GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[Crepitus]

They delete things from the right because they are lies, not because they disagree.

Even if that were true (it's not) it is EDITORIALIZING!!! That is NOT 230 content they are allowed to delete.

It is become more clear that you lefties do NOT understand what is happening here.

I am amazed.

.

It is true, and it's not editorializing. It's enforcing the rules. Just like the mods here do.

 

[BluesLegend]

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?

Your faux rage is noted. When Obama couldn't get immigration laws change in congress and he ignored the legislative branch and rewrote them himself none of you leftist had a problem with abuse of the power of the presidency. Hence you have zero credibility here.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think the same about you. You're refusing to think of the consequences of abandonment of liability protections for social media.

In truth, I think the real goal isn't to force Twitter to abandon protections, but to force Twitter to reduce their moderation to a significant degree although I doubt that you'd worry about their moderation for individuals with speech that you don't agree with. For example, would you agree that Twitter might want to delete posts from neo-Nazis and holocaust deniers?

Who abandoned liability protections?

Yes, I would like Twitter to reduce moderation. The stated purpose is to let people speak. Truth or otherwise, it's not Twitter's call, unless Twitter wants to be a PUBLISHER.

THEY HAVE A FUCKING CHOICE!!!

The difference between you and me is that I may hate Neo-Nazis' speech, but I hate blocking their speech more than I hate their speech.

You, on the other hand, think you should have the power to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't, because you are NOT a liberal -- BY ANY DEFINITION!!!


.

 

[progressive hunter]

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 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!

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.

they altered his tweets by adding to them dumbass,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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 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!

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.

Exactly. And for those who think that Twitter is censoring Trump, it helps to know what those words mean.................

censor
[ sen-ser ]

SEE SYNONYMS FOR censor ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
an adverse critic; faultfinder.
3. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.

verb (used with object)
1. to examine and act upon as a censor.
2. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.

As you can clearly see from the definition, in order to censor someone, part of the information is deleted or changed in some way. Nobody has modified any of Trump's tweets, all they did was put a tag on it saying that it was questionable information. No deletions, no editing, therefore, no censoring.

its not about censorship,,,

 

[TNHarley]

So glad you finally care about presidents abusing their power now. The donald really turned you leftist hacks into upholders of the law.
I love it!

What law would that be? I only know of the one's he's broken.

I will just brush this post off as you being a dumbass and can't help it

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

Fuck off.

Twitter removes an enormous amount of tweets for being hateful. No one removed Trump’s lying tweet. They just posted a link below it stating why they thought it wasn’t true. What’s ironic is that you’re all outraged that Twitter is using their freedom of expression to reply to Trump’s tweet.

Fascist.

They claim to be an open forum, accepting all viewpoints, and yet the only viewpoints they seem to delete with any consistency are those from the right.

If they want to take a side, they should have to say it, in writing. If they want to be a forum for open exchange they shouldn't be banning people for content based on their politics.

Twitter has never stated there are no limits to what you can post. You’re either lying or just making shut up.

Being an open forum and having no limits on what you can post are two different things, and you know that.

Twitter's own missions statement:

Twitter's purpose is to serve the public conversation. Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.

As their statement says, moderation is essential to keeping the platform viable.

That’s precisely why they wrote section 230 in the first place. That’s why these websites even exist.

"Moderation".

So that's how you explain content based bans and filtering.

Uh, yes. That’s exactly what it means. If someone posts something with content that is unacceptable, the moderators remove it. It’s how it works on this forum too.

And of course, to you, unacceptable means "anything I disagree with politically"

Just admit it, you favor banning speech of people you don't like.

Twitter has a ton of speech on it that I disagree with. I have no desire to see it banned.

Have you ever seen a platform with the lack of moderation that you desire? They’re cesspools of racism, anti-semitism and generally fringe nonsense. No one wants that.

Bullshit.

You are a censoring lying twat. FOAD.

And you’re a fascist thug. Nice to meet you.

Twitter has no obligation to pay to propagate idiots speech.

What am i doing to stop you from spreading your idiocy?

Twitter claims to be a discussion forum, and then takes sides in the discussion.

You don't care because it takes your side, filth.

You’re supporting a government action for force Twitter to support your dear leader.

Which is a clear violation of the first amendment.

Wrong on BOTH.

Nobody is preventing Twitter from free speech. They just don't get to act like a platform and have no liability issues.

.

 

[jknowgood]

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?

So when the media spreads lies about him it's okay, but it's not okay for him to go after them?

 

[BWK]

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?

Your faux rage is noted. When Obama couldn't get immigration laws change in congress and he ignored the legislative branch and rewrote them himself none of you leftist had a problem with abuse of the power of the presidency. Hence you have zero credibility here.

But Obama! Lol! Another one searching for a legitimate argument while scapegoating someone else. These folks, just don't have what it takes.

