GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[OldLady]

No one edited Trump’s tweet. They don’t alter tweets. Sometimes they delete them for violating policy.

Thats exactly what 230 was intended to let them do without being subject to liability.

It’s that fucking simple.

God DAMN!!


You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I will waste no more of my time.

.

I suggest you do some reading on the topic.

I liked this guy’s book.

The 26 Words That 'Created the Internet'—and Why They May Be on the Chopping Block

Do you want to know the 26 words that, in the opinion of today's guest, "created the internet?" "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In our latest podcast, Jeff...

reason.com

You cite Reason.com? I didn't know you were a fellow libertarian. You don't act like it.

.

I’m not libertarian. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good source of information.

Anyway. Enjoy.

Yes. You appear to have missed the point of the article.

All Twitter has to do is not remove content that is not "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" and Twitter KEEPS its liability protections (the 26 words).

.

They haven't! They did not remove Trump's "content." All they did was correct disinformation IF people chose to look, with a link.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

WaPo reported earlier today that the EO has the FCC handle complaints of bias against social media companies. A government agency deciding what can be on social media? That one sends chills up my spine. Is this the USSR or China now?

No. As per usual you have it ass-backwards. Social media is deciding what can be on it's sites, not a government agency. The FCC handles complaints of them doing just that, which is against the law.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump has been stupid enough to make the news media the enemy, calling it "fake news." That is beyond stupid because the media always has the last word, and it can pick and chose how it covers Trump, his statements and his deeds.

Now the fool is taking on the tech sector, which may have even more influence on how Americans think.

Forty million Americans have lost their jobs. Over 100,000 Americans have lost their lives in a pandemic.

And Trump signs an executive order that opens the door for the U.S. government to assume oversight of First Amendment rights and political speech on the Internet because Twitter fact checked his lies.

This is unbelievable, and no wonder his followers don't want to defend him anymore. I thought Trump's fans were fervent in their Constitution rights, as say, for example, the Second Amendment. Or do they only support the amendments they like?

That seems to be the case with Trump. Second Amendment, sure, don't take our guns away. Free speech, hell no, if it means countering Trump's lies to his cult.

“We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers,” Trump said before signing the document.

The new directive seeks to change a federal law that generally spared tech companies from being sued or held liable for most posts, photos and videos shared by users on their sites. Tech giants herald these protections, known as Section 230, as the bedrock of the internet. But Trump repeatedly has argued they allow Facebook, Google and Twitter to censor conservatives with impunity.

No, Section 230 censored lies and other harmful content from anyone, regardless of political affiliation. Trump was either lying again, or he doesn't have the intellectual capability to understand the concept.

This is one hell of a distraction from the miserable job Trump has done with regard to the pandemic. By far, the U.S. leads the world in virus deaths, 103,297 and counting.

Most of this is off topic bullshit!

 

[colfax_m]

Who adtual

WaPo reported earlier today that the EO has the FCC handle complaints of bias against social media companies. A government agency deciding what can be on social media? That one sends chills up my spine. Is this the USSR or China now?

No. As per usual you have it ass-backwards. Social media is deciding what can be on it's sites, not a government agency. The FCC handles complaints of them doing just that, which is against the law.

Its against the law for social media to decide what gets posted on their website?

No. Just no.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

WaPo got it right. The FTC will be censoring social media:
c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

That is the current law, dumbass. Unfair or deceptive acts of practices would be censorship.

 

[colfax_m]

I’m not totally opposed to the idea

Why not?

I think it’s reasonable to have some accountability for social media, but not in the way Trump is talking about.

Social media has become a great way to radicalize people. I wish there were more that could be for about that.

 

[Ken Mac]

Let people decide for themselves.

And how do they do that when they don't have both sides of the story? Twitter gave them the other side. The President is not just another Tweeter. He is assumed to know what he is saying. If he is going to use Twitter as his bully pulpit, he needs to be more accurate.

Who decides when he is being accurate or not? What criteria are being used? Is he being targeted as you seem to think he ought to be?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This is one hell of a distraction from the miserable job Trump has done with regard to the pandemic. By far, the U.S. leads the world in virus deaths, 103,297 and counting.

To give everyone an idea how incredibly stupid all this is, Trump claimed that he and other conservatives have been victims of “censorship” by social media providers. He offers no proof of this bias, but we do know that the news media which accurately reports his statements and decisions is regarded as "fake news." Trump, of course, would regard the accurate recording as bias. Uncovering his lies is the entire basis for the unfortunate executive order.

Private companies do not practice censorship by regulating content by their users. Why? If a customer doesn't like what the private company is doing, the customer takes his business elsewhere. Twitter -- the focus of Trump's angst -- is not violating the First Amendment by marking up his tweets. Unlike the government, Twitter is a private company that can moderate its users’ speech as it pleases, without legal penalty.

