GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[Ken Mac]

so, is it okay for the govt to tell the USMB Moderators and site owners what rules they make for this site or to hold USMB owners libel for what their posters, post?

They won't since this forum is a PLATFORM, Mods delete when certain debate rules are violated. I had THREE postings deleted (Reported them) yesterday because it violated the forum rule of attacking family members (No Attacks on family members) , my wife in this case, he was very insulting and completely off topic.

Moderators can delete or ban or permaban any message or members they want on USMB, at their discretion....it does not have to break the rules....

..............................................

Did Trump's tweet, violate twitter's rules, as they claim??

But they aren't publishing inside, against your comments. They react to rule breaking nothing more.

You ignored post 95 that explains why Twitter made a huge mistake in their reaction to one of his NON Rule breaking comments.

HAVENT READ 95 YET, but the news reported that the tweet of trump's did break their rules?

my problem is why haven't they corrected or added information to ALL of his fake news and lies? Or ban him for his lies and threats before?

Because they would have to act accordingly for all the other twitter users who provide misleading information. That is about 99% of all twitter users. Twitter would no longer exist as a company.

why do they have to act fairly?

It's a Forum, who says Twitter mods can't express what they want, when they want on their own forum?

Can we get govt to shut this USMB Forum down because we don't like what actions USMB Moderators take?

No!

So, what is all this whining and snow flaking all about?? Eh?

Distraction?
Free campaigning getting the news to cover his whining and govt abuse of power instead of his covid failures? Instead of 100000 deaths in just 2 months being discussed?

And y'all praise him? What has this Trump world come to? Your hatred for America is great....

No - they aren't supposed to express what they want. They are considered a platform by choice so they aren't allowed to editorialize. This shields them, by law, from libel. Once they start editorializing they are now a content provider and that makes them a publisher. They then become open to libel to any post made by any person on the platform. So they now have to police the whole platform. Which they don't have the manpower nor desire to do. They want their cake and eat it too. This has nothing to do with Trump (he was just the lucky recipient of their first "fact/misleading" post response).

My hatred? That's disgusting that you would even say that. Fuck you.

 

[Ken Mac]

GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

Actually, it's the other way around. If twitter gets it's way - then liberty dies. You are clueless.

 

[easyt65]

All sites have terms of service, including this one. Violate those terms and they can expel you and you have no legal recourse. I have not read Twitter’s TOS but they may be in their rights to censure Trump. Does unequal enforcement of the TOS equal an actionable event, I.e. a law suit? I am not sure probably not. My feeling is that Trump has been given more leeway than the average Twitter user, but I really don’y know if that is accurate.

Thanks for your 'feeling'; however, again, the Govyt should not be in the business of handing out 302 protections to social media monopolies who misrepresent who they are and what they do, who censure and silence the free and equal exchange of ideas - which is what they claim they do.

Let Twitter operate how they want without those govt protections just like so many hundreds of thousands of privately owned businesses do every day in this country.

 

[Ken Mac]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

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.

The WHOLE purpose of twitter is to share their resources to people for them to utilize. There are terms of agreement in which this exchange of commerce takes place. Twitter gets to sell their eyeballs in exchange for the use of their resources.

God dam- think shit through, would you please?

 

[Ken Mac]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

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.

The only rights twitter has to "refuse" participation in someone's speech is outlined in 230. Go look at the list.

 

[Ken Mac]

Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.

Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.

The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.

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.

Link?

Where in the fuck did they say that? What they did to Trump is NOT covered in their terms of use or in 230.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Actually, it's the other way around. If twitter gets it's way - then liberty dies. You are clueless.

Certainly, the intent of 230 protections have died. The Public Policy is stated clearly in subsection (b) of 230:

Policy
It is the policy of the United States—

(1)
to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;

(2)
to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

(3)
to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internetand other interactive computer services;

(4)
to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and

(5)
to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

.

 

[Ken Mac]

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 ?

Twitter isn't living up to the law. They aren't allowed to editorialize. I guess it would be if gun manufacturers went out and shot someone. They would now be liable. Your analogy is completely false.

 

[JLW]

I don’t disagree with you. Twitter and social media will go out of business if they go wild censuring innocuous statements or every controversial comment.

Despite my defending Twitter in this case, I have no great love for social media. I think it is a bane on civilized society. My issue is purely a legal issue of removing legal immunity just from them. Remove it from all social media then. I have a problem with legislative immunity in general anyway. Take it away from social media then take it away from the gun industry or any other industry that benefits from exemptions for the sake of profits.
Let the people decide via juries if they are liable.

 

[sakinago]

Isn't that a little strong....I mean, your calling out Twitter "like they thugs they are"?

