GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
23,028
Reaction score
5,742
Points
290
Location
Tejas
But they made themselves the official "truth tellers" and that is not their role.
And by doing so, they have become the "information content provider."

(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
It’s not an all or nothing determination.

No one doubts that Twitter can be liable for the information that they themselves publish. That doesn’t mean they’re liable for all information on the entire website.

The court case you provided demonstrates that.
But, now any post or quote they touch better not have ANY defamatory content (in whole or in part...development) and that is something they CANNOT avoid if they are going around posting or editing news stories from other sources that are liable for their own content. They don't get the automatic defense of 230.

I know this seems really "cut and dry" to you, but you clearly are NOT seeing the problem this creates for Twitter et al.

.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
61,811
Reaction score
13,709
Points
2,220
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!!
:laughing0301:

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.
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).

.
They haven't! They did not remove Trump's "content." All they did was correct disinformation IF people chose to look, with a link.
But they made themselves the official "truth tellers" and that is not their role.
I hear that. But you are not hearing my point, I don't think: It is OBJECTIONABLE to have the President of the United States lying up a storm on Twitter. This is actually an issue that is tied to public health and safety and the integrity of our elections. It's serious business. He is the PRESIDENT. People listen to him. They will think all this blustering bullshit is true because the President said it. I'm offended when posters do it here--this is magnified by about a thousand times because of the office he holds.

It deserved to be corrected. The result is not at all surprising; Donald is po'd that he was contradicted, so he is using his authority to write an EO that will punish Twitter for so doing. Nothing about "it was just my opinion," or even "I presume some will vote honestly." No. Just vindictive destruction of a company that millions--no billions--use every day in order to blast out his message that Democrats suck, they're dishonest and they will beat me by cheating.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
61,811
Reaction score
13,709
Points
2,220
Read what it says. The FTC can PROHIBIT ACTS that run contrary to 230. They can prohibit Twitter from taking down hate speech, since that's not one of the exceptions. Get those alt-right extremist sites back on board! They can prohibit Twitter from taking down blatant lies posted as fact by the President of the United States, too--nay, not even taking them down. Simply providing the option of reading REAL information on the subject can cause the government to propose regulations that will ultimately kill Twitter.
That miserable excuse for a human being has been allowed to escalate with his puffed up emperor impersonation for too long. I wish Olympia Snow was still here
He set them up and it worked.

.
Oh, so now you're going to say he lied just to get Twitter in trouble? Not a chance. He's a hateful, lying prick and what he did had no clever ulterior motives.
1590718488642.png
 

lantern2814

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
699
Points
140
WaPo reported earlier today that the EO has the FCC handle complaints of bias against social media companies. A government agency deciding what can be on social media? That one sends chills up my spine. Is this the USSR or China now?
You’re just now discovering the FCC’s job? They have been able to determine what can or can’t be on TV or radio for a long time now. To them, social media is just another broadcast. If you’re going to act like a content provider, you better be prepared to follow the rules.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
23,028
Reaction score
5,742
Points
290
Location
Tejas
Oh, so now you're going to say he lied just to get Twitter in trouble? Not a chance. He's a hateful, lying prick and what he did had no clever ulterior motives.
He already had this EO, and all legal research surrounding it, ready to go when he clearly stated something that would cause a reaction.

Don't fall victim to confirmation bias about this guy. He is a shrewd individual.

.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
35,783
Reaction score
5,077
Points
1,170
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
WaPo reported earlier today that the EO has the FCC handle complaints of bias against social media companies. A government agency deciding what can be on social media? That one sends chills up my spine. Is this the USSR or China now?
No. As per usual you have it ass-backwards. Social media is deciding what can be on it's sites, not a government agency. The FCC handles complaints of them doing just that, which is against the law.
Read what it says. The FTC can PROHIBIT ACTS that run contrary to 230. They can prohibit Twitter from taking down hate speech, since that's not one of the exceptions. Get those alt-right extremist sites back on board! They can prohibit Twitter from taking down blatant lies posted as fact by the President of the United States, too--nay, not even taking them down. Simply providing the option of reading REAL information on the subject can cause the government to propose regulations that will ultimately kill Twitter.
That miserable excuse for a human being has been allowed to escalate with his puffed up emperor impersonation for too long. I wish Olympia Snow was still here
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.
That is the current law, dumbass. Unfair or deceptive acts of practices would be censorship.
No, it is from the E.O. that was signed today. HERE is the language of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
This opens a pathway for a government agency to monitor and prohibit these companies from removing objectionable materials or from correcting the lying piece of shit President when he leaps on Twitter to tell outrageous lies.
Do you not know the difference in the FCC, FEC and FTC? Apparently you do not!
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
35,783
Reaction score
5,077
Points
1,170
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
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!!
:laughing0301:

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.
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).

