Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
problem solved
Cruz: Twitter and Facebook and Big Tech billionaires don't get to censor political speech and actively interfere in the election
Of course they do. That’s freedom.
No. Maybe in your home country but not in America.
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotionalresponses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3]either for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.
Don't derail my thread, foreigner. We are discussing censorship and if you want to get granular how Twitter and FB seem to only censor the people with whom they politically disagree.
I was discussing the topic before you tried to derail the thread with your trolling.
Twitter and FB are companies, they don’t have political views. There’s takedowns of people on both sides of the aisle. To say otherwise is ignorant. They just don’t want to be home to Russian disinformation, fringe conspiracy theories or violent extremism. I don’t blame them one bit. There’s plenty of places on the internet to do so and if you can’t find one, go ahead and start your own website.
Then why do FB and Twitter claim they are just like AT&T and should be regulated the same way? They should be regulated as a content provider not a content disseminator.ATT is not broadcasting anyone’s phone conversations for the entire public to see. If you want to start a website where people can broadcast their views of Holocaust denial, be my guest. No one is stopping you. But forcing Facebook to do so is going to end badly.FB should not censor. If people want to deny the Holocaust they should be free to do so. FB says they should be regulated like AT&T. If I am on the phone with you and your annoying British accent and you deny the Holocaust, AT&T will not censor you.Just giving my opinion. Does that offend you?"I find"Discrimination based on characteristics such as race, religion etc I find appalling. Discrimination based on people acting like idiots, I don’t disagree with. Facebook also doesn’t allow Holocaust denial. Who here wants to see Facebook turn into the place to go for talking about how the Holocaust never happened?Crazy how now the left support businesses doing their own thing.
Crazy how the right now want businesses not to run their own property how they see fit.
Bunch of disingenuous hacks
Say it again, goober. Then, think about it.
What a dumb question.Censorship has no place? Does that mean people should be able to post porn here?
Yes.
You’re not being very precise so there’s bound to be misunderstanding eventually.But they aren't consistent as my OP states and again they cannot say regulate me like AT&T when they are nothing like AT&T. They can do as they wish to your point but should be regulated accordingly. Even the CEO of Twitter admitted they made a mistake. And why ban people? Why not just delete the story? A lot of inconsistent behavior, eh Brit?
Technically there is room for any propaganda in America and for those who call it out. It’s called free speech. Those who deny that or rationalize denying that are essentially propagandists utilizing omission.There is no place for RUSSIAN propaganda in AMERICA.
They don’t.Then why do FB and Twitter claim they are just like AT&T and should be regulated the same way?
You're not listening, Brit. THEY said they want to be regulated like AT&T and or Verizon as disseminators of information and not like the NYT, which is a content provider. Obviously that isn't the case. Dorsey has more cred than you on this. His company, his policies and he admitted they made a mistake.You’re not being very precise so there’s bound to be misunderstanding eventually.But they aren't consistent as my OP states and again they cannot say regulate me like AT&T when they are nothing like AT&T. They can do as they wish to your point but should be regulated accordingly. Even the CEO of Twitter admitted they made a mistake. And why ban people? Why not just delete the story? A lot of inconsistent behavior, eh Brit?
But internet companies are regulated like internet companies. They’re not regulated like phone companies because they aren’t phone companies. There are different regulations for different kinds of businesses, obviously.
Dorsey is welcome to his opinion.
Except they do. Glad you learned something today, eh Brit?They don’t.Then why do FB and Twitter claim they are just like AT&T and should be regulated the same way?
I'd love to talk to Dorsey about this, not you, because he actually knows what he's talking about.You're not listening, Brit. THEY said they want to be regulated like AT&T and or Verizon as disseminators of information and not like the NYT, which is a content provider. Obviously that isn't the case. Dorsey has more cred than you on this. His company, his policies and he admitted they made a mistake.
then take your papers back there.There is no place for RUSSIAN propaganda in AMERICA.