I don't think so. Suppression of free speech, refusing to allow the fair and equal exchange of ideas because they don't fit 'your' agenda?

Nah, I'm good with 'thugs'.

Did Twitter REMOVE Trump' s 'free speech'?

NO!

Under trump' s free speech, Twitter expressed THEIR Free Speech....


It is Trump who wants to SQUASH Twitter' s Free Speech response...!!!!!!!!


And he's got you lemmings fighting for him, to shut Twitter up! To take their free speech away! And to abuse his govt power, to do it!

Holy Smokes!

You just can't make this crap up....!

What are you saying here. That liable laws are a violation of free speech? Trump isn’t censoring Twitter, unlike twitter who just censored trump last night. They edited his post because it “glorified violence”. The problem here is that Twitter did not equally censor public figures who were also “glorifying the violence” caused by the rioters. I’ll post both the original and edited tweet.

Original
“....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!

Edited
I can’t stand back & watch this happen to a great American City, Minneapolis. A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right....

Trump isn’t interfering in twitters free speech. Twitter can run their company however they want, dictate what content they’ll allow, and what content they want to promote or suppress. This is exactly what publishers have been doing for centuries. The only difference is that companies like Twitter and YouTube will take on the same liability that newspapers do. ORRR they can go back to pre 2016 election rules and operate like a platform, and allow all content as long as it’s legal, without exclusion, promotion, or suppression.

 

[martybegan]

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.

In this case we just want twitter to be fair. In the case of the gun manufacturers the purpose is to run them out of business under the logic of "if no one makes guns, no one can get guns"

As far as I am concerned I have no great love for social media. I think it is all a bane on society. I have a problem with most legislative immunities with all businesses whether it is the gun industry, energy com

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.

Isn’t social media working as intended? A platform to air one’s views is exactly its purpose. Congress just can’t take immunity from one company and leave it place for others. It would need to repeal the law in its entirety. Say good bye to forums like this and Social media.

Why not? The standard is the law protects sites that allow private content from private individuals. Twitter had decided to control the content beyond the standard controls for vulgarity and actual criminal activities. furthermore, they have decided to unequally control the content, yet still claim to be a public forum.

All sites have terms of service, including this one. Violate those terms and they can expel you and you have no legal recourse. I have not read Twitter’s TOS but they may be in their rights to censure Trump. Does unequal enforcement of the TOS equal an actionable event, I.e. a law suit? I am not sure probably not. My feeling is that Trump has been given more leeway than the average Twitter user, but I really don’y know if that is accurate.

I care less about Trump and more about normal people being banned because they say things like a man is a man and a woman is a woman. If you think something that banal is "hate speech" then you either are a queefing spineless wussy, or just don't like hearing things you disagree with.

Their"rules" call themself a public forum, and they do call out bad behaviors, however they don't enforce the rules they set equally or fairly, while claiming they do.

230 protection loss would force them to admit this, nothing more.

I don’t disagree with you. Twitter and social media will go out of business if they go wild censuring innocuous statements or every controversial comment.

Despite my defending Twitter in this case, I have no great love for social media. I think it is a bane on civilized society. My issue is purely a legal issue of removing legal immunity just from them. Remove it from all social media then. I have a problem with legislative immunity in general anyway. Take it away from social media then take it away from the gun industry or any other industry that benefits from exemptions for the sake of profits.
Let the people decide via juries if they are liable.

Again, the gun industry protections only protect them if their product WORKS AS INTENDED. It was needed because gun control zealots decided to do end runs around the 2nd amendment, and local judges who are also gun control zealots were allowing bullshit lawsuits to proceed, thus costing the manufacturers just to defend said bullshit lawsuits.

A gun manufacturer can still be sued if their product is defective, like any other manufacturer in any other industry.

Even lawsuit protections given to vaccine manufacturers only protects them from lawsuits due to side effects/reactions, if they fucked up the manufacturing process they can still be sued.

 

[JLW]

All sites have terms of service, including this one. Violate those terms and they can expel you and you have no legal recourse. I have not read Twitter’s TOS but they may be in their rights to censure Trump. Does unequal enforcement of the TOS equal an actionable event, I.e. a law suit? I am not sure probably not. My feeling is that Trump has been given more leeway than the average Twitter user, but I really don’y know if that is accurate.

Thanks for your 'feeling'; however, again, the Govyt should not be in the business of handing out 302 protections to social media monopolies who misrepresent who they are and what they do, who censure and silence the free and equal exchange of ideas - which is what they claim they do.

Let Twitter operate how they want without those govt protections just like so many hundreds of thousands of privately owned businesses do every day in this country.

