GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He CLEARLY explains the difference between being a platform open to all & a publisher which can control content.

Well done President Trump

Sure, I know what it is....WAHHHHHHH!!!!, they're being mean to me!! They won't let me post lies!! Honestly, what a whiny little *****. Twitter didn't delete his tweets, didn't alter the words in his tweets (which would be censorship). They slapped a fact check tag on his tweets?..Why?...because they're unsubstantiated claims. So the media empire that basically built, enabled, and then let fester his 2016 campaign is now the enemy? Careful about biting the hand that made you!

I've had 3 posts deleted from Facebook in the last 2 months. No notification. No explanation of and infraction. Just *poof*

That is what a publisher does not an open platform.

And to be CRYSTAL CLEAR I have been calling for Social Media to be regulated for at least a year so it has nothing to docwith Trumps Twitter account. In fact I called for it LONG BEFORE Elizabeth Warren took up the issue during her campaign.

 

[Lakhota]

People are dying because of HATE speech and lies from Trump and his NaziCon supporters!

Right-Wing Radio Reaches Tens Of Millions. Its Coronavirus Conspiracies Are Out Of Control.

Talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh have spread wild misinformation about the virus as they defend Trump's botched response to the pandemic.

www.huffpost.com

Hate speech is like the coronavirus. You can't stop it, you can't eradicate it. The best you can do is vaccinate people against it, and it will eventually die off.

The best way to help kill/reduce hate speech is by VOTING.

 

[iceberg]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

you lose a lot of cred if you say twitter is being pushed around. they either allow open communication on their platform, trump included, or they choose to edit trump and then they are responsible for ALL content in the same manner as other publishers are.

having the best of both worlds isn't a solution that works for all. trying to portray people tired of being censured as "thugs" is self serving and not seeing the issue for what it is.

when you grow up enough, the rules you have to go by change. its how corporations grow up. i watched microsoft do it from inside the company and they one day got big enough to where what they did yesterday was illegal today; so to speak. so they had to alter and change and play by new rules.

to think social media isn't subject to these same rules, frankly, is bullshit.

You don’t know what you’re asking for. You will break the internet by getting what you’re asking for.

For starters, no one edited Trump.

Internet companies need protection from liability now more than ever given the massive volume of posts. Without this protection, Twitter wouldn’t exist in the first place.

maybe it shouldn't. it's basically an RSS feed on steroids anyway. and the TRUMP WILL GET HURT TOO - good. i don't give a flying flipshit about his tweets and think most of the time he does it for a reaction.

very stupid, very juvenile. however i don't go into a rage every time he does something stupid.

also - being an internet company isn't even close to the issue. twitter, facebook and these sites need to declare one of 2 things -
platform
publisher

pick your road and play by those rules.

to date "social media" has had the best of both worlds and never held accountable to crossing boundaries as their will. this sideshow bob of THE INTERNET MUST BE PROTECTED doesn't really have shit to do with what i said.

twitter can exist just fine as one or the other. but they can't keep being both.

Trump will get hurt along with everyone else that uses Twitter. And you'll burn it all down, why? Because you're butt hurt that Twitter put a "fact check" link in his tweet?

Internet companies don’t have to pick between “publisher and platform”. It’s a false dichotomy. The law states they aren’t responsible for content from users and that’s how it should stay if you enjoy user submitted content at all including posting on this site. Section 230 was made because the internet was unique and needed different laws to manage it. Section 230 was written in 1996. It’s responsible for the internet as we know it.

because it's not twitters place to do fact checking.

you and others keep pretending i am in a trump defense mode. far from it. i'm in a "stop tearing up our base rights" mode.

and INTERNET companies do not. social media companies, do. the fact you keep saying something so vastly untrue simply speaks to your overall knowledge of the topic.

if they're not responsible for the content of their users, stop correcting said users. when you do that you are crossing the line as being the authority on the topic OF WHICH, "social media" is far from the authority on accuracy.

you just illustrated the problem. social media can be not held accountable for what their posters post, yet they can correct them AND fact check them AND try to act like the authority on the topic FROM SITES THEY CHOOSE to represent facts they like.

if you don't see a problem here, then our conversation is done and i'm moving on.

