What a shock! Talking, the site that falsely claimed it would be the „free expression“ alternative to Twitter, but which quickly realized that it also had to aggressively ban users, seems to suffer from the task. As reported by the Daily Beast, many of its loudest supporters seem to have disappeared from the platform and prefer Twitter instead. This clause should, however, make Ted Cruz and any other user Talk About High Supporters of Section 230. Now, we already know that Cruz hates Section 230, has often misinterpreted it and supported calls to get rid of him, because he mistakenly thought it would prevent moderation of content against the Nazis or something else. From a user experience, the platform reflects Twitter, only with different lingo. In the same way that you retweeted or as a tweet, the user can „echo“ or „upvote“ a „Parley.“ Messages can contain up to 1000 characters as well as images, GIFs or videos. To access certain functions such as direct messaging, you need to provide proof of identity. I wouldn`t call it quite „reverse clause 230“ and I think some of the shouting about this clause is a bit exaggerated (many other platforms have similar compensation clauses, although many are at least a little more limited to situations where users have actually broken any law). legal.parler.com/documents/useragreement.pdf Forgive my lack of understanding. Are you sure that the section protects users of site 230? I thought it protected websites from users, not the other way around. You may not be doing it on purpose, but I would imagine that if other users were to pay the site`s legal fees, which indicate that not all animals are treated in the same way, could be quite complicated for the site.
As I said before, I think the competition is good. And personally, I would prefer that there be many more competitors (although I would like them to be interoperable implementations of a protocol rather than individual silos, but…). So I have nothing against Talking. In fact, I think it`s a great demonstration of why concerns about „dominance“ by Twitter or other platforms is stupid. It is possible to create alternatives, and Talk has shown that it is capable of attracting a number of users. At least for now. Talking also prohibits sharing „Rumors about other users/people you know are false.“ And while they call it defamatory, legal standards for defamation go far beyond that. Banning „rumors about other users/people you know are false“ will create Speak judgments to determine what is written and what is not. Do you have an example? All the clicks agree that I`ve seen that the compensation mentioned is as broad as this one. (The Free Software Foundation`s written agreement for copyright transfer states that „the developer is not required to defend FSF against any false property rights that are harmful… – the only time I`ve seen such a thing.) Technology analyst Benedict Evans says every growing platform should be severe.