Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But, now any post or quote they touch better not have ANY defamatory content (in whole or in part...development) and that is something they CANNOT avoid if they are going around posting or editing news stories from other sources that are liable for their own content. They don't get the automatic defense of 230.It’s not an all or nothing determination.And by doing so, they have become the "information content provider."But they made themselves the official "truth tellers" and that is not their role.
(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.
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.
I hear that. But you are not hearing my point, I don't think: It is OBJECTIONABLE to have the President of the United States lying up a storm on Twitter. This is actually an issue that is tied to public health and safety and the integrity of our elections. It's serious business. He is the PRESIDENT. People listen to him. They will think all this blustering bullshit is true because the President said it. I'm offended when posters do it here--this is magnified by about a thousand times because of the office he holds.But they made themselves the official "truth tellers" and that is not their role.They haven't! They did not remove Trump's "content." All they did was correct disinformation IF people chose to look, with a link.Yes. You appear to have missed the point of the article.I’m not libertarian. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good source of information.You cite Reason.com? I didn't know you were a fellow libertarian. You don't act like it.God DAMN!!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.
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
.
Anyway. Enjoy.
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).
.
Oh, so now you're going to say he lied just to get Twitter in trouble? Not a chance. He's a hateful, lying prick and what he did had no clever ulterior motives.He set them up and it worked.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
.
You’re just now discovering the FCC’s job? They have been able to determine what can or can’t be on TV or radio for a long time now. To them, social media is just another broadcast. If you’re going to act like a content provider, you better be prepared to follow the rules.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?
He already had this EO, and all legal research surrounding it, ready to go when he clearly stated something that would cause a reaction.Oh, so now you're going to say he lied just to get Twitter in trouble? Not a chance. He's a hateful, lying prick and what he did had no clever ulterior motives.
To determine whether it is "objectionable" one must determine whether or not the tweet was a lie.It is OBJECTIONABLE to have the President of the United States lying up a storm on Twitter.
Do you not know the difference in the FCC, FEC and FTC? Apparently you do not!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.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.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?
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
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 materialThat is the current law, dumbass. Unfair or deceptive acts of practices would be censorship.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.
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.
I hear that. But you are not hearing my point, I don't think: It is OBJECTIONABLE to have the President of the United States lying up a storm on Twitter. This is actually an issue that is tied to public health and safety and the integrity of our elections. It's serious business. He is the PRESIDENT. People listen to him. They will think all this blustering bullshit is true because the President said it. I'm offended when posters do it here--this is magnified by about a thousand times because of the office he holds.But they made themselves the official "truth tellers" and that is not their role.They haven't! They did not remove Trump's "content." All they did was correct disinformation IF people chose to look, with a link.Yes. You appear to have missed the point of the article.I’m not libertarian. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good source of information.You cite Reason.com? I didn't know you were a fellow libertarian. You don't act like it.God DAMN!!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.
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...
.
Anyway. Enjoy.
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).
.
It deserved to be corrected. The result is not at all surprising; Donald is po'd that he was contradicted, so he is using his authority to write an EO that will punish Twitter for so doing. Nothing about "it was just my opinion," or even "I presume some will vote honestly." No. Just vindictive destruction of a company that millions--no billions--use every day in order to blast out his message that Democrats suck, they're dishonest and they will beat me by cheating.
And Twitter does not get to CLAIM something is a lie just because they don’t like it. That’s editorializing. Making you a publisher, just like a newspaper. Yet you’re okay with a lying POS like the moron at Twitter who has publicly referred to Trump as a Nazi making the claim of true or not. Sorry, the FCC has been in charge of policing content for years now. They likely should have been looking at these sites long ago.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.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.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?
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
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 materialThat is the current law, dumbass. Unfair or deceptive acts of practices would be censorship.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.
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.