I agree let’s remove legislative immunities from all industries.

 

[martybegan]

All sites have terms of service, including this one. Violate those terms and they can expel you and you have no legal recourse. I have not read Twitter’s TOS but they may be in their rights to censure Trump. Does unequal enforcement of the TOS equal an actionable event, I.e. a law suit? I am not sure probably not. My feeling is that Trump has been given more leeway than the average Twitter user, but I really don’y know if that is accurate.

Thanks for your 'feeling'; however, again, the Govyt should not be in the business of handing out 302 protections to social media monopolies who misrepresent who they are and what they do, who censure and silence the free and equal exchange of ideas - which is what they claim they do.

Let Twitter operate how they want without those govt protections just like so many hundreds of thousands of privately owned businesses do every day in this country.

I agree let’s remove all legislative immunities from all industries.

Sorry, but if we remove side/effect-reaction immunities from vaccine manufacturers no one will make the vaccines.

 

[Ken Mac]

I don’t disagree with you. Twitter and social media will go out of business if they go wild censuring innocuous statements or every controversial comment.

Despite my defending Twitter in this case, I have no great love for social media. I think it is a bane on civilized society. My issue is purely a legal issue of removing legal immunity just from them. Remove it from all social media then. I have a problem with legislative immunity in general anyway. Take it away from social media then take it away from the gun industry or any other industry that benefits from exemptions for the sake of profits.
Let the people decide via juries if they are liable.

It's not that they want to go out and censure everyone. They NOW HAVE TO! Otherwise they will be libel for what other people post. You know they won't so they are standing firm and the government is going to run them over as they should. Twitter is not living up to being a "platform" as they should! They were protected under the law and now they have shed that protection.

Your gun point is stupid and fails. I already posted why.

 

[JLW]

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.

In this case we just want twitter to be fair. In the case of the gun manufacturers the purpose is to run them out of business under the logic of "if no one makes guns, no one can get guns"

As far as I am concerned I have no great love for social media. I think it is all a bane on society. I have a problem with most legislative immunities with all businesses whether it is the gun industry, energy com

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.

Isn’t social media working as intended? A platform to air one’s views is exactly its purpose. Congress just can’t take immunity from one company and leave it place for others. It would need to repeal the law in its entirety. Say good bye to forums like this and Social media.

Why not? The standard is the law protects sites that allow private content from private individuals. Twitter had decided to control the content beyond the standard controls for vulgarity and actual criminal activities. furthermore, they have decided to unequally control the content, yet still claim to be a public forum.

All sites have terms of service, including this one. Violate those terms and they can expel you and you have no legal recourse. I have not read Twitter’s TOS but they may be in their rights to censure Trump. Does unequal enforcement of the TOS equal an actionable event, I.e. a law suit? I am not sure probably not. My feeling is that Trump has been given more leeway than the average Twitter user, but I really don’y know if that is accurate.

I care less about Trump and more about normal people being banned because they say things like a man is a man and a woman is a woman. If you think something that banal is "hate speech" then you either are a queefing spineless wussy, or just don't like hearing things you disagree with.

Their"rules" call themself a public forum, and they do call out bad behaviors, however they don't enforce the rules they set equally or fairly, while claiming they do.

230 protection loss would force them to admit this, nothing more.

I don’t disagree with you. Twitter and social media will go out of business if they go wild censuring innocuous statements or every controversial comment.

Despite my defending Twitter in this case, I have no great love for social media. I think it is a bane on civilized society. My issue is purely a legal issue of removing legal immunity just from them. Remove it from all social media then. I have a problem with legislative immunity in general anyway. Take it away from social media then take it away from the gun industry or any other industry that benefits from exemptions for the sake of profits.
Let the people decide via juries if they are liable.

Again, the gun industry protections only protect them if their product WORKS AS INTENDED. It was needed because gun control zealots decided to do end runs around the 2nd amendment, and local judges who are also gun control zealots were allowing bullshit lawsuits to proceed, thus costing the manufacturers just to defend said bullshit lawsuits.

A gun manufacturer can still be sued if their product is defective, like any other manufacturer in any other industry.

Even lawsuit protections given to vaccine manufacturers only protects them from lawsuits due to side effects/reactions, if they fucked up the manufacturing process they can still be sued.

Your argument is exactly why the immunity exists for the gun industry. But it is the essentially the same argument why all industries seek legislative immunity: to prevent lawsuits.

 

[easyt65]

Sorry, but if we remove side/effect-reaction immunities from vaccine manufacturers no one will make the vaccines.

You make a good point. There are those who deserve a limited amount of protection. Twitter, Google, & Facebook aren't one of them.