.
They haven't! They did not remove Trump's "content." All they did was correct disinformation IF people chose to look, with a link.
But they made themselves the official "truth tellers" and that is not their role.
I hear that. But you are not hearing my point, I don't think: It is OBJECTIONABLE to have the President of the United States lying up a storm on Twitter. This is actually an issue that is tied to public health and safety and the integrity of our elections. It's serious business. He is the PRESIDENT. People listen to him. They will think all this blustering bullshit is true because the President said it. I'm offended when posters do it here--this is magnified by about a thousand times because of the office he holds.

It deserved to be corrected. The result is not at all surprising; Donald is po'd that he was contradicted, so he is using his authority to write an EO that will punish Twitter for so doing. Nothing about "it was just my opinion," or even "I presume some will vote honestly." No. Just vindictive destruction of a company that millions--no billions--use every day in order to blast out his message that Democrats suck, they're dishonest and they will beat me by cheating.
You know what is hilarious? Joe Biden agrees with Trump!
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
23,028
Reaction score
5,742
Points
290
Location
Tejas
Here's what started this war:


Jack had to cover for his boy, Joe so he started tagging content as "manipulated" but all Trump et al did was show the clip. They didn't alter the video. But, some of the left's own medicine sure goes down hard, don't it?

Welcome to being on the shit-end of creative editing process, commies. Eat your own shit and LIKE IT!!!

.
 

lantern2814

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
699
Points
140
WaPo reported earlier today that the EO has the FCC handle complaints of bias against social media companies. A government agency deciding what can be on social media? That one sends chills up my spine. Is this the USSR or China now?
No. As per usual you have it ass-backwards. Social media is deciding what can be on it's sites, not a government agency. The FCC handles complaints of them doing just that, which is against the law.
Read what it says. The FTC can PROHIBIT ACTS that run contrary to 230. They can prohibit Twitter from taking down hate speech, since that's not one of the exceptions. Get those alt-right extremist sites back on board! They can prohibit Twitter from taking down blatant lies posted as fact by the President of the United States, too--nay, not even taking them down. Simply providing the option of reading REAL information on the subject can cause the government to propose regulations that will ultimately kill Twitter.
That miserable excuse for a human being has been allowed to escalate with his puffed up emperor impersonation for too long. I wish Olympia Snow was still here
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.
That is the current law, dumbass. Unfair or deceptive acts of practices would be censorship.
No, it is from the E.O. that was signed today. HERE is the language of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
This opens a pathway for a government agency to monitor and prohibit these companies from removing objectionable materials or from correcting the lying piece of shit President when he leaps on Twitter to tell outrageous lies.
And Twitter does not get to CLAIM something is a lie just because they don’t like it. That’s editorializing. Making you a publisher, just like a newspaper. Yet you’re okay with a lying POS like the moron at Twitter who has publicly referred to Trump as a Nazi making the claim of true or not. Sorry, the FCC has been in charge of policing content for years now. They likely should have been looking at these sites long ago.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
26,494
Reaction score
4,861
Points
290
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!!
:laughing0301:

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.
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).

.
They haven't! They did not remove Trump's "content." All they did was correct disinformation IF people chose to look, with a link.
But they made themselves the official "truth tellers" and that is not their role.
I hear that. But you are not hearing my point, I don't think: It is OBJECTIONABLE to have the President of the United States lying up a storm on Twitter. This is actually an issue that is tied to public health and safety and the integrity of our elections. It's serious business. He is the PRESIDENT. People listen to him. They will think all this blustering bullshit is true because the President said it. I'm offended when posters do it here--this is magnified by about a thousand times because of the office he holds.

It deserved to be corrected. The result is not at all surprising; Donald is po'd that he was contradicted, so he is using his authority to write an EO that will punish Twitter for so doing. Nothing about "it was just my opinion," or even "I presume some will vote honestly." No. Just vindictive destruction of a company that millions--no billions--use every day in order to blast out his message that Democrats suck, they're dishonest and they will beat me by cheating.
No I understand your point, I just don't agree on the, lying up a storm. I don't think he's done any more or less than other politicians. Schiff is still pimping Russia, why is he not fact checked?

It's a combination of Twitter saying only THEY own "the truth" and made worse by an obvious, uneven application of their standards.

If I don't want to see Trump tweet up a storm, I simply won't follow him.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
61,811
Reaction score
13,709
Points
2,220
Oh, so now you're going to say he lied just to get Twitter in trouble? Not a chance. He's a hateful, lying prick and what he did had no clever ulterior motives.
He already had this EO, and all legal research surrounding it, ready to go when he clearly stated something that would cause a reaction.

