It Is DONE - Welcome To Being Treated Just Like Every Other Business in the US Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

[Cecilie1200]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

Censoring is editorializing, moron. If they don't want to follow the rules, then their protection from lawsuits will be stripped from them.

Nope, every website censors. Including this one.

Want this law to go away then message boards like this one will cease to exist. That is just a fact.

This website censors very little, and they spell out very plainly the things that aren't allowed. Opinions the moderators don't agree with isn't included.

 

[FA_Q2]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.

but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.

social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.

No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.

Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.

Tough shit.

it has nothing to do with what trump likes or does not. to try and make it that simple is simply to feed your TDS and anti-trump "everything he does is" wrong limited mental capability.

you can't be both a platform and publisher. hell you're not supposed to own more than 3 "news" sites and that law has been pushed around also.

we need to separate these out. period.

and when you sell me space on your property, it's no longer private. they make money from my using their services, i am "paying" for that.

you can make this about trump if you like - but that's your own set limitation in what is really happening. this shit has been coming long before trump was in office. but hey - orange man bad n shit.

I have never been on the orange man bad bullshit train so try again.

you are saying trump is doing this and only he feels this way. he's acting out against those he doesn't like. that is "orange man bad" to me when trump is simply saying pick who you are so we can have you abide by those rules.

Of course it is Trump. We are discussing an EO. That means Trump. And no, he is not simply saying 'pick who you are' because Trump is being very selective when he addresses this type of thing. He only goes after those that go after him - one of the many things that IS bad about Trump.

what rules does social media need to follow now? who creates and enforces them? i don't see a whole lot. the wild west days of social media are over; ended by the push of the big boys in social media trying to make themselves more than they are.

The rules they fall under right now is more than sufficient. I actually am a small government guy so I do not not take government control over speech - which is EXACTLY what this is - lightly. I called the democrats out for the asinine bullshit authoritarian 'fairness doctrine' when they wanted to play content dictator. I will call Trump out on the exact same bullshit because that is all this is. Left wingers were incensed over the fact that the right virtually controls all political speech on the radio. Now right wingers are incensed that the left has a very out sized influence on social media platforms.

Here is the rub - this is how freedom works - people do and run their private property in ways that you may not like. That does not give the government the power to come in and ensure that they use it the way you may want them to.

they are politically motivated, use their platforms to dictate policy and cry foul when told to stop. now we are at a point where these companies, due to their own actions, can no longer enjoy the best of both and restrictions of neither.

they need to pick a side and go; or a new designation needs to come out for social media and rules of engagement set.

all there is to it and needs to happen with or without trump.

No, that certainly does not need to happen. I do not need nanny state government to come in and ensure that I have a space to operate on twitter or FB. When they editorialize (which labeling something as fact or fiction actually is so twitters action does not actually fall under 203) then sure they can be sued. Guess what - that is already the case. If they chose to censor then that is their own damn business - or at least it should be.

Interesting that the government who decided that twitter and FB cannot legally censor politicians as though poor powerless politicians need protection but now the government is also threatening to open them up to legal actions should they do anything else. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and demand that social media platforms act as free commercial outlets for politicians.

Government needs to get out of the business of regulating and controlling free association and speech and THAT is all there is to it.

You lying fucker?

Trump has never done that.

Obama has. He sent the IRS after everyone.
He spied on everyone that was a threat to him.
He sent armies of lawyers after critics and ruined people's lives.
Ever hear of Roger Stone or Michael Flynn?

Fucking dumbass.

Hell Obama sure limited the press and spied on them.

Trump is going through the system to enforce laws. Obama went around them.

Obama's failure to follow the law does not have any bearing on Trumps actions being correct or incorrect.

But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police.

Excusing one and attacking the other gets you said other.

I don't but, again, Obama's actions are not relevant in changing this law or writing that EO. They are simply not pertinent and I will not justify current actions of this presidency because Obama acted like an authoritarian.

Obama CLEARLY and REGULARLY used the long arm of government to attack the free press. Because Obama 'got away' with those actions, would you excuse the Trump presidency if he were to tap the phones of reporters to arrest sources?

Can you actually claim that your statement 'But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police' is consistent with the answer you give to the question above?

Imtalking big picture, not every move.

So that is a no, it is not consistent with the answer to that question.

How does that not give you pause on the stance you are taking here.

However, while Trump is at war with the media, as far as I know, he's, not spying on them. Outside that actions are very similar.

