GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[mdk]

It’s different when I and people I like feel discriminated against.

 

[colfax_m]

I don't see the problem with the Legislation removing govt protections from a private company who wishes to be protected from law suits for its actions, using these protections while discriminating, silencing views they oppose, and while make an incredibly large amount of money doing it.

They should not be proteted from being held accountable...but it ids understandable why Democrats oppose the idea of equal accountability...especially NOW.

Because the internet as we know it is based on these protections.

You will ruin the internet.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I don't see the problem with the Legislation removing govt protections from a private company who wishes to be protected from law suits for its actions, using these protections while discriminating, silencing views they oppose, and while make an incredibly large amount of money doing it.

They should not be proteted from being held accountable...but it ids understandable why Democrats oppose the idea of equal accountability...especially NOW.

Because the internet as we know it is based on these protections.

You will ruin the internet.

Why??? Because you might have to read different points of view?

Do you need a safe place that has coloring books and puppies to hug?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[bripat9643]

"Sen. Josh (R-Mo.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday separately announced they were both working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal protections that ensure the company is not held liable for what is posted on its platform.

Both Hawley and Gaetz argued that Twitter’s decision to flag the tweets called its legal liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act into question. Section 230 protects social media platforms from facing lawsuits over what users post.

Hawley sent a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday questioning why the platform should be given Section 230 protections and tweeted that he would soon introduce legislation to end “government giveaways” under the legal shield.

“If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users’ posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers”


IMO subsidies and / or government protections should not be given to companies that engage in trampling on Freedom of Speech. Yes, Twitter (and Facebook) is a privately owned and run company and can operate as they see fit ... but they can do so without tax dollars or protections from a government that supports and defends the Constitution which affords the right of Freedom of Speech to all Americans.

Hillicon Valley: House FISA bill in jeopardy | Democrats drop controversial surveillance measure | GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

Welcome to Hillicon Valley, The Hill’s newsletter detailing all you need to know about the tech and cyber news from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley. If you don’t already, be sure to sign up fo…

thehill.com

Republicans working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday separately announced they were both working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal protections that ensure the company&nb…

thehill.com

.

What fucking sissies, just like their perfume-selling, daytime TV-watching wuss of a leader.

So when blacks whine about disenfranchisement, it's because they are sissies?

 

[colfax_m]

I don't see the problem with the Legislation removing govt protections from a private company who wishes to be protected from law suits for its actions, using these protections while discriminating, silencing views they oppose, and while make an incredibly large amount of money doing it.

They should not be proteted from being held accountable...but it ids understandable why Democrats oppose the idea of equal accountability...especially NOW.

Because the internet as we know it is based on these protections.

You will ruin the internet.

View attachment 342031

Why??? Because you might have to read different points of view?

Do you need a safe place that has coloring books and puppies to hug?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Because you’d force companies back to the 90s before the section 230 was enacted.

Two choices.
No moderation which allows the assholes to post whatever they want in order to keep civil litigation immunity.

Accept legal responsibility for everything posted on the platform which would result in the vast majority of people being kicked off.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't see the problem with the Legislation removing govt protections from a private company who wishes to be protected from law suits for its actions, using these protections while discriminating, silencing views they oppose, and while make an incredibly large amount of money doing it.

They should not be proteted from being held accountable...but it ids understandable why Democrats oppose the idea of equal accountability...especially NOW.

Because the internet as we know it is based on these protections.

You will ruin the internet.

It will ruin the internet as a means of leftwing indoctrination. That's true.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't see the problem with the Legislation removing govt protections from a private company who wishes to be protected from law suits for its actions, using these protections while discriminating, silencing views they oppose, and while make an incredibly large amount of money doing it.

They should not be proteted from being held accountable...but it ids understandable why Democrats oppose the idea of equal accountability...especially NOW.

Because the internet as we know it is based on these protections.

You will ruin the internet.

View attachment 342031

Why??? Because you might have to read different points of view?

Do you need a safe place that has coloring books and puppies to hug?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Because you’d force companies back to the 90s before the section 230 was enacted.

Two choices.
No moderation which allows the assholes to post whatever they want in order to keep civil litigation immunity.

