Biden Administration Can't Be Sued For Pressuring Social Media Companies To Remove Misinformation, SCOTUS Ruling/

[Marener]

Just because you dismiss the threat on this forum, doesnt mean social media companies will do the same.

Its not much of a threat if it depends on factors and cooperation totally outside the control of the person making the threat.

Do you think that the Biden administrated levied such a threat against social media companies?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The fact that you didn’t respond to it is telling.

But of course it is. If nobody complains it means nothing wrong is happening...everyone knows that

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Its not much of a threat if it depends on factors and cooperation totally outside the control of the person making the threat.

Do you think that the Biden administrated levied such a threat against social media companies?

I think anytime the Fed Govt "urges" an entity to do something there is a threat of "do it or else" involved.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Under pressure from Biden and company

Was it this kind of pressure?

Trump asked Twitter to take down ‘derogatory’ tweet from Chrissy Teigen: whistleblower

Then-President Trump asked Twitter to take down a tweet from model and television personality Chrissy Teigen in 2019 because he saw it as “derogatory,” according to testimony from a Twitter whistle…

www.google.com

Navaroli testified that her supervisors told her and her team that the platform received “something of a request” from Trump to take down a tweet that Teigen posted criticizing him.

“In that particular instance, I do remember hearing that we had received a request from the White House to make sure that we evaluated this tweet and that they wanted it to come down because it was a derogatory statement directed toward the president,” Navaroli said.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I think anytime the Fed Govt "urges" an entity to do something there is a threat of "do it or else" involved.

See post 124.

 

[whitehall]

Good news for the Biden administration for a change? Maybe Schumer won't be organizing a mob to surround the Supreme Court Justice homes this time.

 

[Blisterfinger]

Another win for the good guys.

Your spelling is atrocious! It's communists

 

[bendog]

Outed?

Herself?

Are you drunk tonight?

You're male? Holy fock. Well, no offense.

The story dejour is about Biden "pressing" social media to police - mainly - covid disinformation from ten sources, with B.KennedyJr being the only one named. Yet, trump pressured the same companies earlier. And frankly your posts seem maga.

What will President Trump’s executive order do?
In May 2020, Trump issued an executive order aimed at limiting the legal protection offered by Section 230. The move came after Twitter appended fact checks to several of his tweets regarding voting by mail. The president has long feuded with big tech companies, arguing they are trying to “rig the election” against him and are masquerading as neutral while suppressing content they disagree with.

The order decries “selective censorship,” singling out Twitter. It directs his administration to consider regulations that narrow the scope of Section 230 and investigations of companies engaging in “unfair or deceptive” practices.

Trump and Section 230: What to Know

President Trump has threatened to veto a major defense funding bill because of a law that protects social media companies such as Twitter from liability for what their users post. Why is it controver…

www.cfr.org

So this is NOT Trump -good bad - Biden - good bad. THERE IS A LAW that allows social media to self regulate without getting sued (which they were and lost, so the BIPARTISAN govt gave them immunity unless ... well you can read yourself

"The decision in Stratton Oakmont encouraged ISPs to stop controlling or reviewing what content was published on their services because it opened them up to greater liability. Section 230 of the CDA was specifically enacted to overturn the court’s decision in Stratton Oakmont and to encourage ISPs to exercise oversight in-house, rather than subjecting them to liability for every statement published by a third-party using their services.

Consequently, Sec 230 added "the sixteen words that created the internet."


(c) Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
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. [my bold]

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:47%20section:230%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title47-section230)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true

There is no law prohibiting any administration from contacting social media providers to say "you're allowing multiple users to copy and paste misleading (lies) facts."

In FACT, the law cited above is based upon the belief that social media platforms WANT to be responsible citizens.

However, with the entrance of Musk and exit of the "other guy," I'm not sure that is still the situation

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

All the regular big Govt, nanny state loving fools are happy about this ruling.

Let the Govt choose what is true or not, what could ever go wrong

The cancer of social media does a piss poor job policing itself.

 

[Marener]

I think anytime the Fed Govt "urges" an entity to do something there is a threat of "do it or else" involved.

I disagree. But maybe it’s because I have a spine.

 

[Marener]

But of course it is. If nobody complains it means nothing wrong is happening...everyone knows that

Absent their complaint, surely you’d have some more concrete evidence but you appear to be relying on the “trust me bro” argument.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The cancer of social media does a piss poor job policing itself.

Freedom is often messy.

 

[0311]

Judges in the US are expected to be impartial and make decisions based on the law, not on political considerations.

However, it is acknowledged that judges may be influenced by their personal beliefs or ideologies to some extent. While judges are not supposed to be overtly political in their decision-making, their interpretations of the law can sometimes be perceived as reflecting political leanings.

The selection process for judges in the US, including appointments and elections, can also be influenced by political factors. Some judges may be nominated or elected based on their perceived alignment with certain political ideologies or parties.

Overall, while judges are meant to be independent and impartial, the reality is that politics can sometimes play a role in the judicial system. It is important for judges to uphold the rule of law and maintain their judicial

Our nation was founded as a Democratic Republic, we a Democracy. China is Communist. I know you do not like the current administration, but we as a nation is NOT a dictatorship.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Absent their complaint, surely you’d have some more concrete evidence but you appear to be relying on the “trust me bro” argument.

Nope, as I honestly do not care. If you wish to trust the Govt to always do the right thing, you are welcome to do so.

I am a tad less trusting.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Freedom is often messy.

Doing nothing seems messier.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The story dejour is about Biden "pressing" social media to police - mainly - covid disinformation from ten sources, with B.KennedyJr being the only one named. Yet, trump pressured the same companies earlier. And frankly your posts seem maga.

You should be careful, the MAGA folks will get pissed if they catch you calling me MAGA.

I am against the Govt doing this, I do not give a shit who is sitting in the White House.

I was against Trump doing it and I am against Biden doing it.

I do not trust the Govt to control what is "true" or not.

I am a big boy, I can figure that out all by myself and do not need a nanny state to do it for me.

There is no law prohibiting any administration from contacting social media providers to say "you're allowing multiple users to copy and paste misleading (lies) facts."

But there is an amendment that does. The very first one in fact.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Doing nothing seems messier.

Taking away freedom to save freedom?

Yeah, fuck that.

 

[eagle7-31]

Passing bipartisan legislation really isn’t in Trump’s wheelhouse. He spends too much time trashing his opponents to be able to lead them in a coalition.

It’s a fact that lots of things COULD happen. Doesn’t make it likely.

Saying he can legally force people to do something is an absurd stretch.

Passing bipartisan legislation really isn’t in Trump’s wheelhouse. He spends too much time trashing his opponents to be able to lead them in a coalition.

Just taking a page from the Democrat playbook, BO did the same and copied by Thief in Chief Biden.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Taking away freedom to save freedom?

Yeah, fuck that.

Social media is a choice, not a right.

 

[candycorn]

It’s always a goddamn conspiracy with you lunatics.

Said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times....the blob supporters are the exact same people who were 9/11 truthers.Same exact modus operandi, victim mentality, dismissal of any contrary evidence, etc...