What our President does not know is that only central governments can practice censorship!

Such as, for example, a nation's leader issuing an order to regulate private companies in the tech sector.

Moreover, Trump is shooting himself in the foot from the perspective of a supernova in the Twittersphere which by the latest count has published 50,000 times under the handle @realDonaldTrump.

Incredibly, Trump is dumb enough to attack his own main tool in communicating with his base. How dumb is that?

A wide array of critics in Congress, the tech industry and across the political spectrum also accused Trump of deputizing government agencies to carry out his personal vendettas. Namely, Trump's uncontrolled anger at Twitter for fact checking his lies.

They are not allowed by law to fact check anyone!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

From the Roommates.com case:

Section 230 of the CDA5 immunizes providers of interactive computer services6 against liability arising from content created by third parties: “No provider . . . of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c).7 This grant of immunity applies only if the interactive computer service provider is not also an “information content provider,” which is defined as someone who is “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of” the offending content. Id. § 230(f)(3).

A website operator can be both a service provider and a content provider: If it passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties, then it is only a service provider with respect to that content. But as to content that it creates itself, or is “responsible, in whole or in part” for creating or developing, the website is also a content provider. Thus, a website may be immune from liability for some of the content it displays to the public but be subject to liability for other content.8

***

In passing section 230, Congress sought to spare interactive computer services this grim choice by allowing them to perform some editing on user-generated content without thereby becoming liable for all defamatory or otherwise unlawful messages that they didn’t edit or delete. In other words, Congress sought to immunize the removal of user generated content, not the creation of content: “ection [230] provides ‘Good Samaritan’ protections from civil liability for providers . . . of an interactive computer service for actions to restrict . . . access to objectionable online material. One of the specific purposes of this section is to overrule Stratton-Oakmont [sic] v. Prodigy and any other similar decisions which have treated such providers . . . as publishers or speakers of content that is not their own because they have restricted access to objectionable material.” H.R. Rep. No.

***

Roommate also argues that it is not responsible for the information on the profile page because it is each subscriber’s action that leads to publication of his particular profile—in other words, the user pushes the last button or takes the last act before publication. We are not convinced that this is even true,20 but don’t see why it matters anyway. The projectionist in the theater may push the last button before a film is displayed on the screen, but surely this doesn’t make him the sole producer of the movie. By any reasonable use of the English language, Roommate is “responsible” at least “in part” for each subscriber’s profile page, because every such page is a collaborative effort between Roommate and the subscriber.

***

Councils finally argue that Roommate should be held liable for the discriminatory statements displayed in the “Additional Comments” section of profile pages. At the end of the registration process, on a separate page from the other registration steps, Roommate prompts subscribers to “tak[e] a moment to personalize your profile by writing a paragraph or two describing yourself and what you are looking for in a roommate.” The subscriber is presented with a blank text box, in which he can type as much or as little about himself as he wishes. Such essays are visible only to paying subscribers. Subscribers provide a variety of provocative, and often very revealing, answers. The contents range from subscribers who “[p]ref[er] white Male roommates” or require that “[t]he person applying for the room MUST be a BLACK GAY MALE” to those who are “NOT looking for black muslims.” Some common themes are a desire to live without “drugs, kids or animals” or “smokers, kids or druggies,” while a few subscribers express more particular preferences, such as preferring to live in a home free of “psychos or anyone on mental medication.” Some subscribers are just looking for someone who will get along with their significant other34 or with their most significant Other.35 [13] Roommate publishes these comments as written.36 It does not provide any specific guidance as to what the essay should contain, nor does it urge subscribers to input discriminatory preferences. Roommate is not responsible, in whole or in part, for the development of this content, which comes entirely from subscribers and is passively displayed by Roommate. Without reviewing every essay, Roommate would have no way to distinguish unlawful discriminatory preferences from perfectly legitimate statements. Nor can there be any doubt that this information was tendered to Roommate for publication online. See pp. 3466-67 supra. This is precisely the kind of situation for which section 230 was designed to provide immunity. See pp. 3453-3455 supra.

 

[iceberg]

No one edited Trump’s tweet. They don’t alter tweets. Sometimes they delete them for violating policy.

Thats exactly what 230 was intended to let them do without being subject to liability.

It’s that fucking simple.

God DAMN!!


You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I will waste no more of my time.

.

I suggest you do some reading on the topic.

I liked this guy’s book.

The 26 Words That 'Created the Internet'—and Why They May Be on the Chopping Block

Do you want to know the 26 words that, in the opinion of today's guest, "created the internet?" "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In our latest podcast, Jeff...

reason.com

You cite Reason.com? I didn't know you were a fellow libertarian. You don't act like it.

.

I’m not libertarian. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good source of information.

Anyway. Enjoy.

Yes. You appear to have missed the point of the article.

All Twitter has to do is not remove content that is not "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" and Twitter KEEPS its liability protections (the 26 words).