 

[Muhammed]

Shows you what the POS really cares about, now doesn't it?

His EO is going nowhere. He's beyond a malignant narcissist.

Now he's going to try to dictate what private enterprises can and can't do.

But are Trumptards worried about that?

**** no.

Trump considering legislation that may scrap law that protects social media companies

He's bluffing and you know it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Shows you what the POS really cares about, now doesn't it?

His EO is going nowhere. He's beyond a malignant narcissist.

Now he's going to try to dictate what private enterprises can and can't do.

But are Trumptards worried about that?

**** no.

Trump considering legislation that may scrap law that protects social media companies

You need to be FACT CHECKED.

Trump has been on Social Medias ass for years, just like the MSM

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

We are in the midst of a pandemic. The U.S. has nearly a third of the world's confirmed cases. The U.S. has nearly a third of the world's deaths from the virus.

What is our President doing?

He is attacking Twitter.

Trump got hostile when Twitter attempted to correct Trump's outright lies in a tweet.

Trump on Thursday is set to sign an executive order that could open the door for federal regulators to punish Facebook, Google and Twitter for the way they police content online.

Trump prefers Twitter allow his lies to stand unchallenged.

The Post writes, "Trump has portrayed the expected order, the early details of which were first reported by The Washington Post late Wednesday, as an attempt to stamp out political bias on the part of the country’s largest social media platforms. His directive comes days after Twitter steered viewers of some of the president’s tweets to news articles that fact-checked his claims, a move Trump said was a form of censorship.

"But advocates for the tech sector, lawmakers in Congress and a variety of legal experts from across the political spectrum Thursday doubted the legality of Trump’s draft proposal and feared its implications for free speech. Others questioned whether the U.S. government even could carry out the order as the president intended."

Trump has been stupid enough to make the news media the enemy, calling it "fake news." That is beyond stupid because the media always has the last word, and it can pick and chose how it covers Trump, his statements and his deeds.

Now the fool is taking on the tech sector, which may have even more influence on how Americans think.

In the meantime, over 100,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus.

It is a little known concept for libtards called "freedom of speech"!

The thought-Police on the left don't believe of freedom of thought, much less freedom of speech.

Need some tissue for those Trump tears?
DiaperLoad Donnie doesn't own Twitter and Twitter is not public property.
They can manage his account as they please.

 

[iceberg]

We do need changes - The executive order is making it quite clear that they are now a content provider.

The executive order can not rewrite legislation. Twitter is not liable for the content of their users. If they were, Trump would be kicked off immediately.

THEY can be held LIABLE because the just opened up the Pandoras box by editorializing. They are now a content provider not a content platform. They now will have to police the whole twitter universe. You know that isn't gonna happen.

Nope. The language of the law is extremely basic and clear. Trump cannot rewrite law by executive order.

nope. most he can do is get the FCC to investigate them and be a PITA. unfortunately both sides are being a PITA and pushing this as far as they can go.

the gov is going to win. twitter is going to have to play by the US rules in as much as any other country they choose to be in. you think China doesn't control shit on twitter?

we need to have our laws force social media to be one or the other designation but not both.

So what then. Use government to harass private companies to help Trump?

Sounds like abuse of power.

you keep pushing trump off on me as if he has shit to do with my point.

since you are not even trying to have an open conversation where what *I* say counts vs what you want to argue with, bye.

 

[meaner gene]

The best way to help kill/reduce hate speech is by VOTING.

Which is why they put voter ID laws in place, and reject mail-in voting. It makes voting too easy.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

He CLEARLY explains the difference between being a platform open to all & a publisher which can control content.

Well done President Trump

Sure, I know what it is....WAHHHHHHH!!!!, they're being mean to me!! They won't let me post lies!! Honestly, what a whiny little *****. Twitter didn't delete his tweets, didn't alter the words in his tweets (which would be censorship). They slapped a fact check tag on his tweets?..Why?...because they're unsubstantiated claims. So the media empire that basically built, enabled, and then let fester his 2016 campaign is now the enemy? Careful about biting the hand that made you!

I've had 3 posts deleted from Facebook in the last 2 months. No notification. No explanation of and infraction. Just *poof*

That is what a publisher does not an open platform.