Now, if we are saying Trump's attacks on Twitter and Facebook are attacks on "the media" then are you saying these entities are in fact "media" and not "platforms"?

We are not saying that. You brought up the media earlier and used Obama's spying on them as a justification for the statement in question. I was pointing out that it is hypocritical to justify Trump's actions as good by using bad actions of the previous president.

Essentially, you cannot justify Trump going after social media platforms because Obama tried to go after those that criticized him as empty head was trying to do at the start of this off shoot and has distracted me from actually addressing the real conversation:

Trump is taking the action yes.

The actions have been asked for before he took office.

People seem to refuse the big picture so they can bitch about the pieces.

To say the gov needs to get out of regulating speech is, only part of the problem. Social media needs to stop that shit also.

Sure, people have called for it in the past but that also has nothing to do with the fact that this is Trump's action and it is still wrong.

You are correct, social media should also not be in the business of controlling the exchange of ideas on their platforms. The stark difference here, though, is that social media is NOT an arm of the government. What they should and should not do is entirely separate from what big government enforcement must be brought to bear to control them. Just because social media should allow open communication does not warrant the government trying to force them to act the way they want and this is particularly the case when you are trying to regulate political speech.

I am not a subject of twitter. FB cannot put me in jail if I do or do not use their platform as they intend. They are not government.

Do you actually trust the government to decide what is and is not 'correct' or what is or is not political speech? I sure as hell do not. Do you have any idea what the democrats will use this type of craziness for when they are the ones writing the law as will INEVITABLY happen? I sure as hell would not be comfortable with Obama deciding how social media platforms must treat information shared on their sites on AGW. I sure as hell would be even less comfortable with them defining the protections they do and do not get for posts covering Russian interference in our elections.

What you are essentially advocating for is allowing the government to withdraw protections that ALL platforms receive, publishers and non publishers alike as, again, such sites have comment sections as well based on how they control their content. I do not trust the government with that power in any shape or form. Hell, Obama already showed us the way - post something that the current administration does not like and they will put you in some limbo for years until you give up just like the IRS did. What I do trust is my own 2 eyes because those eyes will go elsewhere. Hence why I have no interest or plans to ever open twitter under any circumstances. WE get complete control over these platforms by agreeing to use or avoid them.

That most people seem not to care is not a problem that government needs to solve. It is an intrinsic cost of actual freedom.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

This executive order, like so many Trump pronouncements, has absolutely no teeth and will probably be struck down by the courts.

Why do you say that? If they engage in editorializing content, then they are a publisher. If they want to remain a platform for views and not become an editor, then they are fine to continue with the protection. The social media needs to decide who they want to be when they grow up and then they can be assigned appropriately.

Yippee. If Trumpy Bear gets his way, the floodgates are open for everyone he has every attacked or slandered on Twitter, to sue him. The Bidens, the Rich Family, Ambassador Stevens Family, and all of the women he called "liars" when they accused him of sexual assault, can now sue him, as can Joe Scarborough, Hillary Clinton, and Comey, Brennan, and everyone else he disparaged via twitter while firing.

TRUMP WILL BE BANKRUPTED BY THE SLANDER SUITS.

YOU do realize you dumb broad, that all those lies and slander from the left that was used to attack the President and his family can also be sued now? Is that what the ends have come to?

Do we get to sue Trump everytime he lies and thus tie up the courts until his death?

Depends. Can you learn to tell the difference between "lies" and "says things I don't like"?

Can you? I've seen no evidence that you know the difference between what Trump tells you and the truth. You seem to think they're one and the same. They're not.

I've seen no evidence you have the brain wattage to recognize and identify what you're seeing correctly, so this post means even less to me than your posts usually do.

For the record, though, I can tell the difference between lies and other things I just don't like. I have a great deal of aversion to stupidity, which is why I dislike your posts, but I'm pretty sure you're too mentally challenged to actually lie.

 

[FA_Q2]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

Censoring is editorializing, moron. If they don't want to follow the rules, then their protection from lawsuits will be stripped from them.

Nope, every website censors. Including this one.

Want this law to go away then message boards like this one will cease to exist. That is just a fact.

This website censors very little, and they spell out very plainly the things that aren't allowed. Opinions the moderators don't agree with isn't included.

So says most of the right here.

Many of the nut jobs that get regulated tot he rubber room would disagree. Certainly, many of the hard left wing nutjobs in the legal system might disagree as well when Russian conspiracy threads are sent there.