 

[easyt65]

Your argument is exactly why the immunity exists for the gun industry. But it is the essentially the same argument why all industries seek legislative immunity: to prevent lawsuits.

As I pointed out earlier, the gun manufacturing industry and Twitter is not a valid comparison.

 

[martybegan]

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.

In this case we just want twitter to be fair. In the case of the gun manufacturers the purpose is to run them out of business under the logic of "if no one makes guns, no one can get guns"

As far as I am concerned I have no great love for social media. I think it is all a bane on society. I have a problem with most legislative immunities with all businesses whether it is the gun industry, energy com

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.

Isn’t social media working as intended? A platform to air one’s views is exactly its purpose. Congress just can’t take immunity from one company and leave it place for others. It would need to repeal the law in its entirety. Say good bye to forums like this and Social media.

Why not? The standard is the law protects sites that allow private content from private individuals. Twitter had decided to control the content beyond the standard controls for vulgarity and actual criminal activities. furthermore, they have decided to unequally control the content, yet still claim to be a public forum.

All sites have terms of service, including this one. Violate those terms and they can expel you and you have no legal recourse. I have not read Twitter’s TOS but they may be in their rights to censure Trump. Does unequal enforcement of the TOS equal an actionable event, I.e. a law suit? I am not sure probably not. My feeling is that Trump has been given more leeway than the average Twitter user, but I really don’y know if that is accurate.

I care less about Trump and more about normal people being banned because they say things like a man is a man and a woman is a woman. If you think something that banal is "hate speech" then you either are a queefing spineless wussy, or just don't like hearing things you disagree with.

Their"rules" call themself a public forum, and they do call out bad behaviors, however they don't enforce the rules they set equally or fairly, while claiming they do.

230 protection loss would force them to admit this, nothing more.

I don’t disagree with you. Twitter and social media will go out of business if they go wild censuring innocuous statements or every controversial comment.

Despite my defending Twitter in this case, I have no great love for social media. I think it is a bane on civilized society. My issue is purely a legal issue of removing legal immunity just from them. Remove it from all social media then. I have a problem with legislative immunity in general anyway. Take it away from social media then take it away from the gun industry or any other industry that benefits from exemptions for the sake of profits.
Let the people decide via juries if they are liable.

Again, the gun industry protections only protect them if their product WORKS AS INTENDED. It was needed because gun control zealots decided to do end runs around the 2nd amendment, and local judges who are also gun control zealots were allowing bullshit lawsuits to proceed, thus costing the manufacturers just to defend said bullshit lawsuits.

A gun manufacturer can still be sued if their product is defective, like any other manufacturer in any other industry.

Even lawsuit protections given to vaccine manufacturers only protects them from lawsuits due to side effects/reactions, if they fucked up the manufacturing process they can still be sued.

Your argument is exactly why the immunity exists for the gun industry. But it is the essentially the same argument why all industries seek legislative immunity: to prevent lawsuits.

In this case it prevents frivolous lawsuits that try to use tort law to provide compensation for a malfunctioning product to create false liability for a properly functioning product.

They are trying to sue Ford because of Drunk driving, not because the breaks were defective due to a design flaw.

 

[JLW]

All sites have terms of service, including this one. Violate those terms and they can expel you and you have no legal recourse. I have not read Twitter’s TOS but they may be in their rights to censure Trump. Does unequal enforcement of the TOS equal an actionable event, I.e. a law suit? I am not sure probably not. My feeling is that Trump has been given more leeway than the average Twitter user, but I really don’y know if that is accurate.

Thanks for your 'feeling'; however, again, the Govyt should not be in the business of handing out 302 protections to social media monopolies who misrepresent who they are and what they do, who censure and silence the free and equal exchange of ideas - which is what they claim they do.

Let Twitter operate how they want without those govt protections just like so many hundreds of thousands of privately owned businesses do every day in this country.

I agree let’s remove all legislative immunities from all industries.

Sorry, but if we remove side/effect-reaction immunities from vaccine manufacturers no one will make the vaccines.

You make a good argument about vaccines. I think those engaged in trial vaccines though have to sign documents assuming the risk of death or injury if the vaccine does not work or causes harm.

 

[martybegan]

Sorry, but if we remove side/effect-reaction immunities from vaccine manufacturers no one will make the vaccines.

You make a good point. There are those who deserve a limited amount of protection. Twitter, Google, & Facebook aren't one of them.

Agreed. and in the case of the vaccines the government foots the bill for any settlements due to side-effects/adverse reactions as part of the deal. The people aren't just told they can't sue.

The gun lawsuits are not in the same category, as they are just end runs around the 2nd to deny people RKBA via limiting the supply of firearms.