No I understand your point, I just don't agree on the, lying up a storm. I don't think he's done any more or less than other politicians. Schiff is still pimping Russia, why is he not fact checked?I hear that. But you are not hearing my point, I don't think: It is OBJECTIONABLE to have the President of the United States lying up a storm on Twitter. This is actually an issue that is tied to public health and safety and the integrity of our elections. It's serious business. He is the PRESIDENT. People listen to him. They will think all this blustering bullshit is true because the President said it. I'm offended when posters do it here--this is magnified by about a thousand times because of the office he holds.But they made themselves the official "truth tellers" and that is not their role.They haven't! They did not remove Trump's "content." All they did was correct disinformation IF people chose to look, with a link.Yes. You appear to have missed the point of the article.I’m not libertarian. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good source of information.You cite Reason.com? I didn't know you were a fellow libertarian. You don't act like it.God DAMN!!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.
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...
.
Anyway. Enjoy.
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).
.
It deserved to be corrected. The result is not at all surprising; Donald is po'd that he was contradicted, so he is using his authority to write an EO that will punish Twitter for so doing. Nothing about "it was just my opinion," or even "I presume some will vote honestly." No. Just vindictive destruction of a company that millions--no billions--use every day in order to blast out his message that Democrats suck, they're dishonest and they will beat me by cheating.
He's a nasty, self-centered individual who can't abide criticism. He abuses his power more each time he's allowed to get away with it (vindictive firings, Ukraine arm twisting). Sure his EO was floating around in draft--he's been bitching about social media as well as all other media since he got in office. It was Twitter's criticism that made him pull the trigger. He didn't plan it. I'd bet you anything.He already had this EO, and all legal research surrounding it, ready to go when he clearly stated something that would cause a reaction.Oh, so now you're going to say he lied just to get Twitter in trouble? Not a chance. He's a hateful, lying prick and what he did had no clever ulterior motives.
Don't fall victim to confirmation bias about this guy. He is a shrewd individual.
.
Wow but it's OK for NBC to cut off Barr and go on a faux rampage.Here's what started this war:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...els-biden-video-manipulated-media/4998579002/
Jack had to cover for his boy, Joe so he started tagging content as "manipulated" but all Trump et al did was show the clip. They didn't alter the video. But, some of the left's own medicine sure goes down hard, don't it?
Welcome to being on the shit-end of creative editing process, commies. Eat your own shit and LIKE IT!!!
.
No, in the REAL WORLD, we base our statements on facts. You don't get to claim a lie is okay just because you like it. There is no justification for what he said.Twitter does not get to CLAIM something is a lie just because they don’t like it.
Mueller seemed to think so. He claims Trump can be indicted for obstruction when he leaves office, and our entire intelligence department tells us you haven't a clue about Russia helping Trump. It's already been confirmed. Denials aren't going to change reality.Because collusion by itself is not a crime. A conspiracy to collude is. Do you understand the difference? The only thing that saved Trump from the conspiracy part, was that it could not be proven Trump and the Russians had an agreement.Then why wasn't he impeached for it?bRussian collusion was proven to have happened. The Trump tower meeting was collusion.Russian collusion lie for three years and still claims it.What lies?So when the media spreads lies about him it's okay, but it's not okay for him to go after them?
Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Order To Weaken Social Media Companies
President Trump signs an executive order aimed at limiting the broad legal protections enjoyed by social media companies days after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets.www.npr.org
I suppose the First Amendment only limits The Congress to obey the First Amendment, and once again Donald Trump believes he is above the law, even when that law it not statutory, but number one in the Bill of Rights. What next, locking up those who criticize him with no regards to the 4th, 5th and 6th articles in the Bill of Rights?
He told Americans to inject bleach. To name a few many more, they are daily on here.
There was nothing between Rump and Russia. Nothing.
That that doddering old fool knew nothing as was patently obvious in the hearings, you boob.
You’re not defining a problem for twitter, not yet.But, now any post or quote they touch better not have ANY defamatory content (in whole or in part...development) and that is something they CANNOT avoid if they are going around posting or editing news stories from other sources that are liable for their own content. They don't get the automatic defense of 230.It’s not an all or nothing determination.And by doing so, they have become the "information content provider."But they made themselves the official "truth tellers" and that is not their role.
(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.
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.
I know this seems really "cut and dry" to you, but you clearly are NOT seeing the problem this creates for Twitter et al.
.
Yup, Schiff is still going on about Russia and Trump.It's a combination of Twitter saying only THEY own "the truth" and made worse by an obvious, uneven application of their standards.
Welcome to being on the shit-end of creative editing process, commies. Eat your own shit and LIKE IT!!!
