GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[Rye Catcher]

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.

Doubling down on your lie does not make it true.

He isn't lying, too bad Obama will never go to jail over this. But his corrupt administration getting exposed will all we will get. But you dumbasses will still polish his knob.

Trump is a reckless, irresponsible authoritarian who has nothing but contempt for the rule of law, our democratic institutions, and the Constitution.

And Trump’s enablers are just as authoritarian and have the same contempt for the rule of law, our democratic institutions, and the Constitution.

Spot on!

 

[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.

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.
.

I’m just telling you the truth and how your desires will destroy the internet.

The internet is a completely open place. Anyone who wants to engage in speech can. I’m not stopping anyone. What you’re demanding is the ability to use Twitter’s property to publish a disseminate speech to their own detriment.

How is it to their detriment? That is a red herring if I every read one. They thrive on any disagreement and the more posts the better. Duking it out is what their platform is for. Jeebus, do you know anything?

You don’t know the content that they delete. You want to take away their ability to get rid of racist, anti-Semitic, conspiratorial and violent rhetoric then they’re going to lose advertisers.

Have you heard of the ad-pocalypse on YouTube?

Those things are covered in some respect in 230.

Nice try.

And here we are having people trying to get rid of it. It’s lunacy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You’re being hyperbolic. No one has become an arbiter or truth.

When they edit a tweet, in this case Trump's tweet, to provide a link to another source (in this case CNN ) that basically calls the content of the tweet false, that is Twitter deciding that the tweet is NOT true, thus becoming the arbiter of truth.

.

 

[colfax_m]

No one edited Trump’s tweet. They don’t alter tweets. Sometimes they delete them for violating policy.

Thats exactly what 230 was intended to let them do without being subject to liability.

It’s that fucking simple.

God DAMN!!


You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I will waste no more of my time.

.

I suggest you do some reading on the topic.

I liked this guy’s book.

The 26 Words That 'Created the Internet'—and Why They May Be on the Chopping Block

Do you want to know the 26 words that, in the opinion of today's guest, "created the internet?" "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In our latest podcast, Jeff...

reason.com

 

[OldLady]

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.
.

I’m just telling you the truth and how your desires will destroy the internet.

The internet is a completely open place. Anyone who wants to engage in speech can. I’m not stopping anyone. What you’re demanding is the ability to use Twitter’s property to publish a disseminate speech to their own detriment.

How is it to their detriment? That is a red herring if I every read one. They thrive on any disagreement and the more posts the better. Duking it out is what their platform is for. Jeebus, do you know anything?

You don’t know the content that they delete. You want to take away their ability to get rid of racist, anti-Semitic, conspiratorial and violent rhetoric then they’re going to lose advertisers.

Have you heard of the ad-pocalypse on YouTube?

If this is upheld by the courts, it is the end of Twitter and any vestige of decency left in this country. Fuck that petty, vindictive little man. And double fuck each and every one of the people who think he's done a great thing here.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I’m just telling you the truth and how your desires will destroy the internet.

How so?

The internet meets the definition of a platform.

GOOGLE has blown its platform protections, but GOOGLE is not "the internet."

The internet is a completely open place. Anyone who wants to engage in speech can. I’m not stopping anyone. What you’re demanding is the ability to use Twitter’s property to publish a disseminate speech to their own detriment.

What do you mean? I am not, nor is the POTUS via the EO, demanding ANYTHING.

Twitter is acting like a fucking newspaper (editing content). They get no 230 protections if they act like a newspaper. They can still do their left-wing thought policing all they want. They just don't get to hide behind 230 protections.

It's that fucking simple.

.

No one edited Trump’s tweet. They don’t alter tweets. Sometimes they delete them for violating policy.

Thats exactly what 230 was intended to let them do without being subject to liability.

It’s that fucking simple.

AG Barr, who was also in attendance, said Section 230 "was stretched way beyond its original intention...its purpose was to allow websites that were acting virtually as bulletin boards were not responsible for third-party information...". When they "curate" their collection and start "censoring" particular content, they become publishers, and they shouldn't be entitled to the same kind of shield that was set up earlier. He also explained how the executive order sets up a "rule making procedure for the FCC" to try and "get back to the original interpretation" of Section 230.
-----
so since they abused the fuck out of it, it's time we re-examine it. now, the irony is Section 230 was put in place so tech companies wouldn't be responsible for 3rd party content. it was supposed to prevent censorship out of fear of litigation.

oops.

You’ve got it backwards. Before section 230, if a website never “censored” (to use your language not mine) then they wouldn’t be responsible for third party content.

But most people agreed that was a bad situation because guess what? There’s a lot of filth on the internet and we thought it’d be better if websites were allowed to clean up that filth without having to abandon their immunity from litigation.

Section 230 was specifically designed to give websites the ability to “censor”.

So I’ll ask you, respectfully, what is the goal? What do you hope to accomplish?

Yes, but 230 "censoring" is limited to "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"

Nothing in there about "truth" monitoring and editing.

.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

Doubling down on your lie does not make it true.

He isn't lying, too bad Obama will never go to jail over this. But his corrupt administration getting exposed will all we will get. But you dumbasses will still polish his knob.

Trump is a reckless, irresponsible authoritarian who has nothing but contempt for the rule of law, our democratic institutions, and the Constitution.

And Trump’s enablers are just as authoritarian and have the same contempt for the rule of law, our democratic institutions, and the Constitution.

Spot on!

Full of lies, Trump works for all Americans. Democrats work only for themselves. Biden is proof. Work for goverment all of his life, and his entire family is multi millionaires.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No one edited Trump’s tweet. They don’t alter tweets. Sometimes they delete them for violating policy.

Thats exactly what 230 was intended to let them do without being subject to liability.

It’s that fucking simple.

God DAMN!!


You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I will waste no more of my time.

.

I suggest you do some reading on the topic.

I liked this guy’s book.

The 26 Words That 'Created the Internet'—and Why They May Be on the Chopping Block

Do you want to know the 26 words that, in the opinion of today's guest, "created the internet?" "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In our latest podcast, Jeff...

reason.com

You cite Reason.com? I didn't know you were a fellow libertarian. You don't act like it.

And you to have missed the point of that article.
.

 

[OldLady]

WaPo got it right. The FTC will be censoring social media:
c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

You don't even know what that means.

That's not censorship.

What do you call it?

 

[colfax_m]

You’re being hyperbolic. No one has become an arbiter or truth.

When they edit a tweet, in this case Trump's tweet, to provide a link to another source (in this case CNN ) that basically calls the content of the tweet false, that is Twitter deciding that the tweet is NOT true, thus becoming the arbiter of truth.

.

Edit his tweet? His text is there in its entirety intact. Twitter added their opinion to it.

 

[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.

Then why wasn't he impeached for it?

Because collusion by itself is not a crime. A conspiracy to collude is. Do you understand the difference? The only thing that saved Trump from the conspiracy part, was that it could not be proven Trump and the Russians had an agreement.

There was nothing between Rump and Russia. Nothing.

" Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump Jr. said during a conference in New York in 2008.

Of course after Hillary sold them most of our uranium, oh and that's when you loons loved Russia.

That's a lie. That's not how it happened. . Prove she sold the Uranium.

 

[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?

TDS thread 1,641

A post in search of debate.

 

[colfax_m]

No one edited Trump’s tweet. They don’t alter tweets. Sometimes they delete them for violating policy.

Thats exactly what 230 was intended to let them do without being subject to liability.

It’s that fucking simple.

God DAMN!!


You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I will waste no more of my time.

.

I suggest you do some reading on the topic.

I liked this guy’s book.

The 26 Words That 'Created the Internet'—and Why They May Be on the Chopping Block

Do you want to know the 26 words that, in the opinion of today's guest, "created the internet?" "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In our latest podcast, Jeff...

reason.com

You cite Reason.com? I didn't know you were a fellow libertarian. You don't act like it.

.

I’m not libertarian. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good source of information.

Anyway. Enjoy.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

TDS thread 1,641

A post in search of debate.

Won't fine one here.

Bullshit is bullshit.

Fuck off.

 

[Rambunctious]

It is a little known concept for libtards called "freedom of speech"!

So restricting Twitters' speech is freedom of speech?

Trump cultists used to at least pretend to not be Stalinists. The've stopped pretending. Now, they want to shut down any speech that doesn't praise DearLeader.

Twitter can be a forum or they can report and publish the news....you can't do both...especially in a biased way....

They aren't trying to do both.
Twitter has never presented itself as a news outlet.
It's called SOCIAL MEDIA, idiot.
The reason they are tacking notices to DiaperLoad Donnie's posts is because his account is held by the POTUS and can be MISCONSTRUED as news by their users.

If they are going to fact check posts they need to fact check evenly and fairly....even Fakebook agrees with me....

Zuckerberg is a motherfucker.
I wrote a post making fun of idiots like yourself, it was a colorful description of TrumpTards which did not include:
1. Anyone personally or by name
2. Racial references
3. Profanity
4. Violence
and I was banned for 3 days.

Gee you sound so angry...what happened?...did the economy begin to bounce back today?....or maybe new infections and deaths are down?...or maybe its because Joe the fingers poll numbers dropped again today?....a 3rd lower than his high in March.....yeah that's it...that has to be what has crawled up your fat wrinkled pimpled ass today....

 

[BWK]

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.

Doubling down on your lie does not make it true.

He isn't lying, too bad Obama will never go to jail over this. But his corrupt administration getting exposed will all we will get. But you dumbasses will still polish his knob.

Trump is a reckless, irresponsible authoritarian who has nothing but contempt for the rule of law, our democratic institutions, and the Constitution.

And Trump’s enablers are just as authoritarian and have the same contempt for the rule of law, our democratic institutions, and the Constitution.

Spot on!

Full of lies, Trump works for all Americans. Democrats work only for themselves. Biden is proof. Work for goverment all of his life, and his entire family is multi millionaires.
View attachment 342209

Hatred comes from loving this country and protecting it from the thieves who steal from it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No one edited Trump’s tweet. They don’t alter tweets. Sometimes they delete them for violating policy.

Thats exactly what 230 was intended to let them do without being subject to liability.

It’s that fucking simple.

God DAMN!!


You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I will waste no more of my time.

.

I suggest you do some reading on the topic.

I liked this guy’s book.

The 26 Words That 'Created the Internet'—and Why They May Be on the Chopping Block

Do you want to know the 26 words that, in the opinion of today's guest, "created the internet?" "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In our latest podcast, Jeff...

reason.com

You cite Reason.com? I didn't know you were a fellow libertarian. You don't act like it.

.

I’m not libertarian. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good source of information.

Anyway. Enjoy.

Yes. You appear to have missed the point of the article.

All Twitter has to do is not remove content that is not "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" and Twitter KEEPS its liability protections (the 26 words).

.

 

[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.

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.
.

I’m just telling you the truth and how your desires will destroy the internet.

The internet is a completely open place. Anyone who wants to engage in speech can. I’m not stopping anyone. What you’re demanding is the ability to use Twitter’s property to publish a disseminate speech to their own detriment.

How is it to their detriment? That is a red herring if I every read one. They thrive on any disagreement and the more posts the better. Duking it out is what their platform is for. Jeebus, do you know anything?

You don’t know the content that they delete. You want to take away their ability to get rid of racist, anti-Semitic, conspiratorial and violent rhetoric then they’re going to lose advertisers.

Have you heard of the ad-pocalypse on YouTube?

If this is upheld by the courts, it is the end of Twitter and any vestige of decency left in this country. Fuck that petty, vindictive little man. And double fuck each and every one of the people who think he's done a great thing here.

My guess is they’ll just add a lot of stipulations to section 230.

I.e. they can retain their immunity from liability as long as they don’t moderate based on some set of parameters. Basically they’ll create a lot of red tape and hoops to jump through and it’ll be annoying as hell for these companies.

I’m not totally opposed to the idea but I have little confidence that any government can do it properly let alone this one.

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

Doubling down on your lie does not make it true.

He isn't lying, too bad Obama will never go to jail over this. But his corrupt administration getting exposed will all we will get. But you dumbasses will still polish his knob.

Trump is a reckless, irresponsible authoritarian who has nothing but contempt for the rule of law, our democratic institutions, and the Constitution.

And Trump’s enablers are just as authoritarian and have the same contempt for the rule of law, our democratic institutions, and the Constitution.

Spot on!

Full of lies, Trump works for all Americans. Democrats work only for themselves. Biden is proof. Work for goverment all of his life, and his entire family is multi millionaires.
View attachment 342209

Hatred comes from loving this country and protecting it from the thieves who steal from it.

That's why we detest Obambi and Hillary

 

[colfax_m]

No one edited Trump’s tweet. They don’t alter tweets. Sometimes they delete them for violating policy.

Thats exactly what 230 was intended to let them do without being subject to liability.

It’s that fucking simple.

God DAMN!!


You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I will waste no more of my time.

.

I suggest you do some reading on the topic.

I liked this guy’s book.

The 26 Words That 'Created the Internet'—and Why They May Be on the Chopping Block

Do you want to know the 26 words that, in the opinion of today's guest, "created the internet?" "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In our latest podcast, Jeff...

reason.com

You cite Reason.com? I didn't know you were a fellow libertarian. You don't act like it.

.

I’m not libertarian. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good source of information.

Anyway. Enjoy.

Yes. You appear to have missed the point of the article.

All Twitter has to do is not remove content that is not "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" and Twitter KEEPS its liability protections (the 26 words).

.

You’re quoting the wrong section. That’s not what the 26 words refers to. It’s like the third sentence of the article.