And to be CRYSTAL CLEAR I have been calling for Social Media to be regulated for at least a year so it has nothing to docwith Trumps Twitter account. In fact I called for it LONG BEFORE Elizabeth Warren took up the issue during her campaign.

Twitter and Facebook are privately held companies that are allowed to set their own rules and TOS.
Again, Twitter did not delete or alter his tweets. No censorship took place.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He CLEARLY explains the difference between being a platform open to all & a publisher which can control content.

Well done President Trump

Sure, I know what it is....WAHHHHHHH!!!!, they're being mean to me!! They won't let me post lies!! Honestly, what a whiny little *****. Twitter didn't delete his tweets, didn't alter the words in his tweets (which would be censorship). They slapped a fact check tag on his tweets?..Why?...because they're unsubstantiated claims. So the media empire that basically built, enabled, and then let fester his 2016 campaign is now the enemy? Careful about biting the hand that made you!

I've had 3 posts deleted from Facebook in the last 2 months. No notification. No explanation of and infraction. Just *poof*

That is what a publisher does not an open platform.

And to be CRYSTAL CLEAR I have been calling for Social Media to be regulated for at least a year so it has nothing to docwith Trumps Twitter account. In fact I called for it LONG BEFORE Elizabeth Warren took up the issue during her campaign.

Twitter and Facebook are privately held companies that are allowed to set their own rules and TOS.
Again, Twitter did not delete or alter his tweets. No censorship took place.

Wrong

They are a publicly traded company

 

[Frankeneinstein]

What are “white liberals” demanding Trump do?

that is quite ridiculous.
Are you now pretending there has hasn't been a 3 1/2 year crying fit by white liberals to get trump to stop tweeting?

(where did race play into this?)

yeah ok, [you may lose your liberal bona-fides for that remark] white liberals are the bane of America and the festering sore of the democratic party and are the ones at fault for this [and every debacle since the 60's] and your post was an attempt to share the blame with minorities and white democrats who bear no responsibility in this.

 

[Sunsettommy]

He CLEARLY explains the difference between being a platform open to all & a publisher which can control content.

Well done President Trump

Sure, I know what it is....WAHHHHHHH!!!!, they're being mean to me!! They won't let me post lies!! Honestly, what a whiny little *****. Twitter didn't delete his tweets, didn't alter the words in his tweets (which would be censorship). They slapped a fact check tag on his tweets?..Why?...because they're unsubstantiated claims. So the media empire that basically built, enabled, and then let fester his 2016 campaign is now the enemy? Careful about biting the hand that made you!

I see you being uniformed, all you have is partisan attacks, no objectivity. Hopefully this will help you understand WHY the President is removing liability protections from Twitter and other Platform groups who cross the line:

Pj Media

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order to Strip Big Tech of 'Liability Shield' for Censoring Content
BY TYLER O'NEIL MAY 28, 2020

Excerpt:

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content. Trump’s order came two days after Twitter decided to issue an extremely biased “fact-check” on two of the president’s tweets, supporting vote-by-mail practices that are at the center of a lawsuit between the California Republican Party and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.). Trump has condemned the “fact-check” as an attack on free speech.

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.”

“My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield,” the president explained. “My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”

LINK

 

[colfax_m]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

you lose a lot of cred if you say twitter is being pushed around. they either allow open communication on their platform, trump included, or they choose to edit trump and then they are responsible for ALL content in the same manner as other publishers are.

having the best of both worlds isn't a solution that works for all. trying to portray people tired of being censured as "thugs" is self serving and not seeing the issue for what it is.

when you grow up enough, the rules you have to go by change. its how corporations grow up. i watched microsoft do it from inside the company and they one day got big enough to where what they did yesterday was illegal today; so to speak. so they had to alter and change and play by new rules.

to think social media isn't subject to these same rules, frankly, is bullshit.

You don’t know what you’re asking for. You will break the internet by getting what you’re asking for.

For starters, no one edited Trump.

