GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[daveman]

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.

Many conservative voices have been silenced on social media. This is beyond question.

You have no point.

 

[g5000]

It's hilarious to hear Trump and the tard herd whining about their persecution complex.

What a bunch of women on the rag.

 

[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.

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.

There’s about a million things I’d rather do than listen to this doofus for half an hour. I really don’t have much respect for this guy’s honesty or intelligence.

 

[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.

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

And? I don't give a shit. You modeled Trump as a beholder of our laws.

 

[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.

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....

Bingo.

And the bleeding twat went off just like a hysterical woman.

"How DARE anyone call me on my bullshit!"

 

[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.

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

See when people start stating facts about liberalism you loons can't take it, and go full hitler.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Interesting that you use the word "platform."

But, this is typical of you and your ilk. You would rather shield yourself from speech you hate and you don't care how you accomplish it.

The remedy to speech you hate is not pussy-ass censorship. The remedy is MORE speech.

.

 

[MarathonMike]

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.

Well that's a denial of reality.

 

[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?

And? I don't give a shit. You modeled Trump as a beholder of our laws.

I literally did the opposite.
OMFG

 

[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?

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.

Russian collusion was proven to have happened. The Trump tower meeting was collusion.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The fucker signed it a couple minutes ago.

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

Based on what?

.

 

[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,,,

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

they fact checked an opinion of the future that hasnt happened yet,,,,thats not fact checking thats editing for political gain and why they dont qualify for the protections of a platform,,,,

 

[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.

It's not your job to tell Twitter what their job is. Twitter is not forcing anyone to believe anything. If you want to sue Twitter for the content of their speech as libelous, go right ahead, although opinion is specifically exempted from those laws.

This is an attempt to silence Twitter for political purposes. That's a big problem. If we let government do this, we're all fucked of our freedom of thought and expression.

Tw

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.

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.

There’s about a million things I’d rather do than listen to this doofus for half an hour. I really don’t have much respect for this guy’s honesty or intelligence.

As far as I can tell, he is way more informed and intelligent than you. Just my opinion.

 

[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!
View attachment 342187

And you are weak, because your argument has nothing to do with anything related to this thread. You are a loser.

You can't handle the truth about Obama. Wether his corruption or him being a faget.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Yes. That's what happens when you start acting like a publisher because certain speech hurts your feel-feels.

There’s about a million things I’d rather do than listen to this doofus for half an hour. I really don’t have much respect for this guy’s honesty or intelligence.

He breaks down the EO.

OR, you can just read the EO. Either way.

.

 

[blackhawk]

Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are trying to have it both ways you can't call yourself a platform for free speech and the exchange of ideas while at the same time banning, censoring, and removing content you don't agree with. You are either a forum for free specch and different viewpoints which includes those you don't share or you are a publisher which gives you the right decide what you want to publish but now you can be sued as well. Time for them to choose a side.

 

[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.

Russian collusion was proven to have happened. The Trump tower meeting was collusion.

Then why wasn't he impeached for it?

 

[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.

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

That's even better. You approve of abuse of power then. Says everything we need to know about you.

 

[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.

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....

they fact checked an opinion of the future that hasnt happened yet,,,,thats not fact checking thats editing for political gain and why they dont qualify for the protections of a platform,,,,

Nope. Wrong again, cuck.

Trump manufactured bullshit. Pure and simple.

All Twitter did was link to the facts about the low incidence of fraud in absentee balloting. Trump made up BULLSHIT based on magical thinking which he knew you cucks would eat like candy.

Someone called him on his bullshit. Boo hoo!

 

[SmokeALib]

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?

Oh, so you're now all about protecting the first amendment. I see.