No, they don't. I don't think I'm going to learn anything from you today.Except they do. Glad you learned something today, eh Brit?
problem solved
Cruz: Twitter and Facebook and Big Tech billionaires don't get to censor political speech and actively interfere in the election
Of course they do. That’s freedom.
No. Maybe in your home country but not in America.
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotionalresponses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3]either for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.
sure they do. here, facebook.No, they don't. I don't think I'm going to learn anything from you today.Except they do. Glad you learned something today, eh Brit?
www.vox.com
sure they do. here, facebook.No, they don't. I don't think I'm going to learn anything from you today.Except they do. Glad you learned something today, eh Brit?
Don’t ask whether Facebook can be regulated. Ask which Facebook to regulate.
Zuckerberg says Facebook needs the "right" regulation. That means defining what Facebook is.
The question of what the “right” regulation for Facebook might be is a very complicated one. To understand why, a quick look at the second day of hearings might be helpful. Zuckerberg stood Wednesday before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where Chair Greg Walden (R-OR) asked him, “Is Facebook a media company?”
“I consider us to be a technology company,” Zuckerberg replied.
Yet Twitter picks and chooses making them a content provider. We'll see how Congress decides, Brit.I'd love to talk to Dorsey about this, not you, because he actually knows what he's talking about.You're not listening, Brit. THEY said they want to be regulated like AT&T and or Verizon as disseminators of information and not like the NYT, which is a content provider. Obviously that isn't the case. Dorsey has more cred than you on this. His company, his policies and he admitted they made a mistake.
Yes, they want to be regulated as disseminators of information. That doesn't mean they want to be regulated "like ATT or Verizon", that means they want to be regulated as all internet content providers have been regulated for the last 25 years which is probably the only reason that social media exists in the first place.
The NYT doesn't allow random users to make accounts and publish in their newspaper. They can control everything that goes out of their business. There's 500 million Tweets per day. That's many, many orders of magnitude than the content produced daily by the NY Times. There's no way anyone can control or be responsible for that level of information.
sure they do. here, facebook.No, they don't. I don't think I'm going to learn anything from you today.Except they do. Glad you learned something today, eh Brit?
Don’t ask whether Facebook can be regulated. Ask which Facebook to regulate.
Zuckerberg says Facebook needs the "right" regulation. That means defining what Facebook is.
The question of what the “right” regulation for Facebook might be is a very complicated one. To understand why, a quick look at the second day of hearings might be helpful. Zuckerberg stood Wednesday before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where Chair Greg Walden (R-OR) asked him, “Is Facebook a media company?”
“I consider us to be a technology company,” Zuckerberg replied.
Nothing in your link says that they want to be regulated like ATT.
There's serious problems trying to cram Facebook or any other social media company into the regulations for other companies.
Is it a media company like CBS? No. Obviously not. Is it a communications company like Verizon? No. Obviously not.
It's different than those so it should be regulated differently (which is what we already did in the 90s). Why can't we just admit that? Why do we have to put it in a preexisting box? Like's just make a new box.
www.cnet.com
Obviously it was good enough to TRIGGER you!!!Really? That's the only thing you could come up with?There is no place for RUSSIAN propaganda in AMERICA.
Congress already did decide. Decades ago. Picking and choosing is pretty important to the viability of these companies. Prior to the law change, internet companies were prohibited from picking and choosing, which meant that their message boards could pretty easily fill up with really objectionable content and there was nothing they could do about it without risking liability. That's how these businesses could actually grow in the first place.Yet Twitter picks and chooses making them a content provider. We'll see how Congress decides, Brit.
I agree. It's the most important law protecting free speech online.Section 230 is a provision of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996. A number of tech industry observers say it's the most important law protecting free speech online.
The provision essentially protects companies that host user-created content from lawsuits over posts on their services. The law shields not only internet service providers, like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, but also social media platforms, like Facebook, Twitter and Google.