Internet companies need protection from liability now more than ever given the massive volume of posts. Without this protection, Twitter wouldn’t exist in the first place.

maybe it shouldn't. it's basically an RSS feed on steroids anyway. and the TRUMP WILL GET HURT TOO - good. i don't give a flying flipshit about his tweets and think most of the time he does it for a reaction.

very stupid, very juvenile. however i don't go into a rage every time he does something stupid.

also - being an internet company isn't even close to the issue. twitter, facebook and these sites need to declare one of 2 things -
platform
publisher

pick your road and play by those rules.

to date "social media" has had the best of both worlds and never held accountable to crossing boundaries as their will. this sideshow bob of THE INTERNET MUST BE PROTECTED doesn't really have shit to do with what i said.

twitter can exist just fine as one or the other. but they can't keep being both.

Trump will get hurt along with everyone else that uses Twitter. And you'll burn it all down, why? Because you're butt hurt that Twitter put a "fact check" link in his tweet?

Internet companies don’t have to pick between “publisher and platform”. It’s a false dichotomy. The law states they aren’t responsible for content from users and that’s how it should stay if you enjoy user submitted content at all including posting on this site. Section 230 was made because the internet was unique and needed different laws to manage it. Section 230 was written in 1996. It’s responsible for the internet as we know it.

because it's not twitters place to do fact checking.

you and others keep pretending i am in a trump defense mode. far from it. i'm in a "stop tearing up our base rights" mode.

and INTERNET companies do not. social media companies, do. the fact you keep saying something so vastly untrue simply speaks to your overall knowledge of the topic.

if they're not responsible for the content of their users, stop correcting said users. when you do that you are crossing the line as being the authority on the topic OF WHICH, "social media" is far from the authority on accuracy.

you just illustrated the problem. social media can be not held accountable for what their posters post, yet they can correct them AND fact check them AND try to act like the authority on the topic FROM SITES THEY CHOOSE to represent facts they like.

if you don't see a problem here, then our conversation is done and i'm moving on.

The last sentence is pretty telling to me. Do you really end conversations because people don’t agree with you? How boring.

No one asked you what Twitter’s place is. You don’t get to tell anyone what their place is. That’s not you’re right.

The relevant portion of section 230 calls these companies provider of interactive computer service. I said internet companies because the actual phrase is cumbersome. It’s not specific to social media, which didn’t really even exist in 1996 when it was made. I believe I know more about this than you, to be honest. I’ve been interested in this topic for a few years now. Some really good pieces out there explaining how important this is.

So you’re upset that Twitter can include “fact checking” articles and links next to user submitted content? Honestly, that just makes it look like you’re the one opposed to freedom of speech. Twitter is engaging in speech and that’s the problem?

 

[Ken Mac]

Twitter does not have the right to censor political posts simply because it disagrees with the content.

I think we can all agree with that. This isn't a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of fact checking..............as in Trump's tweet contained a demonstrable lie.

Yeah?

Here is twitters response:

"Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud
On Tuesday, President Trump made a series of claims about potential voter fraud after California Governor Gavin Newsom announced an effort to expand mail-in voting in California during the COVID-19 pandemic. These claims are unsubstantiated, according to CNN, Washington Post and others. Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud."

Their very first sentence is a lie. There have been over 20 case of elections being overturned due to mail in voting fraud since 1993. I'm not posting a ******* link either. Go look it up. It's all over the place. There is plenty of substantiating evidence.

So now we have to fact check Twitter's fact check. And they used CNN and WAPO as sources. YCMTSU. The most biased major media sites. What a crock of shit.

You're very much wrong.

You have nothing huh Hutch? Does Starsky have anything? Just a thumbs down. Got it.

Nothing

 

[Carl in Michigan]

IMO subsidies and / or government protections should not be given to companies that engage in trampling on Freedom of Speech

Or picking one candidate over another

 

[Ken Mac]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

you lose a lot of cred if you say twitter is being pushed around. they either allow open communication on their platform, trump included, or they choose to edit trump and then they are responsible for ALL content in the same manner as other publishers are.

having the best of both worlds isn't a solution that works for all. trying to portray people tired of being censured as "thugs" is self serving and not seeing the issue for what it is.

when you grow up enough, the rules you have to go by change. its how corporations grow up. i watched microsoft do it from inside the company and they one day got big enough to where what they did yesterday was illegal today; so to speak. so they had to alter and change and play by new rules.

to think social media isn't subject to these same rules, frankly, is bullshit.

You don’t know what you’re asking for. You will break the internet by getting what you’re asking for.

