GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
51,506
Reaction score
8,608
Points
2,040
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.
Removing section 230 protection has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

The government won't be suing twitter, people will be.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
26,552
Reaction score
4,913
Points
290
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.
Russia has been disproven. Nothing was found.

Hateful speech is coming from all sides anymore. Both sides using the other sides actions to justify their own.

To me its all about saying Trump sucks. Both sides extremes live by this crap. You think the left cares what they say as long as it's ORANGE MAN Bad?

We don't get those phrases by accident.

No I am not a fan of Trump tweets. I think it's intentional to rile people up. But I had a teacher in the 3rd grade tell me the secret to making it stop.

It certainly wasn't scream and lie, back.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
11,007
Reaction score
2,319
Points
150
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.
Right now government action gives them immunity from liability because they claim people's posts are not "their content".

They then claim the right to moderate content based on whatever they feel like because it is 'their site", and thus their content.

They want the best of both worlds, and they should have to choose. Claim all content as theirs, moderate as they see fit, and then be liable for whatever they let through, or keep their protections as "not their content" and not moderate based on political, cultural, or moral viewpoints of their own.
That’s exactly the point of section 230 as I’ve been trying to tell you.

You don’t want to take away their ability to moderate. You really don’t want that. Go to an unmoderated forum. It’s garbage. It’s an absolute cesspool.
Section 230 was to prevent something like someone tweeting "I am going to blow up a bridge" and then twitter being sued because they didn't do anything about it.

It wasn't designed for Twitter to take sides in political debates and still claim the content isn't theirs.
That doesn’t make any sense. Why would the goal be to allow internet companies immunity from reporting specific identifiable threats?

You don’t really know what you’re talking about.
It's to stop someone from suing twitter for the threat made by another person.

Tweeter: "I am going to kill X"
20 min later, person X is killed by said tweeter.

230 stops the victim's family from suing twitter because they didn't call the cops.
You really think that the government wrote legislation that permitted internet companies to ignore individual specific threats?

That makes absolutely no sense.
It's exactly why they wrote it. Why do you think they wrote it?
Prodigy was sued for defamation by a bank because a poster on their message board accuses that bank of fraud. Prodigy was liable for that defamation.

What made Prodigy liable? They had moderators who removed posts that were insulting, off topic or harassment.

So it created a perverse incentive. The only way to avoid liability for the posts is to allow people to post basically whatever they wanted. It stopped anyone from trying to keep their Internet forums civil and that’s not what anyone wants.
Progressives are the kings of "this is why we can't have nice things". Section 230 works when only used to weed out criminal or completely vulgar postings. But now you want to use it to silence opponents.

Thus it has to go. All on you, none on us.
Alright then. Show me what has been censored.

Certainly not President Snowflake. No one took down his idiotic tweets even when they do constitute harassment.
You Can’t Say That on Twitter | National Review
So the complaint is that you can’t use twitter to express your discrimination of transgendered individuals which is against the terms of service?
How is it against the terms of service to say a man is a man and a woman is a woman?

Sorry, but all you are doing is messing with the paint job and the fender, the DNA stays the same.

See? This is the issue, your side decides a viewpoint is ist/ic and thus verboten.
Because it's targeted harassment of the transgendered community.
 

Johnlaw

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
6,400
Reaction score
2,252
Points
350
why do they have to act fairly?
They don't. The govt also does not have to give them special protection from consequences from how they run their business.
If Congress repeals social media immunity they also need to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that gives gun dealers and manufactures immunity from civil suits. under your argument they both serve the same purpose. Deal? What is the difference ?
 
Last edited:
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
62,616
Reaction score
17,126
Points
2,290
That is going nowhere. Free speech rights apply to the government not private entities.
Twitter can conduct its business how they want...without special granted protections from the govt to protect them from the consequences of their actions.

Is anyone arguing the government MUST continue to give monopolies making huge sums of money while discriminating against US citizens? If so, why?

(Discriminating? Yes. 'Ice-T 'tweeted' vile false rumors about the police involved in the shooting death in Mn. 'The Twitter Fact-Check Police' were MIA, so - at least in this case - Twitter singled out certain people...whose policies they do not agree / singled out someone they hate. The govt should not be in the business of protecting such companies so they can continue to engage in such discrimination.)
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
51,506
Reaction score
8,608
Points
2,040
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.
Right now government action gives them immunity from liability because they claim people's posts are not "their content".

They then claim the right to moderate content based on whatever they feel like because it is 'their site", and thus their content.