Do you trust those judges to make the right call in those circumstances? Even worse, all it takes is a single frivolous lawsuit from Joe Noone to make a site like this one financially untenable. And worst of all, virtually every single one of those tiny conservative platforms that currently exist as both a publisher and a comment site for conservatives to share opinions would disappear as well with a single frivolous lawsuit. This is essentially what Media Matters does though they go after advertisers atm and they are VERY good at it. Open that Pandora's Box and you would be arming them with a bazooka to take down everyone they disagree with.

Therein lies the other problem, the left is FAR better at using the outrage machine to make platforms and alternative media sources disappear than the right is.

 

[iceberg]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.

but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.

social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.

No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.

Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.

Tough shit.

it has nothing to do with what trump likes or does not. to try and make it that simple is simply to feed your TDS and anti-trump "everything he does is" wrong limited mental capability.

you can't be both a platform and publisher. hell you're not supposed to own more than 3 "news" sites and that law has been pushed around also.

we need to separate these out. period.

and when you sell me space on your property, it's no longer private. they make money from my using their services, i am "paying" for that.

you can make this about trump if you like - but that's your own set limitation in what is really happening. this shit has been coming long before trump was in office. but hey - orange man bad n shit.

I have never been on the orange man bad bullshit train so try again.

you are saying trump is doing this and only he feels this way. he's acting out against those he doesn't like. that is "orange man bad" to me when trump is simply saying pick who you are so we can have you abide by those rules.

Of course it is Trump. We are discussing an EO. That means Trump. And no, he is not simply saying 'pick who you are' because Trump is being very selective when he addresses this type of thing. He only goes after those that go after him - one of the many things that IS bad about Trump.

what rules does social media need to follow now? who creates and enforces them? i don't see a whole lot. the wild west days of social media are over; ended by the push of the big boys in social media trying to make themselves more than they are.

The rules they fall under right now is more than sufficient. I actually am a small government guy so I do not not take government control over speech - which is EXACTLY what this is - lightly. I called the democrats out for the asinine bullshit authoritarian 'fairness doctrine' when they wanted to play content dictator. I will call Trump out on the exact same bullshit because that is all this is. Left wingers were incensed over the fact that the right virtually controls all political speech on the radio. Now right wingers are incensed that the left has a very out sized influence on social media platforms.

Here is the rub - this is how freedom works - people do and run their private property in ways that you may not like. That does not give the government the power to come in and ensure that they use it the way you may want them to.

they are politically motivated, use their platforms to dictate policy and cry foul when told to stop. now we are at a point where these companies, due to their own actions, can no longer enjoy the best of both and restrictions of neither.

they need to pick a side and go; or a new designation needs to come out for social media and rules of engagement set.

all there is to it and needs to happen with or without trump.

No, that certainly does not need to happen. I do not need nanny state government to come in and ensure that I have a space to operate on twitter or FB. When they editorialize (which labeling something as fact or fiction actually is so twitters action does not actually fall under 203) then sure they can be sued. Guess what - that is already the case. If they chose to censor then that is their own damn business - or at least it should be.

Interesting that the government who decided that twitter and FB cannot legally censor politicians as though poor powerless politicians need protection but now the government is also threatening to open them up to legal actions should they do anything else. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and demand that social media platforms act as free commercial outlets for politicians.

Government needs to get out of the business of regulating and controlling free association and speech and THAT is all there is to it.

You lying fucker?

Trump has never done that.

Obama has. He sent the IRS after everyone.
He spied on everyone that was a threat to him.
He sent armies of lawyers after critics and ruined people's lives.
Ever hear of Roger Stone or Michael Flynn?

Fucking dumbass.

Hell Obama sure limited the press and spied on them.

Trump is going through the system to enforce laws. Obama went around them.

Obama's failure to follow the law does not have any bearing on Trumps actions being correct or incorrect.

But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police.

Excusing one and attacking the other gets you said other.

I don't but, again, Obama's actions are not relevant in changing this law or writing that EO. They are simply not pertinent and I will not justify current actions of this presidency because Obama acted like an authoritarian.

Obama CLEARLY and REGULARLY used the long arm of government to attack the free press. Because Obama 'got away' with those actions, would you excuse the Trump presidency if he were to tap the phones of reporters to arrest sources?

Can you actually claim that your statement 'But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police' is consistent with the answer you give to the question above?

Imtalking big picture, not every move.