For starters, no one edited Trump.

Internet companies need protection from liability now more than ever given the massive volume of posts. Without this protection, Twitter wouldn’t exist in the first place.

maybe it shouldn't. it's basically an RSS feed on steroids anyway. and the TRUMP WILL GET HURT TOO - good. i don't give a flying flipshit about his tweets and think most of the time he does it for a reaction.

very stupid, very juvenile. however i don't go into a rage every time he does something stupid.

also - being an internet company isn't even close to the issue. twitter, facebook and these sites need to declare one of 2 things -
platform
publisher

pick your road and play by those rules.

to date "social media" has had the best of both worlds and never held accountable to crossing boundaries as their will. this sideshow bob of THE INTERNET MUST BE PROTECTED doesn't really have shit to do with what i said.

twitter can exist just fine as one or the other. but they can't keep being both.

Trump will get hurt along with everyone else that uses Twitter. And you'll burn it all down, why? Because you're butt hurt that Twitter put a "fact check" link in his tweet?

Internet companies don’t have to pick between “publisher and platform”. It’s a false dichotomy. The law states they aren’t responsible for content from users and that’s how it should stay if you enjoy user submitted content at all including posting on this site. Section 230 was made because the internet was unique and needed different laws to manage it. Section 230 was written in 1996. It’s responsible for the internet as we know it.

because it's not twitters place to do fact checking.

you and others keep pretending i am in a trump defense mode. far from it. i'm in a "stop tearing up our base rights" mode.

and INTERNET companies do not. social media companies, do. the fact you keep saying something so vastly untrue simply speaks to your overall knowledge of the topic.

if they're not responsible for the content of their users, stop correcting said users. when you do that you are crossing the line as being the authority on the topic OF WHICH, "social media" is far from the authority on accuracy.

you just illustrated the problem. social media can be not held accountable for what their posters post, yet they can correct them AND fact check them AND try to act like the authority on the topic FROM SITES THEY CHOOSE to represent facts they like.

if you don't see a problem here, then our conversation is done and i'm moving on.

The last sentence is pretty telling to me. Do you really end conversations because people don’t agree with you? How boring.

No one asked you what Twitter’s place is. You don’t get to tell anyone what their place is. That’s not you’re right.

The relevant portion of section 230 calls these companies provider of interactive computer service. I said internet companies because the actual phrase is cumbersome. It’s not specific to social media, which didn’t really even exist in 1996 when it was made. I believe I know more about this than you, to be honest. I’ve been interested in this topic for a few years now. Some really good pieces out there explaining how important this is.

So you’re upset that Twitter can include “fact checking” articles and links next to user submitted content? Honestly, that just makes it look like you’re the one opposed to freedom of speech. Twitter is engaging in speech and that’s the problem?

I have no problem with it as long as they are not shielded from liability.

 

[Ken Mac]

View attachment 342156

Hate speech and lies are killing people.

Yeah! - it's deplorable.

 

[colfax_m]

We do need changes - The executive order is making it quite clear that they are now a content provider.

The executive order can not rewrite legislation. Twitter is not liable for the content of their users. If they were, Trump would be kicked off immediately.

THEY can be held LIABLE because the just opened up the Pandoras box by editorializing. They are now a content provider not a content platform. They now will have to police the whole twitter universe. You know that isn't gonna happen.

Nope. The language of the law is extremely basic and clear. Trump cannot rewrite law by executive order.

nope. most he can do is get the FCC to investigate them and be a PITA. unfortunately both sides are being a PITA and pushing this as far as they can go.

the gov is going to win. twitter is going to have to play by the US rules in as much as any other country they choose to be in. you think China doesn't control shit on twitter?

we need to have our laws force social media to be one or the other designation but not both.

So what then. Use government to harass private companies to help Trump?

Sounds like abuse of power.

you keep pushing trump off on me as if he has shit to do with my point.

since you are not even trying to have an open conversation where what *I* say counts vs what you want to argue with, bye.

It has everything to do with Trump. Where do you think this all came from?

Later snowflake. Let me know when you grow a spine.

