GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Long video, but very interesting details provided.

Will it work?

I only see two likely ways this could play out:

1. Twitter/Facebook et al could just accept their status as publishers and start banning more people/speech and further demonstrate their left-wing bias, which could lead to a mass exodus or boycott, including losses of advertising used to support their businesses.

2. They could stop acting like brown shirts or Heinrich Himmler and the SS, and only edit content under 230 (as will need to be clearly defined by the FCC or whomever) and they get to continue as mere platforms with 230 protections.

I am interested in how this will affect Google, given their seriously-troubling search content editing and manipulation. They have the most to lose by this, and their actions are clearly demonstrable.

.

 

[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.

Those terms constitute censorship (by their own definition).

No they don't - they are private groups and if you want to belong you have to go by the rules. I don't think churches would let someone into the church to get up on the altar and preach about how good Satan is, now would they.

I'm not required to let someone in on my block party if I don't like them, now do I.

Completely different. Doesn't equate to a platform provider.

 

[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 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?

You disagreed with my post but provided not information on why my post displeased you. Do you have something to offer? If not - fuck off.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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

Now you're just throwing out words willy-nilly

 

[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 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?

No he doesn't.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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 bitch. 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!

You clearly didn't watch the video and appear as informed on this topic as a dead goat.

Twitter cannot make EDITORIAL decisions (slap a fact check tag on a tweet) without becoming an unprotected entity under 230.

Google cannot make search engine modifications to hide content in an editorial fashion without opening themselves up to liability for any defamatory information on the internet. They give up those protections by playing arbiters of "truth."

Now, take your uninformed troll bitching elsewhere.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Post #10 applies to you too.

.

 

[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?

You disagreed with my post but provided not information on why my post displeased you. Do you have something to offer? If not - fuck off.

You disagreed with my post but provided not information on why my post displeased you. Do you have something to offer? If not - fuck off.

I'm not required to respond, cupcake.

 

[occupied]

Long video, but very interesting details provided.

Will it work?

I only see two likely ways this could play out:

1. Twitter/Facebook et al could just accept their status as publishers and start banning more people/speech and further demonstrate their left-wing bias, which could lead to a mass exodus or boycott, including losses of advertising used to support their businesses.

2. They could stop acting like brown shirts or Heinrich Himmler and the SS, and only edit content under 230 (as will need to be clearly defined by the FCC or whomever) and they get to continue as mere platforms with 230 protections.

I am interested in how this will affect Google, given their seriously-troubling search content editing and manipulation. They have the most to lose by this, and their actions are clearly demonstrable.

.

Twitter could just ban him from the platform for attacking the moderation and management of the board. Very much within their rights to do that.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Order To Weaken Social Media Companies

President Trump signs an executive order aimed at limiting the broad legal protections enjoyed by social media companies days after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets.

www.npr.org

I suppose the First Amendment only limits The Congress to obey the First Amendment, and once again Donald Trump believes he is above the law, even when that law it not statutory, but number one in the Bill of Rights. What next, locking up those who criticize him with no regards to the 4th, 5th and 6th articles in the Bill of Rights?

 

[OldLady]

to receive federal funding they had to sign a non discrimination agreement and a they can't take political sides agreement?

I looked but I couldn't find where twitter was receiving federal funding.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because you’d force companies back to the 90s before the section 230 was enacted.

Two choices.
No moderation which allows the assholes to post whatever they want in order to keep civil litigation immunity.

Accept legal responsibility for everything posted on the platform which would result in the vast majority of people being kicked off.

It looks like they acted like commie newspapers and forced themselves back there.

Who is to blame?

No moderation which allows the assholes to post whatever they want in order to keep civil litigation immunity.

Being an asshole is not 230 content. Stating an opinion is not 230 content.

You're just mad because the actions of communist goose-stepping owners of big tech in limiting political speech that you and commies like you hate is causing them to be stripped of liability protections.

The communist revolution is even more bleak now.


.

 

[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 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?

You disagreed with my post but provided not information on why my post displeased you. Do you have something to offer? If not - fuck off.

You disagreed with my post but provided not information on why my post displeased you. Do you have something to offer? If not - fuck off.

I'm not required to respond, cupcake.

Like I said - You have nothing. My post is only full of truth on the matter. There is no misleading or untruthful information made by me. So you thumbs down is meaningless. Empty, Void, Empty set, Vacuous...

 

[iceberg]

to receive federal funding they had to sign a non discrimination agreement and a they can't take political sides agreement?

I looked but I couldn't find where twitter was receiving federal funding.

Yea they lost me on that one. Why would they have fed funding?

 

[fncceo]

All of your posts are hyper-partisan. Let's not pretend for a single-second that if someone from your party had the reins of power, you wouldn't celebrate the same action as social justice.

 

[iceberg]

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?

You disagreed with my post but provided not information on why my post displeased you. Do you have something to offer? If not - fuck off.

You disagreed with my post but provided not information on why my post displeased you. Do you have something to offer? If not - fuck off.

I'm not required to respond, cupcake.

Now if only you'd not respond more often.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So

Long video, but very interesting details provided.

Will it work?

I only see two likely ways this could play out:

1. Twitter/Facebook et al could just accept their status as publishers and start banning more people/speech and further demonstrate their left-wing bias, which could lead to a mass exodus or boycott, including losses of advertising used to support their businesses.

2. They could stop acting like brown shirts or Heinrich Himmler and the SS, and only edit content under 230 (as will need to be clearly defined by the FCC or whomever) and they get to continue as mere platforms with 230 protections.

I am interested in how this will affect Google, given their seriously-troubling search content editing and manipulation. They have the most to lose by this, and their actions are clearly demonstrable.

.

Twitter could just ban him from the platform for attacking the moderation and management of the board. Very much within their rights to do that.

Social Media censorship goes well beyond Trump.

Fixiating on one individual in a sea of censorship is beyond stupid.

 

[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.

Post #10 applies to you too.

.

You keep saying what Twitter and others cannot do but what is Trump actually allowed to do by EO? We all know anything he tries is going to court not to be settled until much later if at all. Trump is just going to have to settle for not being able to spread potentially dangerous misinformation on Twitter.

 

[colfax_m]

Because you’d force companies back to the 90s before the section 230 was enacted.

Two choices.
No moderation which allows the assholes to post whatever they want in order to keep civil litigation immunity.

Accept legal responsibility for everything posted on the platform which would result in the vast majority of people being kicked off.

It looks like they acted like commie newspapers and forced themselves back there.

Who is to blame?

No moderation which allows the assholes to post whatever they want in order to keep civil litigation immunity.

Being an asshole is not 230 content. Stating an opinion is not 230 content.

You're just mad because the actions of communist goose-stepping owners of big tech in limiting political speech that you and commies like you hate is causing them to be stripped of liability protections.

The communist revolution is even more bleak now.


.

If you want to engage in political speech, that's you're right. But you have no right to demand social media or anyone else propagate that speech.

"230 content" is a meaningless phrase.

 

[colfax_m]

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

Now you're just throwing out words willy-nilly

Am I? Trump is the one using regulation and legislation to threaten social media. That's force. Government force. No one demanding Trump quit Twitter (not an insignificant number of conservatives have that opinion too) has any threat of force.

Trump is acting like a thug.