GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[whitehall]

Why does Twitter enjoy federal liability protection? The internet service stepped in a big bag of shit when they decided to analyze (only the President's) political speech and argue about the relevance. FDR would have had them hanged if they interfered with his "fireside chats".

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

That’s not even the topic here. Trump isn’t being banned from twitter. He isn’t being censored.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

This has nothing to do with moderation, asshole.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

"unacceptable" means it contradicts the leftwing agenda.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That’s not even the topic here. Trump isn’t being banned from twitter. He isn’t being censored.

Of course you do. You and your fellow TDS komrades have been defending banning it.

 

[jknowgood]

Twitter owns the site, they can regulate content

View attachment 341991

There's some bakeries that would tell you that no you apparently can't regulate content if you're a privately owned company.

Shouldn't have progressive courts setting precedents if you don't like how the game is played.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Bakeries have to follow the law
There is no “law” regulating how websites can control content

So Twitter can say blacks cannot be on their website?

 

[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.

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.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Twitter censored statements made by President Trump, it was a stupid decision they made. Heck it was a BLUNDER!

American Thinker

With his tweets about Scarborough's intern, Trump set a trap for Twitter
By Andrea Widburg
May 28, 2020

Excerpt:

Even Trump-supporters have wondered about Trump's tweets implying that MSNBC's Joe Scarborough had something to do with a young intern's death in his office when he was still a Florida congressman. It's true that Scarborough and his co-host and wife Mika Brzezinksi have spent three years accusing Trump of treasonous collusion with the Russians, but Trump's venom still seemed strange.

I, however, don't think it was strange at all. Trump is one of the most calculating, rational people ever to occupy the White House. He's been faced with a serious problem, which is the fact that the immensely powerful social media giants, which are the gateway to most information nowadays, have already begun trying to sway the election to Biden. Legislatively, thanks to three years of Russiagate and the current hostile House, Trump has been powerless.

So Trump set a trap. On Wednesday, the Twitter mouse took the bait.

LINK

=====

Twitter was supposed to be a PLATFORM, but they acted like a publisher with Trumps twitter comments about Mail in Balloting., that was a gigantic mistake!

 

[Shelleyar]

So Twitter can say blacks cannot be on their website?

That would be racism.
But Trumpanzies are not a race. Even if they like to be one.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

"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

.

Ha ha ha ha ha @ PROGS. They can't see the connections so far as A to B. They really opened pandora's box this time. They're just too dumb and blinded by emotions (e.g. TDS) to stay out of their own ways.

 

[HenryBHough]

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.

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

Or is English perhaps your second language?

 

[jknowgood]

So Twitter can say blacks cannot be on their website?

That would be racism.
But Trumpanzies are not a race. Even if they like to be one.

Yeah we know.

So Twitter can say blacks cannot be on their website?

That would be racism.
But Trumpanzies are not a race. Even if they like to be one.

Yeah we know.

 

[Care4all]

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?