GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

They are not private groups by any definition. Anyone can make an account and post in that subreddit. But they will be censored almost immediately for having the wrong opinion.

No - you have to apply and agree to terms of use.
Guess you haven't been there.

You have to agree to the terms of use of any website including Twitter. That doesn't make them private groups.

You don't have to agree to any terms to post specifically in a subreddit like r/conservative. Even if you did, they'd still fall under the definition of censorship laid out by conservatives in this and other disussions.

You don't know what this really does.



Watch the video. Then comment.

 

[mudwhistle]

View attachment 342177

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.

Yep....Hillary would have eliminated the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and several other amendments by now.

 

[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.

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.

.

So they become liable for everyone else’s speech on their website because they engaged in their own speech? Sounds putative.

 

[g5000]

The Democrats should think of more ways to provoke Trump to act like the tinpot dictator wannabe he is.

 

[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?

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

What lies?

 

[OldLady]

The fucker signed it a couple minutes ago.

 

[Erinwltr]

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?

Dayum, is you ain't a little jealous Beotch, ain't cha?

 

[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,,,

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

OFF TOPIC,,,
please do try and keep up,,,

 

[my2¢]

I went out and looked up the text of Section 230. I could not relate it to what the guy in the video was saying and so I'll wait to read the text of Trump's order.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

Lol, Obama was never called out on his lies in his speeches, but you loons want to censor Trump's speeches when he is stating facts.

 

[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

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.

I implied this was illegal, you moron.
Good gawd, how have you not accidently killed yourself yet?

 

[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.

Lol, Obama was never called out on his lies in his speeches, but you loons want to censor Trump's speeches when he is stating facts.

Trump hasn't been censored. None of his tweets have been edited, modified, or partially deleted. Buy a dictionary, you apparently need one.

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

Who the fuck is saying he was censored? I haven't seen anyone say that. You obviously don't understand the topic. Get informed. Your "Jack" brother as well.

 

[Erinwltr]

I am, I just have a different opinion than you. You're claiming that Twitter is forcing people to accept something. That's not possible. You're saying that they have the ability to shape discussion. That's permissible as it's their platform. Twitter doesn't abandon their rights to their platform.

And you point...

 

[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.

OFF TOPIC,,,
please do try and keep up,,,

Nope. That's the real motive behind Trump's three-year-old's temper tantrum.

YOU keep up, cuck.

 

[westwall]

Obama twists the law into a pretzel to authorize the FBI to spy on President Trump and his family. Democrats say "COOL!" President Trump signs an EO to call out obviously partisan social media platforms for selective harassment and censorship and Democrats squeal like stuck pigs.

Well that's a lie.

No, it's a fact. obummer tried to turn us into a third world shithole. And if Trump had lost none of obummers crimes would have been discovered.

 

[TNHarley]

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?

Dayum, is you ain't a little jealous Beotch, ain't cha?

What?
Idiot

 

[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 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,,,

They added a fact check note to them. They did not erase or alter any of the words that he typed.
Next....

 

[Crepitus]

The fucker signed it a couple minutes ago.

Need to get the court challenges going right now. This is blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[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?

What lies?

Russian collusion lie for three years and still claims it.
He told Americans to inject bleach. To name a few many more, they are daily on here.