 

[colfax_m]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

you lose a lot of cred if you say twitter is being pushed around. they either allow open communication on their platform, trump included, or they choose to edit trump and then they are responsible for ALL content in the same manner as other publishers are.

having the best of both worlds isn't a solution that works for all. trying to portray people tired of being censured as "thugs" is self serving and not seeing the issue for what it is.

when you grow up enough, the rules you have to go by change. its how corporations grow up. i watched microsoft do it from inside the company and they one day got big enough to where what they did yesterday was illegal today; so to speak. so they had to alter and change and play by new rules.

to think social media isn't subject to these same rules, frankly, is bullshit.

You don’t know what you’re asking for. You will break the internet by getting what you’re asking for.

For starters, no one edited Trump.

Internet companies need protection from liability now more than ever given the massive volume of posts. Without this protection, Twitter wouldn’t exist in the first place.

maybe it shouldn't. it's basically an RSS feed on steroids anyway. and the TRUMP WILL GET HURT TOO - good. i don't give a flying flipshit about his tweets and think most of the time he does it for a reaction.

very stupid, very juvenile. however i don't go into a rage every time he does something stupid.

also - being an internet company isn't even close to the issue. twitter, facebook and these sites need to declare one of 2 things -
platform
publisher

pick your road and play by those rules.

to date "social media" has had the best of both worlds and never held accountable to crossing boundaries as their will. this sideshow bob of THE INTERNET MUST BE PROTECTED doesn't really have shit to do with what i said.

twitter can exist just fine as one or the other. but they can't keep being both.

Trump will get hurt along with everyone else that uses Twitter. And you'll burn it all down, why? Because you're butt hurt that Twitter put a "fact check" link in his tweet?

Internet companies don’t have to pick between “publisher and platform”. It’s a false dichotomy. The law states they aren’t responsible for content from users and that’s how it should stay if you enjoy user submitted content at all including posting on this site. Section 230 was made because the internet was unique and needed different laws to manage it. Section 230 was written in 1996. It’s responsible for the internet as we know it.

because it's not twitters place to do fact checking.

you and others keep pretending i am in a trump defense mode. far from it. i'm in a "stop tearing up our base rights" mode.

and INTERNET companies do not. social media companies, do. the fact you keep saying something so vastly untrue simply speaks to your overall knowledge of the topic.

if they're not responsible for the content of their users, stop correcting said users. when you do that you are crossing the line as being the authority on the topic OF WHICH, "social media" is far from the authority on accuracy.

you just illustrated the problem. social media can be not held accountable for what their posters post, yet they can correct them AND fact check them AND try to act like the authority on the topic FROM SITES THEY CHOOSE to represent facts they like.

if you don't see a problem here, then our conversation is done and i'm moving on.

The last sentence is pretty telling to me. Do you really end conversations because people don’t agree with you? How boring.

No one asked you what Twitter’s place is. You don’t get to tell anyone what their place is. That’s not you’re right.

The relevant portion of section 230 calls these companies provider of interactive computer service. I said internet companies because the actual phrase is cumbersome. It’s not specific to social media, which didn’t really even exist in 1996 when it was made. I believe I know more about this than you, to be honest. I’ve been interested in this topic for a few years now. Some really good pieces out there explaining how important this is.

So you’re upset that Twitter can include “fact checking” articles and links next to user submitted content? Honestly, that just makes it look like you’re the one opposed to freedom of speech. Twitter is engaging in speech and that’s the problem?

I have no problem with it as long as they are not shielded from liability.

Why do you want Twitter to be liable for user content?

Give me a good reason. What good would come
of that?

 

[Ken Mac]

I've heard plenty of conservatives here say that they've been banned from this and that site for being conservatives. Why is it legal for those sites but not for Twitter? I don't understand.

I'm not a conservative [I do have conservative leanings] and I've never been banned from anywhere but my post was in reference to "legalities" within the law, I know that may not be obvious from my post but the post was just off the cuff and not intended to be anything more than some clarity regarding that [it certainly was not meant to be the "end all be all" definition of trump or twitters behavior]... and censorship even of the "acceptable and legal" variety" is still censorship... fighting censorship in all its forms was once a great source of pride for Democrats, it is now just another weapon used against America by white liberals who pretend they are defenders of our constitution.

go to r/politics on redit. Post something that disagrees in a very gentle way and see how long you last. I was kicked within five minutes.