So much to address here while I was sleeping, and I agree with most of you, to include Threadloom (if they are aware of the legal repercussions that they face and accept them too), just not on the execution of it.
This makes it where if Threadloom wants to kick people off its platform for these non-transparent rules, as I've pointed out several times before, they are Community Standards that you are agreeing to when obtaining a license, without having the opportunity to see them.
Fine. Add them to the license and/or the ability to agree to both.
However, in doing so, and if you do ban people... Threadloom can now be scrutinized for any other content any other website publishes that is illegal.
For example, and "hate speech" aside: Section 9.2 of their ToS states that I am operating under California law, which marijuana is perfectly legal under. However, their community standards state "terrorism, sale of illegal drugs, human trafficking" as an example of illegal activities prohibited by the Community Standards. I believe this needs to be clarified, otherwise, Threadloom is essentially doing the same thing by claiming federal protection under 230 as they may be ignoring the fact that marijuana is not yet federally legal. I surely hope they cease service in that situation as it's contradictory to have state law apply while at the same time asking for federal protection just in case.
Furthermore, it's not the argument of this conversation. As such, if you want to have a political debate on the administration and not the ToS/Community Standards/Threadloom, I'd be more than happy to... but not in this thread as I am trying to get answers and transparency because it's needed more than ever now.
Everybody has free choice. I can call you a "big stupid dummy" over and over and you can get hurt because you know you're smart with your degree and you should use that smartness to walk away with your head held high. That is called being the bigger man.
If you let those words eat at you, then you are weak-minded and are one that would likely physically fight back which puts you at a legal risk over anyone else.
As you can see, I've essentially been called a racist or alluded to doing the illegal activity by, I believe, even you. This was an attempt to subvert the conversation. Guess what? I am here, still speaking my mind in a civil manner. I just ask that you don't bring "Orange Man bad" into it as it's irrelevant unless we go into 230 reform.
Every forum owner has the right to operate their forum in any manner they want. However, after this Trump administration, webmasters should be fully aware of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the hearings that Big Tech are facing for shadow banning, deleting posts, banning people, etc. on the sole purpose of political affiliation while enjoying the benefits of immunity if someone goes on the forum and does something else illegal and it's reported to the site as the site doesn't get in trouble, the user does... unless the site has been going against 230 which would essentially make the site a publisher and not a platform and the site should have caught this.While he has every right as a forum to operate it as he sees fit within the boundaries of the law, he doesn't have every right to use software in violation of its license agreements. They (Threadloom) have every right to have whatever limitations they see fit. He doesn't own the software --- they do.
This makes it where if Threadloom wants to kick people off its platform for these non-transparent rules, as I've pointed out several times before, they are Community Standards that you are agreeing to when obtaining a license, without having the opportunity to see them.
Fine. Add them to the license and/or the ability to agree to both.
However, in doing so, and if you do ban people... Threadloom can now be scrutinized for any other content any other website publishes that is illegal.
For example, and "hate speech" aside: Section 9.2 of their ToS states that I am operating under California law, which marijuana is perfectly legal under. However, their community standards state "terrorism, sale of illegal drugs, human trafficking" as an example of illegal activities prohibited by the Community Standards. I believe this needs to be clarified, otherwise, Threadloom is essentially doing the same thing by claiming federal protection under 230 as they may be ignoring the fact that marijuana is not yet federally legal. I surely hope they cease service in that situation as it's contradictory to have state law apply while at the same time asking for federal protection just in case.
I'm not even going to get into the Trump vs. anti-Trumper argument here. You can educate yourself on what he's actually done at www.magapill.com and www.thedonald.win in context, or go on with your life essentially ignoring that, supporting rioting of BLM & Antifa, all the while birdbox a real peaceful protest (Million MAGA March) while Antifa can show up and get away with literally all you say and support. This would speak volumes for you as you say it's not ok for the right, but the left can engage in it all they want--no, it's not okay for anyone.Question - where does someone with many highly fanatical followers fall into this when they...
Furthermore, it's not the argument of this conversation. As such, if you want to have a political debate on the administration and not the ToS/Community Standards/Threadloom, I'd be more than happy to... but not in this thread as I am trying to get answers and transparency because it's needed more than ever now.
No. It's not.it's different than when aimed at someone directly in person when "those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction
Everybody has free choice. I can call you a "big stupid dummy" over and over and you can get hurt because you know you're smart with your degree and you should use that smartness to walk away with your head held high. That is called being the bigger man.
If you let those words eat at you, then you are weak-minded and are one that would likely physically fight back which puts you at a legal risk over anyone else.
As you can see, I've essentially been called a racist or alluded to doing the illegal activity by, I believe, even you. This was an attempt to subvert the conversation. Guess what? I am here, still speaking my mind in a civil manner. I just ask that you don't bring "Orange Man bad" into it as it's irrelevant unless we go into 230 reform.
Forums, in the US at least, can definitely limit speech. However, they need to know the consequences of doing so. Section 230 would then apply to them and they would no longer be a platform, not legally accountable for what their users post, to a publisher, which could put them in hot water.Governments shouldn't limit speech, but forums should if they think it helps them run a better community.
See above.A website is private property and the forum owner is perfectly within their rights to enforce site rules that prohibit certain types of speech in any way they choose
Both Facebook and Twitter have been to hearing after hearing trying to justify their moderation. The usual answer is "I'm not aware" but there are also the nice "it was a mistake and after review, the content was restored" because they know that having protection under 230 and not is a very fine line that can cost them a lot of money in hiring moderators to clean the site of anything illegal, everywhere.That's true whether it's a social media giant such as Facebook or a small independent forum
This is incorrect under 230 if you want immunity for what does slip through.As much as I don't agree with censorship you're absolutely correct. Any privately owned company like Facebook, Twitter, google, TAZ or whatever can choose to decide what to allow.
I've never argued this. I agree that they have the right to have a ToS and Community Standards policy. However, for transparency reasons, the ToS should state that they are also agreeing to the Community Standards in their license/ToS, otherwise, I don't think they hold a case for terminating service to anyone who violates their Community Standards as ti's not even mentioned in 2.1 or 8.2:I believe Threadloom is acting in a reasonable manner... in their shoes I would not want my products associated with the likes of Storm Front, for example, and would want those bases covered in the TOS/AUP
The only thing that covers them is Section 8.2's bolded catch-all, while they still go on and reference that breaking the Community Standards automatically terminates them... without actually notifying them of those standards:2.1 Software license. Subject to Customer’s compliance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, Threadloom hereby grants to Customer a limited, nonexclusive, nontransferable, revocable license,
during the term of this Agreement, to (i) install the Plug-in on Customer’s website; and (ii) to access and use the
Services via the Plug-in.
My only advice to Threadloom, which has raised quite a lot in Series A funding (telling me that they want a piece of social pie), is to get a new lawyer and to monitor which sites you are refusing service to for any reason. This is because it could be the next big topic at a hearing if that user feels their site is within guidelines and is systematically being censored because there are easier tip lines to get ahold of Senator Cruz now.8.2 Termination. Customer may terminate this Agreement at any time by destroying all copies of the
Software in Customer’s possession or control. Threadloom may terminate the Agreement at any time and for any
reason, without notice to Customer. The license granted by Threadloom to Customer under this Agreement will
automatically terminate, with or without notice from Threadloom, if Customer breaches any term of this
Agreement.
Last edited: