Was Monster Muleys Saved Today?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
The site may have been saved today by Congress. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act remains as it was. If it were changed to allow anyone and everyone to sue websites for content posted by members, it could’ve put the site in danger of disappearance.
It would be hard to operate knowing that I’m responsible for everything everyone on this site posts. Members should be responsible, not me just because I provide the medium.
I currently read as much as I possibly can, but there will likely always be stuff that slips through. Without some protection from lawsuits over stuff other people post, it’d be awfully risky to run the site.
So it should be a good day for Monster Muleys, unless Congress changes their minds and decides to end it.

I’ve been laid off from a job once, but after building and running this site for over 21 years, it would really suck to have a politician end it just like that. That would be a great Christmas present! NOT!!
 

Bocephus

Active Member
Messages
678
The way things are headed we will all be posting about the B&C mouse we trapped in our basement and the giant magpie we were able to shoot with our blow gun. I wouldn't hold your breath on what BS we may see in the next 4 years.
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
Keep the politics out of here. Remember?????


😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁

I suggest you get a timeout for 24 hours!!!!
I wish I could’ve, but the politics aimed to end it, so I’m giving myself an exception, because I can.......without being sued by some nut job who says I made him sad.
AND, both parties agreed on it, so there can’t be a fight.
I’ll temporarily ban myself come hunting season.
 

DW

Long Time Member
Messages
13,436
Yep, you and zuck are free to continue to censor your site and control the narrative, if it's finalized.
 

DW

Long Time Member
Messages
13,436
Very cool of you to cheer for this site to disappear.


How many times have you been sued because of content on this site since you started it? Your side hustle has gotten you more jambed up than anything else.
 
Last edited:

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
How many times have you been sued because of content on this site since you started it? Your side hustle has gotten you more jambed up than anything else.
Thankfully never, no interest in starting it now.

The lawyers would sure have a ball until all social sites were gone.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
It cracks me up watching people try and defend the cessation of Section 230 while tying themselves in knots attempting to hide from the fact that they're working to stop Free Speech.

Founder can control his website, it's his personal property. And anybody has the right to start a competing website if they'd like (see: Parler). That's freedom.

The Section 230 fight is about stopping people from saying certain things others disagree with.

It's "cancel culture" at it's finest.
 
Last edited:

JPickett

Active Member
Messages
337
Pretty slippery topic really. On one hand there’s nothing “good” about our governments relationship with social media. They have become the sensor ship branch through monopoly that our first amendment won’t allow our government to have that they do desperately want.

on the other hand do we really trust our government to regulate our free speech online. See above paragraph

what really needs to happen is the tax loop hole for content “ provider” and content “ platform” needs to go away. We all now the big ones are providers not platforms. I suppose that would adversely affect you as well though founder.

guess today was a win? Maybe? Who knows...
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
The big companies would likely survive. FB, Instagram, others with loads of money could probably make it work.
Little guys like me would not have that technology. I’d have to read every post before it goes live and weigh my legal risks with each. I’d be done. No way for it to work for the little guy.
Every writer should be responsible for their own words. I know suing the nutty dude living in his moms basement who posts crap about people isn’t real profitable, but suing someone like me because of what that nut job posted isn’t right at all. And also not real profitable, but would work to run me out of business.

I’m just happy today that the attempt to drive me out of business will likely fail for now.
 

Joe2Kool

Very Active Member
Messages
1,582
Glad it failed today Founder. Comparable to the gun control freaks that want to make it legal to sue gun manufacturers when their legal product is used in an illegal way. Just can't figure out why they don't apply that same logic to alcohol and auto manufacturers when some guy has too many, gets in his truck and kills someone. It's obvious Anheuser Bush and Chevrolet were responsible!!
 

LivingTheDream

Active Member
Messages
165
I’d have to read every post before it goes live and weigh my legal risks with each.
Founder, I actually think if you didn't do that you would still be protected by 230. It is once you become an "editor" that you would lose said protections. My understanding of what they were trying to do with 230 and social media is more directed at Twitter who will suspend accounts and take down content therefore acting as an editor and not an open platform.
 

yoteduster

Active Member
Messages
558
I truly hope these sites (forums) can keep going without interference from government and others...they are informative and entertaining and a good way to pass some time
 

cacklercrazy

Active Member
Messages
239
The site may have been saved today by Congress. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act remains as it was. If it were changed to allow anyone and everyone to sue websites for content posted by members, it could’ve put the site in danger of disappearance.
It would be hard to operate knowing that I’m responsible for everything everyone on this site posts. Members should be responsible, not me just because I provide the medium.
I currently read as much as I possibly can, but there will likely always be stuff that slips through. Without some protection from lawsuits over stuff other people post, it’d be awfully risky to run the site.
So it should be a good day for Monster Muleys, unless Congress changes their minds and decides to end it.

I’ve been laid off from a job once, but after building and running this site for over 21 years, it would really suck to have a politician end it just like that. That would be a great Christmas present! NOT!!
Welcome to the world of a farmer or rancher. Politicians who know nothing about farming think they should decide how,what,why and even where we should farm.
.
 

eelgrass

Long Time Member
Messages
25,808
In light of what's going on with Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook, I think what Founder is doing is spot on. You have to either allow it all or don't allow it at all. Founder decided to not allow it at all and that's the best way to protect himself too.

Let's keep MM a fun place to gather and share the things we all have in common. I come here for the same reason I watch sports, and that's to leave some of my problems aside for a spell.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
Welcome to the world of a farmer or rancher. Politicians who know nothing about farming think they should decide how,what,why and even where we should farm.
.
Let's stay on topic here. Feel free to start a thread on government meddling with farmers and ranchers though. I'm sure it will be an interesting discussion since some see it differently.
 
Last edited:

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
Founder, I actually think if you didn't do that you would still be protected by 230. It is once you become an "editor" that you would lose said protections. My understanding of what they were trying to do with 230 and social media is more directed at Twitter who will suspend accounts and take down content therefore acting as an editor and not an open platform.
Twitter is the target and little guys like me would just be collateral damage. I doubt any consideration is even given to businesses like this one.
Without section 230 I would be liable for everything that everyone says on this site.

Section 230 - “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”.

Without that protection, forums like this one could not exist as they are now, because we would be treated as the publisher or speaker of everything everyone else says.
 

Zeke

Long Time Member
Messages
9,214
The way things are headed we will all be posting about the B&C mouse we trapped in our basement and the giant magpie we were able to shoot with our blow gun. I wouldn't hold your breath on what BS we may see in the next 4 years.
Bo,
I’m afraid you’re right. We’ll have to see what the next 4 soggy-pants years bring.
Magpies are protected through a treaty with Mexico....which is true but totally BS that it ever happened. Don’t shoot black colored birds #blackbirdsmatter
I’d never shoot one 😜
Zeke
 

Bluehair

Very Active Member
Messages
2,532
I would rather see libel and slander laws liberalized than censorship.

If you are personally falsely accused of something you should be entitled to damages from those who said it and those who profited from the publishing and distribution.

But censorship is what people want because they are too stupid or lazy to become informed.

Merry Christmas :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DW

cacklercrazy

Active Member
Messages
239
Let's stay on topic here. Feel free to start a thread on government meddling with farmers and ranchers though. I'm sure it will be an interesting discussion since some see it differently.
That wasn't the point. Point is I totally understand you. Sorry you didn't understand me.
 

cacklercrazy

Active Member
Messages
239
I'm talking about government
Let's stay on topic here. Feel free to start a thread on government meddling with farmers and ranchers though. I'm sure it will be an interesting discussion since some see it differently.
Being involved with the control over private business.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
I'm talking about government
Being involved with the control over private business.
Yeah, the counterpoint would be that as long as the government is subsidizing farming and ranching then they get a say in how it's run.

Direct payments from USDA to farmers now accounts for 36.2% of total US Net Farm Income.

And we don't even want to get started on ranching and the beef industry. But I don't want to hijack this thread, that's why I proposed starting a different thread on the topic. Have a Merry Christmas!

 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
There has to be some recourse for what's going on now.

That hunter Biden story being scrubbed from social media to me shows the real danger we face.

But 230 does nothing.

Google and FB should be broken up. They are very much monopolies.

Twitter on the otherhand, is challengable in the marketplace. But i truly sont get why anyone is on that dumpster fire. Its like reading the bathroom wall, all day , everyday.

However all 3 should be sued fir campaign donation violations. Them censoring conservatives, is an inkind donation. They should be liable for that. Which might help to slow down the censoring they do.

But i wouldn't celebrate too long founder. That gun section you have is going to be under attack soon.
 

WVHUNTER

Active Member
Messages
894
No, it wasn't saved. Trump vetoed the Defense Bill that had those protections in it. We will have to wait and see what happens.
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,140
Yep, you and zuck are free to continue to censor your site and control the narrative, if it's finalized.

“Free to censor YOUR site”

Yep, it is his, not yours or mine. That gives him the right/control. Which is as it should be.

And like Larry the cable guy says: “you don’t like it, you can turn it off”

Quite a few people, including you, seem to like it enough to “keep it on” and post regularly.

And you didn’t post here to comment on the topic mentioned, but used it to take a dig at founder. And he didn’t even censor you 😱
 

cacklercrazy

Active Member
Messages
239
Yeah, the counterpoint would be that as long as the government is subsidizing farming and ranching then they get a say in how it's run.

Direct payments from USDA to farmers now accounts for 36.2% of total US Net Farm Income.

And we don't even want to get started on ranching and the beef industry. But I don't want to hijack this thread, that's why I proposed starting a different thread on the topic. Have a Merry Christmas!

Most believe that we either need complete capitalism system or a complete socialists system in farming. Right now many are basically half in and half out. If government was complete out of farming then bigger farmers would continue to consume the little guys and there could be bigger price changes at the stores. The government doesn't want this especially for food programs. This is why they stay involved. Added to major ag lobby system. Like you said this could easily be it's own thread.
 

DW

Long Time Member
Messages
13,436
“Free to censor YOUR site”

Yep, it is his, not yours or mine. That gives him the right/control. Which is as it should be.

And like Larry the cable guy says: “you don’t like it, you can turn it off”

Quite a few people, including you, seem to like it enough to “keep it on” and post regularly.

And you didn’t post here to comment on the topic mentioned, but used it to take a dig at founder. And he didn’t even censor you 😱

I'm just relieved that the presidents master plan to take down MM was thwarted. Merry Christmas.

Reminded me of a tune the freshly paroled bobcat will appreciate.

 
Last edited:

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
I would rather see libel and slander laws liberalized than censorship.

If you are personally falsely accused of something you should be entitled to damages from those who said it and those who profited from the publishing and distribution.

But censorship is what people want because they are too stupid or lazy to become informed.

Merry Christmas :)
Well, if that protection is taken away completely, the internet will change. What site would ever allow someone to post any critical review of a product or service? None. I know I wouldn’t risk it.
Simply being the provider of this communication medium, I’d have no idea if a product or service was truly bad or if the poster is a liar. There’d be no way for me to defend myself in court.
Allowing for an all out lawsuit free for all against every business who provides people with a method of communication is ridiculous.
I know like many issues, most people don’t care unless it effects them directly, but in this case, just removing that protection would change our world immensely.
Verizon and Apple shouldn’t be responsible for what people text using their communication medium and neither should website owners like myself be responsible for some idiot that jumps on my site and posts a bunch half truths about an outfitter or another company.
Hopefully the big boys are dumping lots of money into keeping it from being removed completely. There’s a heck of a lot of little guys out there who’d be destroyed if it is removed.
Maybe it needs some tweaking, but not removed completely.
 

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
16,575
well if the web sites have protection now from lawsuits on what is posted, there should be no valid reason for any censorship that is showing up on those sites and even this one.
RELH
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
Is that what you want here? Porn, nasty name calling, spam, etc. where those who bring the worst of things to the internet can overwhelm every website with crap?
Do you have any clue how many spammer accounts I delete every month? Is that your idea of a great internet? Everything goes? Spammers are allowed to post whatever they want? That nasty name calling should be allowed everywhere?
Sounds like a disgusting mess to me that would also destroy many websites. How many people do you think would come to this site if it was loaded with porn and spam? Well, spam. The porn would probably make me rich.
No, there has to be rules.

The two options shouldn’t be a “free for all everything goes” or “put owners at such high risk of lawsuits that they shut their businesses down”.

I know you don’t care if this site is here tomorrow or not, but it’s not just me who’d be ruined if that protection was gone in a moment.

I’m curious as to how you think we’d all be better off with that lawsuit protection gone?
 

Bluehair

Very Active Member
Messages
2,532
Well, if that protection is taken away completely, the internet will change. What site would ever allow someone to post any critical review of a product or service? None. I know I wouldn’t risk it.
Simply being the provider of this communication medium, I’d have no idea if a product or service was truly bad or if the poster is a liar. There’d be no way for me to defend myself in court.
Allowing for an all out lawsuit free for all against every business who provides people with a method of communication is ridiculous.
I know like many issues, most people don’t care unless it effects them directly, but in this case, just removing that protection would change our world immensely.
Verizon and Apple shouldn’t be responsible for what people text using their communication medium and neither should website owners like myself be responsible for some idiot that jumps on my site and posts a bunch half truths about an outfitter or another company.
Hopefully the big boys are dumping lots of money into keeping it from being removed completely. There’s a heck of a lot of little guys out there who’d be destroyed if it is removed.
Maybe it needs some tweaking, but not removed completely.
I agree that you should be indemnified if users of your site use it against your rules.

What I struggle with is (hypothetically) your advertisers or vendors using your site to commit fraud or other crimes. If you knowingly allow them to place false or misleading paid content on your site, what should your responsibility be? That's a tough one.

I don't think you will ever be held responsible for my stupid opinions. Not saying some ambulance chaser won't give it a go, but I would never wish it on you or your site. I'm glad it's here.

But the reality is that your advertisers will have more influence over your decency standards than I would.

I'll agree to a waiver to have access to an invite only no-holds-barred forum. I'm even ok if no porn is allowed. Sorta. :)
 
Last edited:

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
16,575
Founder web sites conducting censorship for political reasons will be the downfall of those sites losing their protection. You can not have it both ways, protection and using censorship for reasons that do not agree with your political beliefs.
The American people will demand that web sites using censorship will be stopped one way or another. Makes you wonder who will be the person responsible for losing that protection in the long run. Just might be the person running that web site and using censorship to shut down any opposing beliefs.
The censorship needs to stop, that does not mean you can not delete any posts that advocate violence, criminal acts, or porn, dirty language that may be viewed by minors.

RELH
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
The First Amendment goes both ways. A person is allowed to say what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another, but a person also can't be forced to say something they don't want to say as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another. Forcing @Founder to allow unwanted content on his site is a violation of his Free Speech.

I doubt many of the people here saying that @Founder shouldn't be able to filter his own site also feel that a baker should be forced to sell a wedding cake to somebody they don't want to. I believe in private property rights and the right of a business owner to refuse service to anybody.

The bakery lost in court because sexual orientation is a federally-protected class; politics and name-calling are not protected and thus a website owner is not forced to allow it.

As far as I'm concerned, if @Founder wants to ban everybody except those who love the color yellow, it's his right as a business owner. If he started banning people over their race or orientation, he'd be in trouble.

The bottom line is if you don't like the way a company runs their business (or website) then you can go somewhere else or start your own and compete. Nobody makes you participate in MM and nobody should force @Founder to allow anything he doesn't want there either. He could make it specifically oriented to people who like to play disc golf in a speedo if he desired. It's his website, he can do what he wants.

The idea of Big Government intrusion telling a private business they must allow content they don't want is very dangerous.
 
Last edited:

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
The First Amendment goes both ways. A person is allowed to say what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another, but a person also can't be forced to say something they don't want to say as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another. Forcing @Founder to allow unwanted content on his site is a violation of his Free Speech.

I doubt many of the people here saying that @Founder shouldn't be able to filter his own site also feel that a baker should be forced to sell a wedding cake to somebody they don't want to. I believe in private property rights and the right of a business owner to refuse service to anybody.

The bakery lost in court because sexual orientation is a federally-protected class; politics and name-calling are not protected and thus a website owner is not forced to allow it.

As far as I'm concerned, if @Founder wants to ban everybody except those who love the color yellow, it's his right as a business owner. If he started banning people over their race or orientation, he'd be in trouble.

The bottom line is if you don't like the way a company runs their business (or website) then you can go somewhere else or start your own and compete. Nobody makes you participate in MM and nobody should force @Founder to allow anything he doesn't want there either. He could make it specifically oriented to people who like to play disc golf in a speedo if he desired. It's his website, he can do what he wants.

The idea of Big Government intrusion telling a private business they must allow content they don't want is very dangerous.

If the tech companies actually believed in free speech, ID agree. They are in China. Proving they do not. You dont get it both ways. Your either free speech, or your open to massive government intrusion.


Second, you are able as a private business to choose political causes you want to contribute to. If I choose to sheetrock Mike Lees office, and donate it, im able to. However, this is a political contribution. FB, YouTube, Twitter, throttling, or outright banning Republican free speech, is also a donation, and they should be treated as such.

There does need to be recourse. Jack Dorsey publically defamed The Post by locking their account, over Hunter Biden. Jack Dorsey should be responsible for that action.


If Founder bans me for being the Una bomber, and im not, and can prove so, then he should be subject to being sued by me for slander.

But NO. You arent free to create a competitor. History is littered with examples, like Standard oil, in which monopolies dominate commerce. FB and Google are monopolies and should ne treated as such.
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
Founder web sites conducting censorship for political reasons will be the downfall of those sites losing their protection. You can not have it both ways, protection and using censorship for reasons that do not agree with your political beliefs.
The American people will demand that web sites using censorship will be stopped one way or another. Makes you wonder who will be the person responsible for losing that protection in the long run. Just might be the person running that web site and using censorship to shut down any opposing beliefs.
The censorship needs to stop, that does not mean you can not delete any posts that advocate violence, criminal acts, or porn, dirty language that may be viewed by minors.

RELH
So you don’t think I should be allowed to only want hunting related topics on this site, but must also allow political talk, even though I don’t want it here?
And censorship is fine if it’s removing porn, dirty language and spam, but isn’t ok to remove political talk that I don’t want here?
I think you want what you want and if others don’t agree, they should be ran out of business with lawsuits. No choice for me on what I want on the site, just you. Unreal.
 

OutdoorWriter

Very Active Member
Messages
2,932
Well, if that protection is taken away completely, the internet will change. What site would ever allow someone to post any critical review of a product or service? None. I know I wouldn’t risk it.
Simply being the provider of this communication medium, I’d have no idea if a product or service was truly bad or if the poster is a liar. There’d be no way for me to defend myself in court.
Allowing for an all out lawsuit free for all against every business who provides people with a method of communication is ridiculous.
I know like many issues, most people don’t care unless it effects them directly, but in this case, just removing that protection would change our world immensely.
Verizon and Apple shouldn’t be responsible for what people text using their communication medium and neither should website owners like myself be responsible for some idiot that jumps on my site and posts a bunch half truths about an outfitter or another company.
Hopefully the big boys are dumping lots of money into keeping it from being removed completely. There’s a heck of a lot of little guys out there who’d be destroyed if it is removed.
Maybe it needs some tweaking, but not removed completely.
Though I agree with the concept you're trying to put forth, the Verizon/Apple comparison isn't quite the same as this forum, where you and/or others have constant oversight of what is said.

It'll no doubt raise the temperature in here, but here's a post I made on another site many years ago:

First, a bit of background:

Long before the web came into existence, in 1983 a friend who is another outdoor writer from Maryland and I started what was known as the Outdoors Forum on the Compuserve Information Service (CIS), which is now owned by AOL. It was the first of its kind.

Back then, everything was done in ASCII at an unbelievable modem speed of 12 baud per sec for downloading messages and replying offline with special software named TapCIS. When it eventually jumped to 28 baud, we all thought we had died and gone to heaven.
:lol:


Anyway, we ran that forum for many years and eventually branched out to become 12 separate ones that included Hunting, Fishing, Cycling, Scouting, Birding, Environment, etc., etc. We became the largest operators on CIS and continued to run our "empire" until AOL purchased CIS in the late 1990s and discontinued paying its business partners.

So where am I going with this??

During the course of administering those forums, we had several requirements.

1. Members had to use a REAL first and last name -- NO HANDLES. Obviously, they could pick any factitious name but most didn't.

2. Because they were family forums, language and material deemed not worthy of such were no-nos.

3. And most importantly, Personal attacks were greatly discouraged.

And #3 is the one that so often comes into play today in the age of the WWW where thousands upon thousands of anonymous users hide behind their online personas in the myriad chatrooms. Sooo...I thought I would offer a few tips I've garnered over the years in regards to this particular cancer.

First let me state: debate, controversy and discussion are HEALTHY exercises where everyone can learn from them -- if they are conducted in a civil manor.

The most important aspect of this is to debate the ISSUE and avoid discussing the PEOPLE.

How can you avoid such?

It's simple. Every time you write a message in reply to a controversial topic, reread it before you hit SUBMIT and look to see if you used someone's name or a form of the word 'you' in it. Normally, these will be the key tipoffs where someone turns the discussion from the issue into a personal one. And then the need to retaliate kicks in for the person being attacked. That's when the thread heads downhill at a rapid pace.

Example:

Personal attack:

You're an idiot Charlie, and you have no idea what you're talking about. The law doesn't read that way. Here's what it says...blah, blah.

Discussing the issue;

I don't think that's how the law reads. here's what I found...blah, blah blah.

In other words, one can easily disagree without being disagreeable.

Pretty simple, huh?
;)
-TONY
 

DW

Long Time Member
Messages
13,436
Founder I've probably ridden you the hardest on cutting out the political forum, partly because I enjoyed the forum, and partly for fun. It is just the internet after all and if anybody gets their knickers in a knot over something said on line, I find that hilarious because I don't take any of it too seriously. It is your site and you have the right to do with it as you please, as it should be. You've noticed I was so distraught over your decision that I've left, never to return?🤣 The trouble is some of the big ones, book of faces, tweaker, literally are censoring free speech in my opinion. They and Dominion truly have stolen an election, again, in my opinion. What we've witnessed recently is nothing short of a modern day book burning, again in my opinion, and something needs to change. Hope you got out over Christmas and spent some time with family and friends.
 
Last edited:

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
Though I agree with the concept you're trying to put forth, the Verizon/Apple comparison isn't quite the same as this forum, where you and/or others have constant oversight of what is said.

It'll no doubt raise the temperature in here, but here's a post I made on another site many years ago:

First, a bit of background:

Long before the web came into existence, in 1983 a friend who is another outdoor writer from Maryland and I started what was known as the Outdoors Forum on the Compuserve Information Service (CIS), which is now owned by AOL. It was the first of its kind.

Back then, everything was done in ASCII at an unbelievable modem speed of 12 baud per sec for downloading messages and replying offline with special software named TapCIS. When it eventually jumped to 28 baud, we all thought we had died and gone to heaven.
:lol:


Anyway, we ran that forum for many years and eventually branched out to become 12 separate ones that included Hunting, Fishing, Cycling, Scouting, Birding, Environment, etc., etc. We became the largest operators on CIS and continued to run our "empire" until AOL purchased CIS in the late 1990s and discontinued paying its business partners.

So where am I going with this??

During the course of administering those forums, we had several requirements.

1. Members had to use a REAL first and last name -- NO HANDLES. Obviously, they could pick any factitious name but most didn't.

2. Because they were family forums, language and material deemed not worthy of such were no-nos.

3. And most importantly, Personal attacks were greatly discouraged.

And #3 is the one that so often comes into play today in the age of the WWW where thousands upon thousands of anonymous users hide behind their online personas in the myriad chatrooms. Sooo...I thought I would offer a few tips I've garnered over the years in regards to this particular cancer.

First let me state: debate, controversy and discussion are HEALTHY exercises where everyone can learn from them -- if they are conducted in a civil manor.

The most important aspect of this is to debate the ISSUE and avoid discussing the PEOPLE.

How can you avoid such?

It's simple. Every time you write a message in reply to a controversial topic, reread it before you hit SUBMIT and look to see if you used someone's name or a form of the word 'you' in it. Normally, these will be the key tipoffs where someone turns the discussion from the issue into a personal one. And then the need to retaliate kicks in for the person being attacked. That's when the thread heads downhill at a rapid pace.

Example:

Personal attack:

You're an idiot Charlie, and you have no idea what you're talking about. The law doesn't read that way. Here's what it says...blah, blah.

Discussing the issue;

I don't think that's how the law reads. here's what I found...blah, blah blah.

In other words, one can easily disagree without being disagreeable.

Pretty simple, huh?
;)
-TONY
The problem is, I don’t have “where you and/or others have constant oversight”. Like I’ve said, I try to read everything posted here, but that’s not possible. In addition, I don’t moderate every post before it goes live, and that is where the risk comes in.
I understand a website taking on editorial responsibility once they’re made aware of something posted to their site. In fact, my understanding of the section 230 was that that was the case, that I was only protected until I was made aware of content posted by a member.
For me, once I’m made aware of something posted to the site, then I’ve made the choice to allow it or not and can then be treated as the editor.
But my issue is with content posted that I either miss completely or that I just haven’t read yet. And stuff I’m unaware of is why I make the comparison to Verizon for text messages.
If section 230 is removed, everyone’s post would need to be moderated, and legal risks weighed, before it could go live, as one jerk with nothing personally to lose could destroy a business with slanderous comments towards someone. Suing the jerk probably wouldn’t even be worth it if he has nothing, so the business (website) would likely be the only ones sued.
In the end, the jerk just moves on and does it somewhere else next week, creating another lawsuit between the slandered and an innocent business.
 

OutdoorWriter

Very Active Member
Messages
2,932
The problem is, I don’t have “where you and/or others have constant oversight”. Like I’ve said, I try to read everything posted here, but that’s not possible. In addition, I don’t moderate every post before it goes live, and that is where the risk comes in.
I understand a website taking on editorial responsibility once they’re made aware of something posted to their site. In fact, my understanding of the section 230 was that that was the case, that I was only protected until I was made aware of content posted by a member.
For me, once I’m made aware of something posted to the site, then I’ve made the choice to allow it or not and can then be treated as the editor.
But my issue is with content posted that I either miss completely or that I just haven’t read yet. And stuff I’m unaware of is why I make the comparison to Verizon for text messages.
If section 230 is removed, everyone’s post would need to be moderated, and legal risks weighed, before it could go live, as one jerk with nothing personally to lose could destroy a business with slanderous comments towards someone. Suing the jerk probably wouldn’t even be worth it if he has nothing, so the business (website) would likely be the only ones sued.
In the end, the jerk just moves on and does it somewhere else next week, creating another lawsuit between the slandered and an innocent business.
I totally agree. We solved the problem of "oversight" by having an administrator for every forum who had the powers to do what was necessary to enforce the rules we had in place. They were required to read each message in their section.

We also had a special section where we could move a message and the person it was directed at could still see it and reply, which would also stay in that section.

BUT..doing that was possible only because my partner wrote the forum software which allowed direct replies to individuals. He still uses it for a few sites, and my site is a stripped down version of a 'forum' that I use for the book and photo storage -- another very sophisticated feature of Joe's software.

Of course, it's hard to change anything once you let the "genie out of the jar," so to speak. :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
Founder I've probably ridden you the hardest on cutting out the political forum, partly because I enjoyed the forum, and partly for fun. It is just the internet after all and if anybody gets their knickers in a knot over something said on line, I find that hilarious because I don't take any of it too seriously. It is your site and you have the right to do with it as you please, as it should be. You've noticed I was so distraught over your decision that I've left, never to return?🤣 The trouble is some of the big ones, book of faces, tweaker, literally are censoring free speech in my opinion. They and Dominion truly have stolen an election, again, in my opinion. What we've witnessed recently is nothing short of a modern day book burning, again in my opinion, and something needs to change. Hope you got out over Christmas and spent some time with family and friends.
I understand looking at section 230 and making appropriate changes, but wiping it out completely this week would destroy the livelihood of thousands, maybe millions of people. No warning, no nothing, just gone tomorrow!!
Dropping an atom bomb on a city of innocent people to kill one man isn’t the way to do it.
I don’t know anything about the issues with tweeter or others, but I do know that wiping out section 230 protection tomorrow would quite likelyhood destroy this site.
 

Bluehair

Very Active Member
Messages
2,532
So you don’t think I should be allowed to only want hunting related topics on this site, but must also allow political talk, even though I don’t want it here?
And censorship is fine if it’s removing porn, dirty language and spam, but isn’t ok to remove political talk that I don’t want here?
I think you want what you want and if others don’t agree, they should be ran out of business with lawsuits. No choice for me on what I want on the site, just you. Unreal.
It's very difficult to completely seperate politics from hunting because they are pretty much COMPLETELY related. Besides our "right" to hunt existing thru the charity of politicians, gun control and public land use issues (to name just couple) are also inherent in our sport.

It is difficult to pretend that politics doesn't impact what we love, and it's frustrating to be prevented from discussing how they relate. I am a strong vote for somewhere to fight about those issues besides the streets. $.02
 

DW

Long Time Member
Messages
13,436
It's very difficult to completely seperate politics from hunting because they are pretty much COMPLETELY related. Besides our "right" to hunt existing thru the charity of politicians, gun control and public land use issues (to name just couple) are also inherent in our sport.

It is difficult to pretend that politics doesn't impact what we love, and it's frustrating to be prevented from discussing how they relate. I am a strong vote for somewhere to fight about those issues besides the streets. $.02


Politics infects every aspect of our lifes in one way or another, including hunting.
 

elkchaserreturns

Active Member
Messages
244
The First Amendment goes both ways. A person is allowed to say what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another, but a person also can't be forced to say something they don't want to say as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another. Forcing @Founder to allow unwanted content on his site is a violation of his Free Speech.

I doubt many of the people here saying that @Founder shouldn't be able to filter his own site also feel that a baker should be forced to sell a wedding cake to somebody they don't want to. I believe in private property rights and the right of a business owner to refuse service to anybody.

The bakery lost in court because sexual orientation is a federally-protected class; politics and name-calling are not protected and thus a website owner is not forced to allow it.

As far as I'm concerned, if @Founder wants to ban everybody except those who love the color yellow, it's his right as a business owner. If he started banning people over their race or orientation, he'd be in trouble.

The bottom line is if you don't like the way a company runs their business (or website) then you can go somewhere else or start your own and compete. Nobody makes you participate in MM and nobody should force @Founder to allow anything he doesn't want there either. He could make it specifically oriented to people who like to play disc golf in a speedo if he desired. It's his website, he can do what he wants.

The idea of Big Government intrusion telling a private business they must allow content they don't want is very dangerous.

Hello Grizzly,
To your well chosen example of the bakery, I would also add:
The idea of Big Government allowing a business to censor any content they do not agree with, is also very dangerous!
"It's my bus company and I will decide who gets to ride on my buses".
"Its my restaurant and I will decide who is allowed to eat in here".
"Its my store and I will decide if people can carry those scary concealed weapons in here".
I try to appreciate the challenges Founder is struggling with here. I completely agree that name calling, profanity, false allegations, ridicule, etc. should not be allowed!
Spirited debate, as long as it remains civil & respectful, is a necessary and good thing.
I don't know!

Elkchaser
 
Last edited:

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
So where politics ends YOU determine.

We have a new administration. Meaning a new Interior chief. Which affects hunting. More so than most everything thing else.

We also will most likely have attempts at gun control. Kind of a big deal to hunters.

So are you going to allow zero mention of both because they are political? Because otherwise YOU are censoring based upon YOUR bias. And YES its YOUR site. But you cant claim "free speech", then not allow free speech. You dont. That's not an attack, but your not a platform, even further YOU are a publisher. Ive read your posts, seen your pics, watched your videos.

That's not saying you shouldn't have some protection, but that is saying that section 230 was done in the infancy of social media, before a small group of tech companies dominated the sphere, and actively collude to control speech, which the big 3 actively do. Unless they want to do business in China, then suddenly they arent about free speech at all, and in fact will censor any attempt at it happening, like slave labor in China.

Twitter and FB shutting down the NY post, is publishing and editorializing. If the Post says Zuckerberg is a child rapist, Zuckerberg can seek redress. But Zuckerberg can say the Post is lying, and there is none.

BTW, you voted for a President that will shut down oil production on Federal lands. He also plans to ban AR-15.

So your OK with government destroying thousands of buisnesses, and millions of lives, as long as its "the other guy"?


And yes. You should be treated differently than FB. You are narrow about your audience. And you personally exchange thoughts in here.

If FB had an a "warning label" from fact checkers pointing out its a left wing site, run by staff 99% democrat" then im fine, as long as every edit, throttle, etc they do is considered a campaign donation, then so be it.

I can see who Ruger donates to. I can see who BlackbRifle Coffee supports. The same should be required across board.


But then im still sore you censored my add post😒😳😂
 
Last edited:

eelgrass

Long Time Member
Messages
25,808
What's getting FB and Twitter in trouble is they are censoring the conservative posts (in their words, deleting things that aren't true). And they are the sole judge of what is true or false. That's very dangerous.

I spend more and more time on NewTube dot com because YouTube now removes content they don't agree with too and it all just happens to be conservatives.

Although Founder leans left, at least he's had the common sense to just not allow politics, period. If he censored one side over the other, I'd be the first one to bail. I might check in once a month to view his approved grip and grin photos as a guest. At least it's easy to moderate. But I believe he's missing out on some traffic also. His call. It would be nice to have a 1 stop website where we could discuss and argue everything. Minus porn, of course.
 

grosventrehunter

Very Active Member
Messages
1,333
Welcome to the world of a farmer or rancher. Politicians who know nothing about farming think they should decide how,what,why and even where we should farm.
.
Sure seems rancher and farmers don't have an issue with the government when they receive their handouts. Just look how much ranchers pay for grazing fees. Yup they have it really bad. Is your last name Bundy by any chance.
 

larrbo

Very Active Member
Messages
1,866
I think Founder should bring the political forum back and allow members ţo voice their opinions. Because liberals can't argue policy or facts they call those they disagree with names or censor them if they have that power. Because MM members are overwhelming conservatives Founder couldn't win the argument so he shut it down. If you can't handle the heat stay out of the political forum.
 

eelgrass

Long Time Member
Messages
25,808
I think Founder should bring the political forum back and allow members ţo voice their opinions. Because liberals can't argue policy or facts they call those they disagree with names or censor them if they have that power. Because MM members are overwhelming conservatives Founder couldn't win the argument so he shut it down. If you can't handle the heat stay out of the political forum.
That needed to be said. Thanks, larrbo.
 

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
16,575
I have to chuckle over this whole thing. People running certain web sites are like the guy setting on the tree branch and sawing the branch between himself and the trunk. when he finish the sawing, he will have a painful fall.
Conservatives are not going to set back and allow this censorship to continue. They will be demanding action by Congress to curb the censorship and pass regulations that will please the lawyers in our country to make more money.
The funny part of the whole thing is that Congress has more lawyers in their group then any other profession and they would love to help their fellow brothers.
we all know what happens when Congress tries to run things, they will screw it up and that goes for both parties.

RELH
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
The idea of Big Government allowing a business to censor any content they do not agree with, is also very dangerous!

Conservatives are not going to set back and allow this censorship to continue.

It's hard to imagine a more socialistic and pro-dictatorial statement than these.

__________________

Allowing and disallowing certain viewpoints are twin brothers of a different mother, they're both forms of speech.

Allowing speech and forcing speech are the same; allowing censorship and forcing censorship are the same. Yet we're literally at a point where people are openly advocating for the federal government to be forcing businesses to allow speech that agrees with a specific viewpoint!

This would prevent like-minded individuals from peaceably assembling in a way they see fit, whether it be conservative or liberal.

People here aren't advocating for small-government or free markets or capitalism or open competition (á la Parler)... instead they want the government to force a private business owner to act a certain way or hold them personally liable for the actions of another.

This isn't even "cancel culture" via protest or groupthink, it's "cancel culture" via executive fiat.

I'm starting to think there is a significant number of Americans suffering from a political variant of Stockholm Syndrome.
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
I think Founder should bring the political forum back and allow members ţo voice their opinions. Because liberals can't argue policy or facts they call those they disagree with names or censor them if they have that power. Because MM members are overwhelming conservatives Founder couldn't win the argument so he shut it down. If you can't handle the heat stay out of the political forum.
That won’t happen. This is a hunting site. There are plenty of other political forums you can go to for that crap. It doesn’t need to be here.
BTW - It sure doesn’t feel like I lost at all. I got what I wanted. Feels like a win. :)
But let’s not take this thread to a political battle, or it’ll end.
 
Last edited:

hornkiller

Long Time Member
Messages
3,533
"The site may have been saved today by Congress"

It got political in your very 1st sentence of this thread founder!
 

Drnaln

Active Member
Messages
327
I hate to see M.M. & other small forums be hurt but Facebook, Twitter & Google have gotten too powerful. They change everything from what we buy, to who we think deserves are vote & in many cases how someone thinks! They can spread disinformation unchecked & spread their point of view to the entire world. Something needs to be done to limit their power!
 
Last edited:

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
"The site may have been saved today by Congress"

It got political in your very 1st sentence of this thread founder!
Well, the thread was supposed to be about the act and how it effects the site, not a political battle.
I should know though that anything that touch’s politics is going end up going to crap. That’s why that forum is gone (well, unless you ask larrbo as he knows more than I do why the forum is gone).
I just thought some on the site might care how removing that section 230 would bring down sites like this one, since you’re all on here making use of the site.
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
I hate to see M.M. & other small forums be hurt but Facebook, Twitter & Google have gotten too powerful. They change everything from what we buy, to who we think deserves are vote & in many cases how someone thinks! They can spread disinformation unchecked & spread their point of view to the entire world. Something need's to be done to limit their power!
I would agree for the most part, but the “something” that needs to be done shouldn’t begin with the atomic bomb that kills a bunch of small companies. The big boys would be sitting in bomb shelters, as they have the money and expertise to modify their platforms to reduce their risks. They also have loads of money to fight any lawsuits.
Well thought out legislation that takes into account the effect on everyone is needed, not just the big bomb that hurts the average person far more than a few super rich tech guys at Twitter, Google and FB.
 

Drnaln

Active Member
Messages
327
Not removing Section 230 will help certain folks & was something Trump wanted to see happen. Maybe some on here are happy for several reasons? Should be away to protect the forums that aren't running the country & rein in the abusers that sensor anything that doesn't fit their agenda?
 

Drnaln

Active Member
Messages
327
Founder....I agree with that. But if people don't admit the huge internet gods are trying to control everything nothing will get done. Just be more politicians getting richer & Big Tech gaining more power. Looking at the new cabinet picks should shed light on what are future brings. Like I said before, Something needs to be done but Not wipe out the small guys while trying to hurt Big Tech.
 

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
16,575
There would not be a move to remove sect. 230 if certain people running some web sites were not using censorship based on their political ideas. They will reap what they sow.

RELH
 

mtmuley

Long Time Member
Messages
5,285
so.... You lea
There would not be a move to remove sect. 230 if certain people running some web sites were not using censorship based on their political ideas. They will reap what they sow.

RELH
Soooooo…. you leaving? mtmuley
 

eelgrass

Long Time Member
Messages
25,808
There would not be a move to remove sect. 230 if certain people running some web sites were not using censorship based on their political ideas. They will reap what they sow.

RELH
Correct. They are hiding behind section 230.
 

Bluehair

Very Active Member
Messages
2,532
I would be very concered as well if I depended on government permission for my livelihood. There was a time when someones success depended more on freedoms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DW

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
16,575
Soooooo…. you leaving? mtmuley


Heck no ! Too much fun listening to the false excuses and whoa is me from some of the posters.
RELH
 

elkassassin

Long Time Member
Messages
25,253
Think I'll have to Agree with Larrbo!

If We Still had that Forum We Wouldn't have to Listen to the BS here on the Campfire!

I'm Not Being Rude!

Just Sayin..................!
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
It's hard to imagine a more socialistic and pro-dictatorial statement than these.

__________________

Allowing and disallowing certain viewpoints are twin brothers of a different mother, they're both forms of speech.

Allowing speech and forcing speech are the same; allowing censorship and forcing censorship are the same. Yet we're literally at a point where people are openly advocating for the federal government to be forcing businesses to allow speech that agrees with a specific viewpoint!

This would prevent like-minded individuals from peaceably assembling in a way they see fit, whether it be conservative or liberal.

People here aren't advocating for small-government or free markets or capitalism or open competition (á la Parler)... instead they want the government to force a private business owner to act a certain way or hold them personally liable for the actions of another.

This isn't even "cancel culture" via protest or groupthink, it's "cancel culture" via executive fiat.

I'm starting to think there is a significant number of Americans suffering from a political variant of Stockholm Syndrome.


If I own the streets, yards and houses, your "right" to assembly is pretty curtailed isn't it.

When Twitter or FB decided they were able to "speak truth to power", ie "fact check, they decided they were journalists.

The hunter Biden story was 100% true. The investigation started in 2018. By silencing a FACT they lost all claim to platform status.
They interjected their opinion, and their bias.
It Wasnt disinformation. It Wasnt a lie.

So yes FB and Google should be broken up under monopoly laws.

But second, FB, Twitter, YOUTUBE should also be subject to lawsuit for illegal campaign contributions.

As too "not wanting to ask tge government for permission to make a living"??? Been to a bar in Cali lately? Disneyland? Tried to open a business without a license? In fact a state, county, and city license?

The government dictates conditions of business to a majority of businesses. And most of them are very much subject to liability laws.


I by no means want MM shut down. Nor do I FB.

But honesty is being blindsided.

FB claiming platform status is like a strip club claiming its a church. The truth is not in the claims of the owners, but in what happens inside the building
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Top Bottom