GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[mudwhistle]

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.

We'll see about that.
Personally I think you're a friggen retard to think Censorship of any kind is a good thing.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

People can tell Trump to get off twitter. Trump is the one using actual force with his demands.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Go to r/conservative and you’ll get kicked off just as quick.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hmm....So you now support elected officials using their office to punish their perceived political enemies? Curious.

The only thing 'curious' is how you got the ridiculous bullshit you wrote above from Republicans taking action to protect / defend Free Speech and ensure the govt does not offer protection from accountability to private companies attempting to prevent the equal /fair exchange of ideas and discussion.

Oh wait - it's not curious at all. It all makes sense:

View attachment 342108

Sure. Protect the "free speech" of the president.

It is curious that you either don't see it or you're fine with it. Curious because you lost your shit when you thought Obama did that with the IRS. You're still losing your shit over Obamagate.
Yet here you are cheering for legislstors to change laws for no other reason than to accomodate the president while at the same time, punishing his enemies.

View attachment 342145

You're comparing apples and oranges. However if you do want to compare the two... Obama weaponized the IRS against people who opposed him namely conservatives by auditing them just because of who they were and Twitter apparently wants to be weaponized against the same people namely conservatives. Sounds like there's some cultural discrimination going on there.

Are you saying that liberal posters won't be able to post if this goes through? I seriously doubt that might happen.

*****CHUCKLE******

Are you saying that liberal posters won't be able to post if this goes through? I seriously doubt that might happen.

I'm not saying that at all, dope.
Re-read your own post and see if you can find the flaws in your logic.

View attachment 342149

I see no flaws in my logic.

I'm just here for the turkey shoot.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I see no flaws in my logic.

I'm just here for the turkey shoot.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I expected nothing more.

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

The problem does not lie with Trump. He was just the one that was the receiver on the first Twitter play. The problem is in Twitter overstepping their boundaries and editorializing If you don't see a problem with that then you will when you see some horseshit you disagree with thrown your way on Twitter.

 

[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.

Go to r/conservative and you’ll get kicked off just as quick.

That is correct. There are terms of use with every discussion group.

 

[occupied]

God what a fucking baby. The president is using the power of his office to have a feud with Twitter. It's like beating up the newspaper box for taking your quarter.

 

[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.

The problem does not lie with Trump. He was just the one that was the receiver on the first Twitter play. The problem is in Twitter overstepping their boundaries and editorializing If you don't see a problem with that then you will when you see some horseshit you disagree with thrown your way on Twitter.

Does Twitter not have a right to express speech? What’s so bad with editorializing?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Hmm....So you now support elected officials using their office to punish their perceived political enemies? Curious.

The only thing 'curious' is how you got the ridiculous bullshit you wrote above from Republicans taking action to protect / defend Free Speech and ensure the govt does not offer protection from accountability to private companies attempting to prevent the equal /fair exchange of ideas and discussion.

Oh wait - it's not curious at all. It all makes sense:

View attachment 342108

Sure. Protect the "free speech" of the president.

It is curious that you either don't see it or you're fine with it. Curious because you lost your shit when you thought Obama did that with the IRS. You're still losing your shit over Obamagate.
Yet here you are cheering for legislstors to change laws for no other reason than to accomodate the president while at the same time, punishing his enemies.

View attachment 342145

You're comparing apples and oranges. However if you do want to compare the two... Obama weaponized the IRS against people who opposed him namely conservatives by auditing them just because of who they were and Twitter apparently wants to be weaponized against the same people namely conservatives. Sounds like there's some cultural discrimination going on there.

Are you saying that liberal posters won't be able to post if this goes through? I seriously doubt that might happen.

*****CHUCKLE******

Are you saying that liberal posters won't be able to post if this goes through? I seriously doubt that might happen.

I'm not saying that at all, dope.
Re-read your own post and see if you can find the flaws in your logic.

View attachment 342149

I see no flaws in my logic.

I'm just here for the turkey shoot.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I see no flaws in my logic.

I'm just here for the turkey shoot.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I expected nothing more.

That's what I got from you in the first place.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Penelope]

"Sen. Josh (R-Mo.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday separately announced they were both working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal protections that ensure the company is not held liable for what is posted on its platform.

Both Hawley and Gaetz argued that Twitter’s decision to flag the tweets called its legal liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act into question. Section 230 protects social media platforms from facing lawsuits over what users post.

Hawley sent a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday questioning why the platform should be given Section 230 protections and tweeted that he would soon introduce legislation to end “government giveaways” under the legal shield.