They want the best of both worlds, and they should have to choose. Claim all content as theirs, moderate as they see fit, and then be liable for whatever they let through, or keep their protections as "not their content" and not moderate based on political, cultural, or moral viewpoints of their own.
That’s exactly the point of section 230 as I’ve been trying to tell you.

You don’t want to take away their ability to moderate. You really don’t want that. Go to an unmoderated forum. It’s garbage. It’s an absolute cesspool.
Section 230 was to prevent something like someone tweeting "I am going to blow up a bridge" and then twitter being sued because they didn't do anything about it.

It wasn't designed for Twitter to take sides in political debates and still claim the content isn't theirs.
That doesn’t make any sense. Why would the goal be to allow internet companies immunity from reporting specific identifiable threats?

You don’t really know what you’re talking about.
It's to stop someone from suing twitter for the threat made by another person.

Tweeter: "I am going to kill X"
20 min later, person X is killed by said tweeter.

230 stops the victim's family from suing twitter because they didn't call the cops.
You really think that the government wrote legislation that permitted internet companies to ignore individual specific threats?

That makes absolutely no sense.
It's exactly why they wrote it. Why do you think they wrote it?
Prodigy was sued for defamation by a bank because a poster on their message board accuses that bank of fraud. Prodigy was liable for that defamation.

What made Prodigy liable? They had moderators who removed posts that were insulting, off topic or harassment.

So it created a perverse incentive. The only way to avoid liability for the posts is to allow people to post basically whatever they wanted. It stopped anyone from trying to keep their Internet forums civil and that’s not what anyone wants.
Progressives are the kings of "this is why we can't have nice things". Section 230 works when only used to weed out criminal or completely vulgar postings. But now you want to use it to silence opponents.

Thus it has to go. All on you, none on us.
Alright then. Show me what has been censored.

Certainly not President Snowflake. No one took down his idiotic tweets even when they do constitute harassment.
You Can’t Say That on Twitter | National Review
So the complaint is that you can’t use twitter to express your discrimination of transgendered individuals which is against the terms of service?
How is it against the terms of service to say a man is a man and a woman is a woman?

Sorry, but all you are doing is messing with the paint job and the fender, the DNA stays the same.

See? This is the issue, your side decides a viewpoint is ist/ic and thus verboten.
Because it's targeted harassment of the transgendered community.
No, it isn't. It's amazing how Nazi you assholes go to "protect" your cherished notions.

Is saying "Red Sox Suck" targeted harrassment of Bostonians?

All they are doing is pretending to be the opposite sex, hell a ton of them now don't even go with the surgeries.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
51,506
Reaction score
8,608
Points
2,040
That is going nowhere. Free speech rights apply to the government not private entities.
Twitter can conduct its business how they want...without special granted protections from the govt to protect them from the consequences of their actions.

Is anyone arguing the government MUST continue to give monopolies making huge sums of money while discriminating against US citizens? If so, why?

(Discriminating? Yes. 'Ice-T 'tweeted' vile false rumors about the police involved in the shooting death in Mn. 'The Twitter Fact-Check Police' were MIA, so - at least in this case - Twitter singled out certain people...whose policies they do not agree / singled out someone they hate. The govt should not be in the business of protecting such companies so they can continue to engage in such discrimination.)
Or twitter can just come out and say it, on the record, that certain viewpoints are not allowed on their site. They can't claim to be a public forum and then limit the public by saying one set of opinions isn't allowed.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
51,506
Reaction score
8,608
Points
2,040
why do they have to act fairly?
They don't. The govt also does not have to give them special protection from consequences from how they run their business.
I agree if they repeal social media immunity let’s also repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that gives gun dealers and manufactures immunity from civil suits. Deal? What is the difference ?
Nope. That law is because you assholes want to attempt an end run around the constitution by putting all firearm manufacturers out of business.

and gun owners can still be sued if their product fails due to negligence in the manufacturing process, just like any other manufacturer. What is prevented is suing them for the actions of others when their product works as intended.

It would be like suing Ford if a drunk driver used an Explorer to kill 30 people by driving into a crowd, even if the car functioned properly.
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
62,616
Reaction score
17,126
Points
2,290
Or twitter can just come out and say it, on the record, that certain viewpoints are not allowed on their site. They can't claim to be a public forum and then limit the public by saying one set of opinions isn't allowed.
Agreed....and the US govt should still not be in the business of giving monopolies who operate that way special protections from the consequences of how they run their business.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
11,007
Reaction score
2,319
Points
150
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.
Right now government action gives them immunity from liability because they claim people's posts are not "their content".