Accept legal responsibility for everything posted on the platform which would result in the vast majority of people being kicked off.

So?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I don't see the problem with the Legislation removing govt protections from a private company who wishes to be protected from law suits for its actions, using these protections while discriminating, silencing views they oppose, and while make an incredibly large amount of money doing it.

They should not be proteted from being held accountable...but it ids understandable why Democrats oppose the idea of equal accountability...especially NOW.

Because the internet as we know it is based on these protections.

You will ruin the internet.

View attachment 342031

Why??? Because you might have to read different points of view?

Do you need a safe place that has coloring books and puppies to hug?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Because you’d force companies back to the 90s before the section 230 was enacted.

Two choices.
No moderation which allows the assholes to post whatever they want in order to keep civil litigation immunity.

Accept legal responsibility for everything posted on the platform which would result in the vast majority of people being kicked off.

That would be too bad if someone followed the general rules applicable to all and you had to read different points of view that you don't like now wouldn't it?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Zander]

Twitter, Google, YouTube, et.al. claim they are not "publishers" simply a platform. Once they "regulate" or censor political content they become defacto editors. That makes them publishers. They are no longer entitled to the protections they currently enjoy.

I do agree that after those protections are removed they can and should do whatever they like. They'll then be sued out of existence. So they have a choice, stop censoring political speech, or face the consequences.

 

[colfax_m]

I don't see the problem with the Legislation removing govt protections from a private company who wishes to be protected from law suits for its actions, using these protections while discriminating, silencing views they oppose, and while make an incredibly large amount of money doing it.

They should not be proteted from being held accountable...but it ids understandable why Democrats oppose the idea of equal accountability...especially NOW.

Because the internet as we know it is based on these protections.

You will ruin the internet.

View attachment 342031

Why??? Because you might have to read different points of view?

Do you need a safe place that has coloring books and puppies to hug?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Because you’d force companies back to the 90s before the section 230 was enacted.

Two choices.
No moderation which allows the assholes to post whatever they want in order to keep civil litigation immunity.

Accept legal responsibility for everything posted on the platform which would result in the vast majority of people being kicked off.

View attachment 342041

That would be too bad if someone followed the general rules applicable to all and you had to read different points of view that you don't like now wouldn't it?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Ironically what Trump is so upset about is Twitter placing a link next to his tweet that gives a different point of view.

 

[colfax_m]

Twitter, Google, YouTube, et.al. claim they are not "publishers" simply a platform. Once they "regulate" or censor political content they become defacto editors. That makes them publishers. They are no longer entitled to the protections they currently enjoy.

I do agree that after those protections are removed they can and should do whatever they like. They'll then be sued out of existence. So they have a choice, stop censoring political speech, or face the consequences.

Platforms do not give up protections by moderating posts under current law.

Do you agree or disagree with platforms moderating out neo-Nazi content or anti-Semitic content? What about holocaust denial?

You don’t want to go down this road.

 

[martybegan]

F

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.

You know that’s not true. Or maybe you’re ignorant and don’t.

You also seem ignorant about fascism. Fascism would be using government to threaten citizens because you don’t like what they say.

Fascism is a mentality, it's the desire to have your view, your way of doing things be the only way of doing things, and using any means required to accomplish that.

You cheer twitter for blocking people you disagree with, because you are a simple minded, narrow cuck.

Go eat a bag of dicks.

Ha! Such a potty mouth.

You describes exactly what Trump is trying to do. Use force to make Twitter publish his tweets unopposed.

I work in construction, you ain't seen nothing yet.

He is trying to hold them to their pretend notion of being an open forum.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I don't see the problem with the Legislation removing govt protections from a private company who wishes to be protected from law suits for its actions, using these protections while discriminating, silencing views they oppose, and while make an incredibly large amount of money doing it.

They should not be proteted from being held accountable...but it ids understandable why Democrats oppose the idea of equal accountability...especially NOW.

Because the internet as we know it is based on these protections.

You will ruin the internet.

View attachment 342031

Why??? Because you might have to read different points of view?

Do you need a safe place that has coloring books and puppies to hug?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Because you’d force companies back to the 90s before the section 230 was enacted.