Don't fall victim to confirmation bias about this guy. He is a shrewd individual.

.
He's a nasty, self-centered individual who can't abide criticism. He abuses his power more each time he's allowed to get away with it (vindictive firings, Ukraine arm twisting). Sure his EO was floating around in draft--he's been bitching about social media as well as all other media since he got in office. It was Twitter's criticism that made him pull the trigger. He didn't plan it. I'd bet you anything.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
26,494
Reaction score
4,861
Points
290
Here's what started this war:


Jack had to cover for his boy, Joe so he started tagging content as "manipulated" but all Trump et al did was show the clip. They didn't alter the video. But, some of the left's own medicine sure goes down hard, don't it?

Welcome to being on the shit-end of creative editing process, commies. Eat your own shit and LIKE IT!!!

.
Wow but it's OK for NBC to cut off Barr and go on a faux rampage.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
61,811
Reaction score
13,709
Points
2,220
Twitter does not get to CLAIM something is a lie just because they don’t like it.
No, in the REAL WORLD, we base our statements on facts. You don't get to claim a lie is okay just because you like it. There is no justification for what he said.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
64,495
Reaction score
16,183
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada

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?b
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.
Mueller seemed to think so. He claims Trump can be indicted for obstruction when he leaves office, and our entire intelligence department tells us you haven't a clue about Russia helping Trump. It's already been confirmed. Denials aren't going to change reality.






Mueller! :auiqs.jpg:That that doddering old fool knew nothing as was patently obvious in the hearings, you boob.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
10,939
Reaction score
2,295
Points
150
But they made themselves the official "truth tellers" and that is not their role.
And by doing so, they have become the "information content provider."

(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
It’s not an all or nothing determination.

No one doubts that Twitter can be liable for the information that they themselves publish. That doesn’t mean they’re liable for all information on the entire website.

The court case you provided demonstrates that.
But, now any post or quote they touch better not have ANY defamatory content (in whole or in part...development) and that is something they CANNOT avoid if they are going around posting or editing news stories from other sources that are liable for their own content. They don't get the automatic defense of 230.

I know this seems really "cut and dry" to you, but you clearly are NOT seeing the problem this creates for Twitter et al.

.
You’re not defining a problem for twitter, not yet.

A website is responsible for material if they alter it substantially. material they do not alter, they are not responsible for.

I don’t believe linking to an article makes one responsible for the content of that article. I could be wrong. This seems like a subtle point.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
61,811
Reaction score
13,709
Points
2,220
It's a combination of Twitter saying only THEY own "the truth" and made worse by an obvious, uneven application of their standards.
Yup, Schiff is still going on about Russia and Trump.


Adam Schiff


@RepAdamSchiff

·
May 7

Trump’s campaign invited Russian help, made full use of it, then covered it up. Then, Trump sought more illicit help from Ukraine, leading to his impeachment and a bipartisan vote to convict. Read just released transcripts from our Russia investigation: https://intelligence.house.gov/russiainvestigation/


Schiff is a moron and I read the linked regurgitation of weak allegations against Trump's campaign that we heard for two years. There is a difference here though, Ice, between Schiff's garbage and Trump's. Schiff backs up his statements with a report by the House Intelligence Committee so finding and the linked transcripts of 57 witness testimonies that led him to that conclusion. You ask me, it's weak, but it's there. Schiff is a scratched old record that keeps skipping skipping skipping. Same old same old over and over.

Do you see the difference? Whether or not we agree with it, Schiff had facts to back up his words. He had a report, which he provided and the report provided details of how they got the information.

If Trump really gave two shits about the truth, he could have asked his people to give him a few examples of mail in voter fraud, he could have cited the Heritage Foundation numbers, he could have done a lot of things. TRUMP DIDN'T CARE. He just spewed his typical hateful bullshit in hopes of convincing his base not to support mail in voting in their states. Not that they could do much about it, but he doesn't care about that either. It's all about saying liberals suck. That's all it's ever about.

 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,509
Reaction score
12,233
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
‘A Twitter spokeswoman said that the tweets modified on Thursday contained “potentially misleading content” and that the fact-checking was consistent with the company’s approach this month. In a series of tweets on Wednesday, Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s chief executive, also said he would not back down from the fact-checking effort. “We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information,” he wrote.’


Very good; don’t give into Trump’s authoritarianism.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
10,939
Reaction score
2,295
Points
150
Welcome to being on the shit-end of creative editing process, commies. Eat your own shit and LIKE IT!!!
What are you talking about? We’ve been putting up with that little punk O’Keefe and his editing for a decade now.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top