“If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users’ posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers”


IMO subsidies and / or government protections should not be given to companies that engage in trampling on Freedom of Speech. Yes, Twitter (and Facebook) is a privately owned and run company and can operate as they see fit ... but they can do so without tax dollars or protections from a government that supports and defends the Constitution which affords the right of Freedom of Speech to all Americans.

Hillicon Valley: House FISA bill in jeopardy | Democrats drop controversial surveillance measure | GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

Welcome to Hillicon Valley, The Hill’s newsletter detailing all you need to know about the tech and cyber news from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley. If you don’t already, be sure to sign up fo…

thehill.com

Republicans working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday separately announced they were both working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal protections that ensure the company&nb…

thehill.com

.

 

[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.

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.

My argument does not.

If you want to pretend this is your side vs Trump that's on you.

But stop projecting that shit on me.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Go to r/conservative and you’ll get kicked off just as quick.

That is correct. There are terms of use with every discussion group.

Those terms constitute censorship (by their own definition).

 

[Sunsettommy]

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 have no clue what is going on, it has NOTHING to do with whether Trump is lying or not, it is about how Twitter reacts to them.

Trump has now removed liability protection from Twitter and similar groups, that is all he did. Twitter screwed up, allowing Trump to make these executive decision, as pointed out in a post I made elsewhere:

With his tweets about Scarborough's intern, Trump set a trap for Twitter

POST 95

=======

Do you understand how Twitter screwed up.... yet?

 

[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.

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 end conversations because you are not having one. You are projecting your shit on me and acting as if that's OK. If you don't want to talk about things wo a Trump focus, thats on you and fine.

But stop the arrogance that I have to be a part of it. I have zero interest in making every fucking discussion about Trump.

Ergo yes. I end stupid convos.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Interesting, not versed on the legalities But...Trump Chose twitter if he doesn't like the way they do business he can Chose to not use them & go back to the way past presidents have communicated with the people, press briefings, and official statements.

LOL, Trump does numerous press briefings every week.

Many times before he board the Helicopter or Airplane, he stops to chat with reporters.

He is far more accessible than Obama ever was.

The vast majority of what comes out of Trump’s mouth is useless. He talks a lot. He says very little.

LOL, are you trying to support sarte's statement?

Good luck trying.....

 

[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.

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

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

You can't be a referee and then say "It wasn't me! - they said it! I'm just injecting my opinion". Well that "Opinion" has consequences. It makes you the arbiter and decision maker on what is correct. Used by evil people (which there are plenty of when they have a heavy bias), it will shape the political landscape. That is in, no fucking way shape or form, Twitters job. Let people decide for themselves. if you want corporations to run our world to a degree WAY fucking higher than today - in fact to the point of tyranny and authoritarianism, then by all means support their effort. This is a very slippery slope. one step and we're all fucked of our freedoms of thought and expression.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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 fucking 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

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

Nothing

What more is required?

 

[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.

My argument does not.

If you want to pretend this is your side vs Trump that's on you.

But stop projecting that shit on me.

Don’t pretend that he is at the very center or this.

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

The problem does not lie with Trump. He was just the one that was the receiver on the first Twitter play. The problem is in Twitter overstepping their boundaries and editorializing If you don't see a problem with that then you will when you see some horseshit you disagree with thrown your way on Twitter.

Does Twitter not have a right to express speech? What’s so bad with editorializing?

Because you are letting a Private (publicly owned) company dictate what is misleading and untruthful. They then get the green light to shape the discussion. You don't see a problem with that? Jeebus, how many times have the liberals complained about companies making political donations? That's very weak compared to shaping the conversation.

Twitter is all about fact checking. Don't know if you've been there (obviously not) but if you post something that is slightly off you will hear about it. To the nth degree. The public does a much better job and keeps companies out of the conversation.

 

[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.

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?

You can't be a referee and then say "It wasn't me! - they said it! I'm just injecting my opinion". Well that "Opinion" has consequences. It makes you the arbiter and decision maker on what is correct. Used by evil people (which there are plenty of when they have a heavy bias), it will shape the political landscape. That is in, no fucking way shape or form, Twitters job. Let people decide for themselves. if you want corporations to run our world to a degree WAY fucking higher than today - in fact to the point of tyranny and authoritarianism, then by all means support their effort. This is a very slippery slope. one step and we're all fucked of our freedoms of thought and expression.

If you are going to claim FACT over someone else, that carries responsibility.