They then claim the right to moderate content based on whatever they feel like because it is 'their site", and thus their content.

They want the best of both worlds, and they should have to choose. Claim all content as theirs, moderate as they see fit, and then be liable for whatever they let through, or keep their protections as "not their content" and not moderate based on political, cultural, or moral viewpoints of their own.
That’s exactly the point of section 230 as I’ve been trying to tell you.

You don’t want to take away their ability to moderate. You really don’t want that. Go to an unmoderated forum. It’s garbage. It’s an absolute cesspool.
Section 230 was to prevent something like someone tweeting "I am going to blow up a bridge" and then twitter being sued because they didn't do anything about it.

It wasn't designed for Twitter to take sides in political debates and still claim the content isn't theirs.
That doesn’t make any sense. Why would the goal be to allow internet companies immunity from reporting specific identifiable threats?

You don’t really know what you’re talking about.
It's to stop someone from suing twitter for the threat made by another person.

Tweeter: "I am going to kill X"
20 min later, person X is killed by said tweeter.

230 stops the victim's family from suing twitter because they didn't call the cops.
You really think that the government wrote legislation that permitted internet companies to ignore individual specific threats?

That makes absolutely no sense.
It's exactly why they wrote it. Why do you think they wrote it?
Prodigy was sued for defamation by a bank because a poster on their message board accuses that bank of fraud. Prodigy was liable for that defamation.

What made Prodigy liable? They had moderators who removed posts that were insulting, off topic or harassment.

So it created a perverse incentive. The only way to avoid liability for the posts is to allow people to post basically whatever they wanted. It stopped anyone from trying to keep their Internet forums civil and that’s not what anyone wants.
Progressives are the kings of "this is why we can't have nice things". Section 230 works when only used to weed out criminal or completely vulgar postings. But now you want to use it to silence opponents.

Thus it has to go. All on you, none on us.
Alright then. Show me what has been censored.

Certainly not President Snowflake. No one took down his idiotic tweets even when they do constitute harassment.
You Can’t Say That on Twitter | National Review
So the complaint is that you can’t use twitter to express your discrimination of transgendered individuals which is against the terms of service?
How is it against the terms of service to say a man is a man and a woman is a woman?

Sorry, but all you are doing is messing with the paint job and the fender, the DNA stays the same.

See? This is the issue, your side decides a viewpoint is ist/ic and thus verboten.
Because it's targeted harassment of the transgendered community.
No, it isn't. It's amazing how Nazi you assholes go to "protect" your cherished notions.

Is saying "Red Sox Suck" targeted harrassment of Bostonians?

All they are doing is pretending to be the opposite sex, hell a ton of them now don't even go with the surgeries.
Your opinion on the topic is irrelevant. It's Twitter's platform and they set the rules. They specifically say that type of rhetoric is not allowed and considered hateful speech against a group.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
51,506
Reaction score
8,608
Points
2,040
Or twitter can just come out and say it, on the record, that certain viewpoints are not allowed on their site. They can't claim to be a public forum and then limit the public by saying one set of opinions isn't allowed.
Agreed....and the US govt should still not be in the business of giving monopolies who operate that way special protections from the consequences of how they run their business.
Interesting viewpoint, seeing twitter as a monopoly, although I doubt it would work, because even if twitter has a stranglehold on their particular type of social media, there are plenty of other social media platforms out there.

and their popularity isn't due to the lack of a competitor, it's due to the choice of consumers.

I don't think the Sherman Anti-trust act would fly here.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
53,647
Reaction score
12,378
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
why do they have to act fairly?
They don't. The govt also does not have to give them special protection from consequences from how they run their business.
Fairness is not a requirement under the law providing 230 protections.... if he wants it under the law to require 230 protection, then the law needs changing.... And if you change the law, then YOU will kill all forum sites, like USMB...And cut out our free expression, including Twitter' s.

DUMMY!
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
62,616
Reaction score
17,126
Points
2,290
"A small handful of social media monopolies controls a vast portion of all public and private communications in the United States. They’ve had unchecked power to censor, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter, virtually any form of communication between private citizens and large public audiences. ”

He's right.
 