.

They haven't! They did not remove Trump's "content." All they did was correct disinformation IF people chose to look, with a link.

But they made themselves the official "truth tellers" and that is not their role.

 

[iceberg]

I’m not totally opposed to the idea

Why not?

I think it’s reasonable to have some accountability for social media, but not in the way Trump is talking about.

Social media has become a great way to radicalize people. I wish there were more that could be for about that.

It's just how we seem to do things these days.

Extremely or not at all.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Moreover, Trump is shooting himself in the foot from the perspective of a supernova in the Twittersphere which by the latest count has published 50,000 times under the handle @realDonaldTrump.

Incredibly, Trump is dumb enough to attack his own main tool in communicating with his base. How dumb is that?

The Times writes, "President Trump, who built his political career on the power of a flame-throwing Twitter account, has now gone to war with Twitter, angered that it would presume to fact-check his messages. But the punishment he is threatening could force social media companies to crack down even more on customers just like Mr. Trump.

"The executive order that Mr. Trump signed on Thursday seeks to strip liability protection in certain cases for companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook for the content on their sites, meaning they could face legal jeopardy if they allowed false and defamatory posts. Without a liability shield, they presumably would have to be more aggressive about policing messages that press the boundaries — like the president’s."

Trump is a strange man.

 

[colfax_m]

Go ahead and show me one court case where that has been upheld.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Council_of_San_Fernando_Valley_v._Roommates.com,_LLC
Text of the Holding

I’m trying to understand how you think this case is relevant.

This is a case that holds that a website is responsible for publishing user submitted information because that website specifically requests that information from the user.

Seems reasonable. Not sure why you think that matters here?

 

[OldLady]

WaPo reported earlier today that the EO has the FCC handle complaints of bias against social media companies. A government agency deciding what can be on social media? That one sends chills up my spine. Is this the USSR or China now?

No. As per usual you have it ass-backwards. Social media is deciding what can be on it's sites, not a government agency. The FCC handles complaints of them doing just that, which is against the law.

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

WaPo got it right. The FTC will be censoring social media:
c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

That is the current law, dumbass. Unfair or deceptive acts of practices would be censorship.

No, it is from the E.O. that was signed today. HERE is the language of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
This opens a pathway for a government agency to monitor and prohibit these companies from removing objectionable materials or from correcting the lying piece of shit President when he leaps on Twitter to tell outrageous lies.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But they made themselves the official "truth tellers" and that is not their role.

And by doing so, they have become the "information content provider."

(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Go ahead and show me one court case where that has been upheld.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Council_of_San_Fernando_Valley_v._Roommates.com,_LLC
Text of the Holding

I’m trying to understand how you think this case is relevant.

This is a case that holds that a website is responsible for publishing user submitted information because that website specifically requests that information from the user.

Seems reasonable. Not sure why you think that matters here?

Read more. Then, go back and read the statute again, particularly the part about being the "information content provider."

(You're getting your ass kicked right now.)

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

He set them up and it worked.

.

 

[colfax_m]

Go ahead and show me one court case where that has been upheld.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Council_of_San_Fernando_Valley_v._Roommates.com,_LLC
Text of the Holding

I’m trying to understand how you think this case is relevant.

This is a case that holds that a website is responsible for publishing user submitted information because that website specifically requests that information from the user.

Seems reasonable. Not sure why you think that matters here?

Read more. Then, go back and read the statute again, particularly the part about being the "information content provider."

(You're getting your ass kicked right now.)

.

Yeah. They were considered a content provider because they specifically elicited information from users for publication which makes them responsible for that information. You can’t explain what relevance this has. I bet you didn’t even read it.

You’ve lost the thread, kiddo. You don’t even know what your point is so you’re obfuscating.

 

[colfax_m]

But they made themselves the official "truth tellers" and that is not their role.

And by doing so, they have become the "information content provider."

(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

It’s not an all or nothing determination.

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

The court case you provided demonstrates that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yeah. They were considered a content provider because they specifically elicited information from users for publication which makes them responsible for that information. You can’t explain what relevance this has. I bet you didn’t even read it.

You’ve lost the thread, kiddo. You don’t even know what your point is so you’re obfuscating.

You must have missed this clarification:

Roommate publishes these comments as written.36 It does not provide any specific guidance as to what the essay should contain, nor does it urge subscribers to input discriminatory preferences. Roommate is not responsible, in whole or in part, for the development of this content, which comes entirely from subscribers and is passively displayed by Roommate. Without reviewing every essay, Roommate would have no way to distinguish unlawful discriminatory preferences from perfectly legitimate statements. Nor can there be any doubt that this information was tendered to Roommate for publication online. See pp. 3466-67 supra.

So, what happens when Roommate.com becomes responsible, in whole or in part, for the development of content? When Roommate no longer is shown to passively display content provided by users?

.