RPGnet's decay (TBP madness)

[Battlemaster]

Tell it to Alex jones.

He's git lime a dozen judgements against him on SLD lawsuits.

[jeff37923]

Tell it to Alex jones.

He's git lime a dozen judgements against him on SLD lawsuits.

Your naivete is pretty amusing to watch.

[Mistwell]

Tell it to Alex jones.

He's git lime a dozen judgements against him on SLD lawsuits.

That wasn't over an internet message board. He was the actual speaker of the slander, not merely hosting a board where others slandered. You were saying TBP would be sued for the views of their posters.

[Fergurg]

Tell it to Alex jones.

He's git lime a dozen judgements against him on SLD lawsuits.

That wasn't over an internet message board. He was the actual speaker of the slander, not merely hosting a board where others slandered. You were saying TBP would be sued for the views of their posters.

TBP is an openly and actively curated board that can, and has, banned people for saying things that are not in support of the views of the moderators and has deleted posts on the board that also go against their views. So they are not simply a platform, but are publishers and can be held responsible for what they publish and endorse.

[Ghostmaker]

Cool. What assets do they have that can be seized in a judgement?

I mean, I don't object to Appelcline, etc getting dragged into a courtroom and forced to explain under oath their decisions. But what then?

[wmarshal]

Tell it to Alex jones.

He's git lime a dozen judgements against him on SLD lawsuits.

That wasn't over an internet message board. He was the actual speaker of the slander, not merely hosting a board where others slandered. You were saying TBP would be sued for the views of their posters.

TBP is an openly and actively curated board that can, and has, banned people for saying things that are not in support of the views of the moderators and has deleted posts on the board that also go against their views. So they are not simply a platform, but are publishers and can be held responsible for what they publish and endorse.

You may have a point. It was supposedly fear of a lawsuit that caused them to ban any discussion of Alex Macris and his products. On the other hand, if someone does sue I suppose it ought to be out of a sense of some kind of vengeance because I don't know that there's much lucre to be had from TBP.

[Fergurg]

Cool. What assets do they have that can be seized in a judgement?

I mean, I don't object to Appelcline, etc getting dragged into a courtroom and forced to explain under oath their decisions. But what then?

I'd settle for taking TBP itself. Can we crowdfund a lawsuit? And, since it would be a lawsuit, making the moderators' names public knowledge by naming them as co-defendants and ordering Appelcline to turn them over.

[Stephen Tannhauser]

TBP is an openly and actively curated board that can, and has, banned people for saying things that are not in support of the views of the moderators and has deleted posts on the board that also go against their views. So they are not simply a platform, but are publishers and can be held responsible for what they publish and endorse.

Not according to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which both specifically exempts Internet platforms from liability for whatever is posted on their sites and provides them authority to remove whatever material they wish for whatever reasons they wish (which most people want the platforms to retain so that they can speedily get rid of undesired pornographic content if need be). If Internet boards could be sued for censoring their content it would have happened long before now.

Now to be fair, there is lots of legal noise being made about the fact that the Act does permit precisely this kind of double standard -- that Internet platforms are claiming the liability immunity of telecommunications providers while retaining the content-curating ability of publishers. But no successful legal challenge has yet been made about it, that I know of, and until that happens lawsuits about such things are probably a pipe dream.

[wmarshal]

Cool. What assets do they have that can be seized in a judgement?

I mean, I don't object to Appelcline, etc getting dragged into a courtroom and forced to explain under oath their decisions. But what then?

I'd settle for taking TBP itself. Can we crowdfund a lawsuit? And, since it would be a lawsuit, making the moderators' names public knowledge by naming them as co-defendants and ordering Appelcline to turn them over.

Sue TBP by committee? Sorry, that sounds like a terrible and very unfun way to spend anyone's time. Even if possible I don't think this thread is the place for something like that.

[DocJones]

I'd settle for taking TBP itself. Can we crowdfund a lawsuit? And, since it would be a lawsuit, making the moderators' names public knowledge by naming them as co-defendants and ordering Appelcline to turn them over.

Ask Elon Musk if he'd buy TBP.  ;-P

[Mistwell]

Tell it to Alex jones.

He's git lime a dozen judgements against him on SLD lawsuits.

That wasn't over an internet message board. He was the actual speaker of the slander, not merely hosting a board where others slandered. You were saying TBP would be sued for the views of their posters.

TBP is an openly and actively curated board that can, and has, banned people for saying things that are not in support of the views of the moderators and has deleted posts on the board that also go against their views. So they are not simply a platform, but are publishers and can be held responsible for what they publish and endorse.

Again, nope. That's not how that works.

Seriously, it really isn't. I even linked to it above. They directly say, " This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger [or other Internet platform] is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments."

The exceptions are criminal conduct, and intellectual property stuff. Slander/Libel/Defamation is covered by the protection.