Johnlaw

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
6,400
Reaction score
2,252
Points
350
why do they have to act fairly?
They don't. The govt also does not have to give them special protection from consequences from how they run their business.
I agree if they repeal social media immunity let’s also repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that gives gun dealers and manufactures immunity from civil suits. Deal? What is the difference ?
Nope. That law is because you assholes want to attempt an end run around the constitution by putting all firearm manufacturers out of business.

and gun owners can still be sued if their product fails due to negligence in the manufacturing process, just like any other manufacturer. What is prevented is suing them for the actions of others when their product works as intended.

It would be like suing Ford if a drunk driver used an Explorer to kill 30 people by driving into a crowd, even if the car functioned properly.
The OP says government should not give businesses special protections. The question is he a hypocrite, I.e. legislative immunity only a-plies to business he approves or, or does he apply this standard to all businesses.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
51,506
Reaction score
8,608
Points
2,040
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.
Right now government action gives them immunity from liability because they claim people's posts are not "their content".

They then claim the right to moderate content based on whatever they feel like because it is 'their site", and thus their content.

They want the best of both worlds, and they should have to choose. Claim all content as theirs, moderate as they see fit, and then be liable for whatever they let through, or keep their protections as "not their content" and not moderate based on political, cultural, or moral viewpoints of their own.
That’s exactly the point of section 230 as I’ve been trying to tell you.

You don’t want to take away their ability to moderate. You really don’t want that. Go to an unmoderated forum. It’s garbage. It’s an absolute cesspool.
Section 230 was to prevent something like someone tweeting "I am going to blow up a bridge" and then twitter being sued because they didn't do anything about it.

It wasn't designed for Twitter to take sides in political debates and still claim the content isn't theirs.
That doesn’t make any sense. Why would the goal be to allow internet companies immunity from reporting specific identifiable threats?

You don’t really know what you’re talking about.
It's to stop someone from suing twitter for the threat made by another person.

Tweeter: "I am going to kill X"
20 min later, person X is killed by said tweeter.

230 stops the victim's family from suing twitter because they didn't call the cops.
You really think that the government wrote legislation that permitted internet companies to ignore individual specific threats?

That makes absolutely no sense.
It's exactly why they wrote it. Why do you think they wrote it?
Prodigy was sued for defamation by a bank because a poster on their message board accuses that bank of fraud. Prodigy was liable for that defamation.

What made Prodigy liable? They had moderators who removed posts that were insulting, off topic or harassment.

So it created a perverse incentive. The only way to avoid liability for the posts is to allow people to post basically whatever they wanted. It stopped anyone from trying to keep their Internet forums civil and that’s not what anyone wants.
Progressives are the kings of "this is why we can't have nice things". Section 230 works when only used to weed out criminal or completely vulgar postings. But now you want to use it to silence opponents.

Thus it has to go. All on you, none on us.
Alright then. Show me what has been censored.

Certainly not President Snowflake. No one took down his idiotic tweets even when they do constitute harassment.
You Can’t Say That on Twitter | National Review
So the complaint is that you can’t use twitter to express your discrimination of transgendered individuals which is against the terms of service?
How is it against the terms of service to say a man is a man and a woman is a woman?

Sorry, but all you are doing is messing with the paint job and the fender, the DNA stays the same.

See? This is the issue, your side decides a viewpoint is ist/ic and thus verboten.
Because it's targeted harassment of the transgendered community.
No, it isn't. It's amazing how Nazi you assholes go to "protect" your cherished notions.

Is saying "Red Sox Suck" targeted harrassment of Bostonians?

All they are doing is pretending to be the opposite sex, hell a ton of them now don't even go with the surgeries.
Your opinion on the topic is irrelevant. It's Twitter's platform and they set the rules. They specifically say that type of rhetoric is not allowed and considered hateful speech against a group.
My opinion and you response just shows you are a hateful bigot who refuses to let other people voice their opinions on anything they disagree with.

That you agree with twitter on this just shows you are an SJW thug, and a cowardly one at that, because you let others do your dirty work for you.

Saying an obvious fact, i.e." you can't turn a man into a woman or vice versa in reality, you can just do it cosmetically, is 'hate speech" just shows you don't have an actual counter-argument.
 

Johnlaw

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
6,400
Reaction score
2,252
Points
350
Or twitter can just come out and say it, on the record, that certain viewpoints are not allowed on their site. They can't claim to be a public forum and then limit the public by saying one set of opinions isn't allowed.
Agreed....and the US govt should still not be in the business of giving monopolies who operate that way special protections from the consequences of how they run their business.
So why shouldn’t we take away protections for the gun industry?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
51,506
Reaction score
8,608
Points
2,040
why do they have to act fairly?
They don't. The govt also does not have to give them special protection from consequences from how they run their business.
I agree if they repeal social media immunity let’s also repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that gives gun dealers and manufactures immunity from civil suits. Deal? What is the difference ?
Nope. That law is because you assholes want to attempt an end run around the constitution by putting all firearm manufacturers out of business.

and gun owners can still be sued if their product fails due to negligence in the manufacturing process, just like any other manufacturer. What is prevented is suing them for the actions of others when their product works as intended.

