and perhaps in a future utopia that approach would work and solve all issues of discrimination."?!??
The pro-state intervention crowd is betting the WHOLE FARM on the government - the Justice Dept to be precise - to properly and ethically and logically adjudicate the FB, Vimeo, Google etc saga. Indeed, you say so explicitly when you say we have a
"liberal government colluding with private businesses, and some of those businesses colluding among themselves for political reasons".
Your solution? To live ...
..in the real world of government involved capitalism where government regulations pervade the business and private worlds. So changing those regulations, and using the existing structures is vital to short term progress.
So, WHO pray tell, will change "those regulations" within the context of the "existing structures"? Nancy Pelosi? AOC? Even when the Republicans were in charge of the House...would Paul Ryan have gotten it done?
But putting that aside, after you put forward a dystopia , you ask:
So how does your plan work?
I already answered your query, but one more time: STOP USING FB, GOOGLE, AMAZON, TWITTER, ET AL. If 63 million Trump voters did that and switched to competitor platforms and service-providers, those big tech firms would lose their minds.
I empathize with your disdain for pie-in-the-sky dreamers when it comes to the real world, who are living in a future utopia where a benevolent government works and solves all issues of discrimination. But the government isn't going to fix this problem. What is mind-boggling is why conservatives continue to feed the beast. As soon as someone can answer why any Trump voter is using big tech, then we can have a good conversation.
Vimeo is Barry Diller’s company. Barry Diller is a rabid, frothing at the mouth Trump hater.
Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.
What’s the problem? Just build your own youtube, vimeo, google, mastercard, paypal, etc.! It’s just the free market in action! It’s not like this is going to prevent us from participating in politics or anything like that.
*Ten years later*
Oh, look, there’s a knock at the door. Wonder who it could be?
Oh...
Oh...
Oh, dear. Golly gee.. Looks like they are here to take me and my family to the gulag. Maybe I should have opposed the total takeover of this country when there was still a chance. Oh, dear. Bye, folks.
Publishing images of someone without their permission, something explicitly forbidden by the terms of service, has nothing to do with political viewpoint.
Thanks!
I was looking for that.
.
Do you honestly believe that this is any different than what is exposed/viewed on the nightly news? Seriously?
You’re welcome!
Yeah - so was Chrysler and Ma Bell. I’m sure there are some other examples also.
Bust ‘em up.
It's a privately owned video sharing service that can show what they want. It isn't the nightly news.
Are you saying they can't set any rules for what gets shared on their platform?
Seriously?
Other platforms aren't subject to censoring laws.
The 1st Amendment applies to the government action, not private companies.
The bigger irony here is if these companies lose their protections from libel suits you'll see much harsher curation of content and drastically reduced conversation.
People get so caught up in their political positions that they blast their own feet off.
However, it IS on the House.gov servers. Guess why.
They are either a platform or a publisher. They cannot legally be both.
While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.” But as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.
Your analysis is incorrect. You suggest switching from Amazon to someone else, but how exactly do you propose to stop using Amazon's most profitable business, Amazon Web Services? Do you have any idea how many businesses rely on them?
What is your solution to the day when some ISPs decide that FreeRepublic shouldn't be allowed online? Should we go out and start digging trenches to lay a new fiber optic backbone? What are you going to do when you can't get a bank account?
And if every Trump supporter decided to cut themselves off from the rest of America, then how is our society going to move forward without being hopelessly divided?
Where is the TOS prohibition on videos with people in the video in a public place that haven't given explicit permission? Have you got a link?
Well, posting something to a webpage I’m sure that has ‘em shakin’ in their boots. Maybe we’ll get a blue ribbon panel, or even a 2 or 3 year investigation? “Mistakes we’re made” and then they break for a summer recess. And then beg for money for re-election.
Did I leave anything out?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.