 

[22lcidw]

I've said this several times before, but I will say it again.

A lot of you people need to go out and buy a dictionary, because apparently you don't know what the word "censor" means. Let me help you out.........................

censor
[ sen-ser ]

SEE SYNONYMS FOR censor ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
an adverse critic; faultfinder.
3. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.

verb (used with object)
4. to examine and act upon as a censor.
5. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.


As you can clearly see from the definition, in order to censor someone, you have to delete, or edit, part of what they say. None of Trump's tweets have been modified or parts deleted in any way, all they have done is place a tag on some of them calling them questionable information. Nope, sorry, but there is no censorship going on.

Fella, you shit on the good things to expand people on the edge to make them seem part of the general ways. This not about moralizing. It is about paying for immoral behaviors. And then compare one immoral behavior with another to make sure that there is an element of guilt or hypocracy to shut people up.

 

[colfax_m]

The difference between you and me is that I may hate Neo-Nazis' speech, but I hate blocking their speech more than I hate their speech.

Great. Then make a platform and do it. People have tried doing just that and their platforms have devolved into racist and disgusting cesspools. Those platforms fail because no one wants to dwell in those cesspools, least of all advertisers who pay the bills.

That’s what I mean when I say you’re not thinking of the big picture. You’re going to kill the internet.

 

[BluesLegend]

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?

Your faux rage is noted. When Obama couldn't get immigration laws change in congress and he ignored the legislative branch and rewrote them himself none of you leftist had a problem with abuse of the power of the presidency. Hence you have zero credibility here.

But Obama! Lol! Another one searching for a legitimate argument while scapegoating someone else. These folks, just don't have what it takes.

We are mocking the left's blatant double standards and phony faux rage, suck it. Be thankful we don't confine the left to gulags.

 

[g5000]

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

Well done President Trump

Yeah, if Obama had done that, you'd all be cheering, right? Hannity's head wouldn't be exploding, and dogs would lie down with cats.

Yeah...okay...

 

[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.

.

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.

Sure. That would have been even MORE damaging to their business, but yes. That is a stupid decision that could have made.

I hope they do.

.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I've said this several times before, but I will say it again.

A lot of you people need to go out and buy a dictionary, because apparently you don't know what the word "censor" means. Let me help you out.........................

censor
[ sen-ser ]

SEE SYNONYMS FOR censor ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
an adverse critic; faultfinder.
3. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.

verb (used with object)
4. to examine and act upon as a censor.
5. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.


As you can clearly see from the definition, in order to censor someone, you have to delete, or edit, part of what they say. None of Trump's tweets have been modified or parts deleted in any way, all they have done is place a tag on some of them calling them questionable information. Nope, sorry, but there is no censorship going on.

Fella, you shit on the good things to expand people on the edge to make them seem part of the general ways. This not about moralizing. It is about paying for immoral behaviors. And then compare one immoral behavior with another to make sure that there is an element of guilt or hypocracy to shut people up.

Didn't say anything about the b.s. you just posted. All I did was post the definition of censor, and then showed you that Trump isn't being censored. You apparently are the one that wants to expand it to other subjects.

 

[g5000]

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 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!

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.

Exactly. And for those who think that Twitter is censoring Trump, it helps to know what those words mean.................

censor
[ sen-ser ]

SEE SYNONYMS FOR censor ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
an adverse critic; faultfinder.
3. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.

verb (used with object)
1. to examine and act upon as a censor.
2. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.

As you can clearly see from the definition, in order to censor someone, part of the information is deleted or changed in some way. Nobody has modified any of Trump's tweets, all they did was put a tag on it saying that it was questionable information. No deletions, no editing, therefore, no censoring.

its not about censorship,,,

If anyone fact checks Trump's endless lies, it's censorship. That's the Fuhrer's new rule.

 

[progressive hunter]

AND JUST LIKE THAT TRUMP GETS DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND MULTI BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATIONS!!!

 

[g5000]

Man, what a titty baby Trump is!

 

[jknowgood]

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?

Your faux rage is noted. When Obama couldn't get immigration laws change in congress and he ignored the legislative branch and rewrote them himself none of you leftist had a problem with abuse of the power of the presidency. Hence you have zero credibility here.

But Obama! Lol! Another one searching for a legitimate argument while scapegoating someone else. These folks, just don't have what it takes.

Yes Obama! He was the man or woman!

 

[BWK]

So glad you finally care about presidents abusing their power now. The donald really turned you leftist hacks into upholders of the law.
I love it!

What law would that be? I only know of the one's he's broken.

I will just brush this post off as you being a dumbass and can't help it

You're brushing yourself off as a coward in search of a way out. Your post is a 180 from who Trump is and what he represents, based on pure factual information concerning his total disregard for the law. I can help it, because I am honest. You can't help it because you are not.