Two choices.
No moderation which allows the assholes to post whatever they want in order to keep civil litigation immunity.

Accept legal responsibility for everything posted on the platform which would result in the vast majority of people being kicked off.

View attachment 342041

That would be too bad if someone followed the general rules applicable to all and you had to read different points of view that you don't like now wouldn't it?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Ironically what Trump is so upset about is Twitter placing a link next to his tweet that gives a different point of view.

Are they doing that to all no matter what political persuasion or only Trump?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[martybegan]

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.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I would say, that instead of twitter using their freedom of expression, they are just trying to limit their liability of facilitating destruction of our democracy.

Bullshit.

Wow, claiming limiting the speech of certain people is "saving democracy".

Hack.

 

[easyt65]

Ummm, I believe it was 'Ice-T' who took to Twitter to spread all sorts of vile debunked lies about the recent killing of an individual by cops...and Twitter's 'Fact-Checkers' were MIA. I notice they got really pissed when the WH Fact-Checked their Fact-Check of the President, though.....

More blatant BS leftist hypocrisy.....WHICH IS FINE SINCE THEY ARE A PRIVATELY-OWNED COMPANY...

...WHO SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN PROTECTION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

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

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

Fuck off.

Twitter removes an enormous amount of tweets for being hateful. No one removed Trump’s lying tweet. They just posted a link below it stating why they thought it wasn’t true. What’s ironic is that you’re all outraged that Twitter is using their freedom of expression to reply to Trump’s tweet.

Fascist.

They claim to be an open forum, accepting all viewpoints, and yet the only viewpoints they seem to delete with any consistency are those from the right.

If they want to take a side, they should have to say it, in writing. If they want to be a forum for open exchange they shouldn't be banning people for content based on their politics.

Twitter has never stated there are no limits to what you can post. You’re either lying or just making shut up.

Being an open forum and having no limits on what you can post are two different things, and you know that.

Twitter's own missions statement:

Twitter's purpose is to serve the public conversation. Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.

As their statement says, moderation is essential to keeping the platform viable.

That’s precisely why they wrote section 230 in the first place. That’s why these websites even exist.

 

[martybegan]

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.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Twitter, Google, YouTube, et.al. claim they are not "publishers" simply a platform. Once they "regulate" or censor political content they become defacto editors. That makes them publishers. They are no longer entitled to the protections they currently enjoy.

I do agree that after those protections are removed they can and should do whatever they like. They'll then be sued out of existence. So they have a choice, stop censoring political speech, or face the consequences.

Platforms do not give up protections by moderating posts under current law.

Do you agree or disagree with platforms moderating out neo-Nazi content or anti-Semitic content? What about holocaust denial?

You don’t want to go down this road.

What about white hate? Religious belief hate? Hating those that have? Need I go on???

*****SMILE*****

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

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

Like what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?

This has nothing to do with that

So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?
Lol ok

The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.

This is not the same premise.

The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.

That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?

Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
.

Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.

The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.

Fucking fascist.

If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.

Follow the rules.

Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.

Fuck off.

Twitter removes an enormous amount of tweets for being hateful. No one removed Trump’s lying tweet. They just posted a link below it stating why they thought it wasn’t true. What’s ironic is that you’re all outraged that Twitter is using their freedom of expression to reply to Trump’s tweet.

Fascist.

They claim to be an open forum, accepting all viewpoints, and yet the only viewpoints they seem to delete with any consistency are those from the right.

If they want to take a side, they should have to say it, in writing. If they want to be a forum for open exchange they shouldn't be banning people for content based on their politics.

Twitter has never stated there are no limits to what you can post. You’re either lying or just making shut up.

Being an open forum and having no limits on what you can post are two different things, and you know that.

Twitter's own missions statement:

Twitter's purpose is to serve the public conversation. Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.

As their statement says, moderation is essential to keeping the platform viable.

That’s precisely why they wrote section 230 in the first place. That’s why these websites even exist.

"Moderation".

So that's how you explain content based bans and filtering.

Uh, yes. That’s exactly what it means. If someone posts something with content that is unacceptable, the moderators remove it. It’s how it works on this forum too.