It would be like suing Ford if a drunk driver used an Explorer to kill 30 people by driving into a crowd, even if the car functioned properly.
The OP says government should not give businesses special protections. The question is he a hypocrite or does he apply this standard to all businesses.
I am saying that Twitter doesn't deserve 230 protection anymore, but gun manufacturers shouldn't be sued if their product works as intended. Two different issues, but you attempt to link them in a gotcha attempt.

Sorry, doesn't fly.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
11,007
Reaction score
2,319
Points
150
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.
Right now government action gives them immunity from liability because they claim people's posts are not "their content".

They then claim the right to moderate content based on whatever they feel like because it is 'their site", and thus their content.

They want the best of both worlds, and they should have to choose. Claim all content as theirs, moderate as they see fit, and then be liable for whatever they let through, or keep their protections as "not their content" and not moderate based on political, cultural, or moral viewpoints of their own.
That’s exactly the point of section 230 as I’ve been trying to tell you.

You don’t want to take away their ability to moderate. You really don’t want that. Go to an unmoderated forum. It’s garbage. It’s an absolute cesspool.
Section 230 was to prevent something like someone tweeting "I am going to blow up a bridge" and then twitter being sued because they didn't do anything about it.

It wasn't designed for Twitter to take sides in political debates and still claim the content isn't theirs.
That doesn’t make any sense. Why would the goal be to allow internet companies immunity from reporting specific identifiable threats?

You don’t really know what you’re talking about.
It's to stop someone from suing twitter for the threat made by another person.

Tweeter: "I am going to kill X"
20 min later, person X is killed by said tweeter.

230 stops the victim's family from suing twitter because they didn't call the cops.
You really think that the government wrote legislation that permitted internet companies to ignore individual specific threats?

That makes absolutely no sense.
It's exactly why they wrote it. Why do you think they wrote it?
Prodigy was sued for defamation by a bank because a poster on their message board accuses that bank of fraud. Prodigy was liable for that defamation.

What made Prodigy liable? They had moderators who removed posts that were insulting, off topic or harassment.

So it created a perverse incentive. The only way to avoid liability for the posts is to allow people to post basically whatever they wanted. It stopped anyone from trying to keep their Internet forums civil and that’s not what anyone wants.
Progressives are the kings of "this is why we can't have nice things". Section 230 works when only used to weed out criminal or completely vulgar postings. But now you want to use it to silence opponents.

Thus it has to go. All on you, none on us.
Alright then. Show me what has been censored.

Certainly not President Snowflake. No one took down his idiotic tweets even when they do constitute harassment.
You Can’t Say That on Twitter | National Review
So the complaint is that you can’t use twitter to express your discrimination of transgendered individuals which is against the terms of service?
How is it against the terms of service to say a man is a man and a woman is a woman?

Sorry, but all you are doing is messing with the paint job and the fender, the DNA stays the same.

See? This is the issue, your side decides a viewpoint is ist/ic and thus verboten.
Because it's targeted harassment of the transgendered community.
No, it isn't. It's amazing how Nazi you assholes go to "protect" your cherished notions.

Is saying "Red Sox Suck" targeted harrassment of Bostonians?

All they are doing is pretending to be the opposite sex, hell a ton of them now don't even go with the surgeries.
Your opinion on the topic is irrelevant. It's Twitter's platform and they set the rules. They specifically say that type of rhetoric is not allowed and considered hateful speech against a group.
My opinion and you response just shows you are a hateful bigot who refuses to let other people voice their opinions on anything they disagree with.

That you agree with twitter on this just shows you are an SJW thug, and a cowardly one at that, because you let others do your dirty work for you.

Saying an obvious fact, i.e." you can't turn a man into a woman or vice versa in reality, you can just do it cosmetically, is 'hate speech" just shows you don't have an actual counter-argument.
Im not stopping you from expressing your opinion but I will stick up for the rights of Twitter to refuse to participate in your speech. If you want to express such an opinion, do it on your own dime.

That you think you have a right to Twitter’s resources for your own purposes makes you more akin to a communist.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top