Are you on Twitter?

[Gracie]

If so...might wanna post a link to usmb. They are bailing left and right and heading to Parler. Personally...I don't like the layout there and some agree with me. Some like it. Some are seeking.

Would be cool to get some new folks here. So...tweet a link!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Not on Twitwaffle nor Fakebook.

No interest in left loon platforms. I have enough issues on this clown site

 

[Preacher]

Yea on twitter,fb,instagram and tiktok

 

[OldLady]

If so...might wanna post a link to usmb. They are bailing left and right and heading to Parler. Personally...I don't like the layout there and some agree with me. Some like it. Some are seeking.

Would be cool to get some new folks here. So...tweet a link!

Why are they bailing? Do I really need to bake a double batch of cookies?

 

[Marion Morrison]

I'm on there. This is my avatar:

 

[JoeMoma]

I'm on the pot.

 

[TNHarley]

Not on Twitwaffle nor Fakebook.

No interest in left loon platforms. I have enough issues on this clown site

Twitwaffle lol
Crazy ass

 

[fncceo]

I talk to my friends face-to-face.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Not on Twitwaffle nor Fakebook.

No interest in left loon platforms. I have enough issues on this clown site

Twitwaffle lol
Crazy ass

Crazy like a fox ...

 

[Gracie]

If so...might wanna post a link to usmb. They are bailing left and right and heading to Parler. Personally...I don't like the layout there and some agree with me. Some like it. Some are seeking.

Would be cool to get some new folks here. So...tweet a link!

Why are they bailing? Do I really need to bake a double batch of cookies?

New rules....placing fact check links in Trumps tweets and those fact check places are cnn, nbc, etc etc and are actually legit fact check places. Shadowbanning conservatives, fucking with conservatives account/followers/retweets, etc etc etc. In short...it caused Trump to do this:

"A small handful of social media monopolies controls a vast portion of all public and private communications in the United States," he claimed. "They've had unchecked power to censor, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter, virtually any form of communication between private citizens and large public audiences."
The executive order tests the boundaries of the White House's authority. In a long-shot legal bid, it seeks to curtail the power of large social media platforms by reinterpreting a critical 1996 law that shields websites and tech companies from lawsuits.

 

[Gracie]

Anywho...many SAID they are leaving twitter..and have done so. All its gonna take is one more banning of James Woods, Trump, or other high profile user and I'd say most conservatives will bail because what they tweet doesn't stay. It gets deleted, even if they say the sky is blue.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Not sure anyone really cares about the law in this..but Trump's XO is a fart in the wind..nothing more:

Legal experts 'ratio' Trump's executive order aimed at social media companies

The executive order, signed Thursday, would direct several parts of the federal government to examine the conduct of Internet companies with an eye toward further restrictions. But any such move would accomplish very little under a law passed at the dawn of the Internet age and because an executive order cannot change the law.
In 1996, Congress said websites cannot be held legally responsible for the content posted by their users. That's true whether Internet companies simply automatically pass along whatever is submitted or screen it beforehand.
The law also protects a website's efforts to remove content that's obscene, violent or otherwise violates its terms of service. Congress especially wanted to prevent the posting of child pornography.
Trump's order, however, said those companies lose that legal protection if they restrict the views that can be expressed on their websites. Online platforms "are engaging in selective censorship that is hurting our national discourse," the order says.
But legal experts said that's not how the law works.
"Twitter, Facebook and the like are immune as platforms regardless of whether they edit, including in a politicized way," said Prof. Eugene Volokh, a conservative legal scholar at UCLA. "Like it or not, this was a deliberate decision by Congress."
Some might prefer a different model, in which websites that restrict a user's speech become liable for the speech they allow. "But Congress rejected this model," Volokh said.
That's been the settled law for more than 25 years, according to Prof. Eric Goldman, who teaches Internet law at Santa Clara University.
"The whole point of the law was to give Internet companies the power to decide what they thought was fit for their audience," he said. "It was intended to encourage and protect editorial discretion, not to eliminate it."
While the executive order directs the Federal Communications Commission to consider imposing new rules, Goldman said, "The FCC has no authority over this, because Congress hasn't delegated that authority. The FCC's opinion doesn't count."

 

[candycorn]

Yea on twitter,fb,instagram and tiktok

Same... and a few others.

 

[Dekster]

Yes I am in twitter. No I will not be joining Parler.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Yes I am in twitter. No I will not be joining Parler.

Twitter is for the far left. I have no idea why Trump doesnt take his followers elsewhere and use twitter only to redirect his potential audience

 

[Mr Natural]

Twitter is for the far left. I have no idea why Trump doesnt take his followers elsewhere and use twitter only to redirect his potential audience

Because He’s a petty little man who will not condone anyone questioning or disagreeing with anything He says.

 

[Dekster]

Yes I am in twitter. No I will not be joining Parler.

Twitter is for the far left. I have no idea why Trump doesnt take his followers elsewhere and use twitter only to redirect his potential audience

Trump can do as he likes. I don't do much politicking on twitter.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

I was on twitter to follow Rangers FC. However I deleted. Kinda pointless.

 

[Oddball]

Not sure anyone really cares about the law in this..but Trump's XO is a fart in the wind..nothing more:

Legal experts 'ratio' Trump's executive order aimed at social media companies

The executive order, signed Thursday, would direct several parts of the federal government to examine the conduct of Internet companies with an eye toward further restrictions. But any such move would accomplish very little under a law passed at the dawn of the Internet age and because an executive order cannot change the law.
In 1996, Congress said websites cannot be held legally responsible for the content posted by their users. That's true whether Internet companies simply automatically pass along whatever is submitted or screen it beforehand.
The law also protects a website's efforts to remove content that's obscene, violent or otherwise violates its terms of service. Congress especially wanted to prevent the posting of child pornography.
Trump's order, however, said those companies lose that legal protection if they restrict the views that can be expressed on their websites. Online platforms "are engaging in selective censorship that is hurting our national discourse," the order says.
But legal experts said that's not how the law works.
"Twitter, Facebook and the like are immune as platforms regardless of whether they edit, including in a politicized way," said Prof. Eugene Volokh, a conservative legal scholar at UCLA. "Like it or not, this was a deliberate decision by Congress."
Some might prefer a different model, in which websites that restrict a user's speech become liable for the speech they allow. "But Congress rejected this model," Volokh said.
That's been the settled law for more than 25 years, according to Prof. Eric Goldman, who teaches Internet law at Santa Clara University.
"The whole point of the law was to give Internet companies the power to decide what they thought was fit for their audience," he said. "It was intended to encourage and protect editorial discretion, not to eliminate it."
While the executive order directs the Federal Communications Commission to consider imposing new rules, Goldman said, "The FCC has no authority over this, because Congress hasn't delegated that authority. The FCC's opinion doesn't count."

"Legal experts say"....

Given the shit show that the "experts" have made of the last few months, I'd pas on lending any such "experts" any credibility.

 

[Meister]

I just deactivated my account