I know it's weird. It does seem like a strange law, and it is, and other nations don't generally have such a law. I guess Congress thought it was an important thing to do to promote a thriving internet. Maybe it's outdated these days, but it is the law they passed and it has not been overturned and I know of no widespread movement to do anything about it.

Which offers THIS board protection as well in the US, I might point out.

[wmarshal]

Tell it to Alex jones.

He's git lime a dozen judgements against him on SLD lawsuits.

That wasn't over an internet message board. He was the actual speaker of the slander, not merely hosting a board where others slandered. You were saying TBP would be sued for the views of their posters.

TBP is an openly and actively curated board that can, and has, banned people for saying things that are not in support of the views of the moderators and has deleted posts on the board that also go against their views. So they are not simply a platform, but are publishers and can be held responsible for what they publish and endorse.

Again, nope. That's not how that works.

Seriously, it really isn't. I even linked to it above. They directly say, " This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger [or other Internet platform] is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments."

The exceptions are criminal conduct, and intellectual property stuff. Slander/Libel/Defamation is covered by the protection.

I know it's weird. It does seem like a strange law, and it is, and other nations don't generally have such a law. I guess Congress thought it was an important thing to do to promote a thriving internet. Maybe it's outdated these days, but it is the law they passed and it has not been overturned and I know of no widespread movement to do anything about it.

Which offers THIS board protection as well in the US, I might point out.

Would this not have then protected TBP from any theoretical lawsuit from Alex Macris? If so, did they just use the imagined threat of a lawsuit as a cover for banning someone they just didn't like for his wrongthink?

[Mistwell]

Tell it to Alex jones.

He's git lime a dozen judgements against him on SLD lawsuits.

That wasn't over an internet message board. He was the actual speaker of the slander, not merely hosting a board where others slandered. You were saying TBP would be sued for the views of their posters.

TBP is an openly and actively curated board that can, and has, banned people for saying things that are not in support of the views of the moderators and has deleted posts on the board that also go against their views. So they are not simply a platform, but are publishers and can be held responsible for what they publish and endorse.

Again, nope. That's not how that works.

Seriously, it really isn't. I even linked to it above. They directly say, " This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger [or other Internet platform] is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments."

The exceptions are criminal conduct, and intellectual property stuff. Slander/Libel/Defamation is covered by the protection.

I know it's weird. It does seem like a strange law, and it is, and other nations don't generally have such a law. I guess Congress thought it was an important thing to do to promote a thriving internet. Maybe it's outdated these days, but it is the law they passed and it has not been overturned and I know of no widespread movement to do anything about it.

Which offers THIS board protection as well in the US, I might point out.

Would this not have then protected TBP from any theoretical lawsuit from Alex Macris? If so, did they just use the imagined threat of a lawsuit as a cover for banning someone they just didn't like for his wrongthink?

Whatever controversy that is, I don't recall it. Though that name does seem familiar. Was that a GamerGate thing?

[wmarshal]

Tell it to Alex jones.

He's git lime a dozen judgements against him on SLD lawsuits.

That wasn't over an internet message board. He was the actual speaker of the slander, not merely hosting a board where others slandered. You were saying TBP would be sued for the views of their posters.

TBP is an openly and actively curated board that can, and has, banned people for saying things that are not in support of the views of the moderators and has deleted posts on the board that also go against their views. So they are not simply a platform, but are publishers and can be held responsible for what they publish and endorse.

Again, nope. That's not how that works.

Seriously, it really isn't. I even linked to it above. They directly say, " This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger [or other Internet platform] is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments."

The exceptions are criminal conduct, and intellectual property stuff. Slander/Libel/Defamation is covered by the protection.

I know it's weird. It does seem like a strange law, and it is, and other nations don't generally have such a law. I guess Congress thought it was an important thing to do to promote a thriving internet. Maybe it's outdated these days, but it is the law they passed and it has not been overturned and I know of no widespread movement to do anything about it.

Which offers THIS board protection as well in the US, I might point out.

Would this not have then protected TBP from any theoretical lawsuit from Alex Macris? If so, did they just use the imagined threat of a lawsuit as a cover for banning someone they just didn't like for his wrongthink?

Whatever controversy that is, I don't recall it. Though that name does seem familiar. Was that a GamerGate thing?

Not specifically a GamerGate issue. TBP said it was due to threats of legal action for how when discussions of ACKS came up you'd have the Woke come into the thread about how those playing ACKS were having bad wrong fun, and describe why they thought ACKS was bad, wrong fun. To my knowledge Alex Macris never engaged in any political discussions at TBP.
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/acks-autarch-added-to-forbidden-topics-list.830945/

[Armchair Gamer]

As I understand it, the issue with Macris is that moderators were accusing him of being a Nazi for his association with Milo Yiannopoulos, and he warned the admins that that was getting close to defamation. They decided to shut down all discussion of his work rather than reign in the mods--a move Macris found acceptable--and have been painting themselves as the victims ever since.