So that is a no, it is not consistent with the answer to that question.

How does that not give you pause on the stance you are taking here.

However, while Trump is at war with the media, as far as I know, he's, not spying on them. Outside that actions are very similar.

Now, if we are saying Trump's attacks on Twitter and Facebook are attacks on "the media" then are you saying these entities are in fact "media" and not "platforms"?

We are not saying that. You brought up the media earlier and used Obama's spying on them as a justification for the statement in question. I was pointing out that it is hypocritical to justify Trump's actions as good by using bad actions of the previous president.

Essentially, you cannot justify Trump going after social media platforms because Obama tried to go after those that criticized him as empty head was trying to do at the start of this off shoot and has distracted me from actually addressing the real conversation:

Trump is taking the action yes.

The actions have been asked for before he took office.

People seem to refuse the big picture so they can bitch about the pieces.

To say the gov needs to get out of regulating speech is, only part of the problem. Social media needs to stop that shit also.

Sure, people have called for it in the past but that also has nothing to do with the fact that this is Trump's action and it is still wrong.

You are correct, social media should also not be in the business of controlling the exchange of ideas on their platforms. The stark difference here, though, is that social media is NOT an arm of the government. What they should and should not do is entirely separate from what big government enforcement must be brought to bear to control them. Just because social media should allow open communication does not warrant the government trying to force them to act the way they want and this is particularly the case when you are trying to regulate political speech.

I am not a subject of twitter. FB cannot put me in jail if I do or do not use their platform as they intend. They are not government.

Do you actually trust the government to decide what is and is not 'correct' or what is or is not political speech? I sure as hell do not. Do you have any idea what the democrats will use this type of craziness for when they are the ones writing the law as will INEVITABLY happen? I sure as hell would not be comfortable with Obama deciding how social media platforms must treat information shared on their sites on AGW. I sure as hell would be even less comfortable with them defining the protections they do and do not get for posts covering Russian interference in our elections.

What you are essentially advocating for is allowing the government to withdraw protections that ALL platforms receive, publishers and non publishers alike as, again, such sites have comment sections as well based on how they control their content. I do not trust the government with that power in any shape or form. Hell, Obama already showed us the way - post something that the current administration does not like and they will put you in some limbo for years until you give up just like the IRS did. What I do trust is my own 2 eyes because those eyes will go elsewhere. Hence why I have no interest or plans to ever open twitter under any circumstances. WE get complete control over these platforms by agreeing to use or avoid them.

That most people seem not to care is not a problem that government needs to solve. It is an intrinsic cost of actual freedom.

Well this got way out of what and now you are making connections on your own conjecture.

Allowing bad behavior encourages bad behavior +1.

Doesn't mean the same behavior. In fact it tends to vary to what is important to either group. All I meant to say on that.

YES Trump is taking on Twitter.

YES I felt it needed to be done before Trump hit office.

No I don't like how Trump is doing it but the way we do things these days is extreme. All of us.

Social media needs rules of fair play. They are, neither a platform or a publisher. So in that light what rules must they adhere to TODAY?

I don't see a whole lot of rules or boundaries for what they can and can't do with their business. I see them for most other, businesses.

So time to stop hiding behind 230 and define the rules they must play by. If they are going to be political it must be stated for example.

Hope that makes more sense.

 

[FA_Q2]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

You are quite correct about "bad comments", if what you're talking about is foul language, racist remarks, threats of violence, harassment and stalking . . . if what you mean by "bad comments" is "opinions I don't agree with", that's something else. And by picking and choosing who can and can't post and what they can and can't post, they are actually MAKING themselves liable, arguably, for the content.

Who is censoring according to political content on USMB? Cite an example.

See my previous post for the actions that I am talking about.

Picking who can and cannot post is not editorializing. That is just not the same thing. Disallowing Joe Noone from posting does not equate to making an affirmative statement.

 

[Cecilie1200]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

Let me see if I got this right. Trump "calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act" , but these regulations have not been written, approved or disseminated yet down through the bureaucracy or the courts, right?

"My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”
He has instructed the FTC to not allow deceptive trade practices when they buy and sell things?

Like the guy said in GhostBusters:
View attachment 342507

That does "do it", if the "it" in question is setting policy directives for the departments of the executive branch to then carry out . . . which is what his job actually is.

I have no idea what "it" YOU thought he was supposed to do.

His statement was kind of ambiguous. he did not mention anything related to what regulated trade practice he was talking about so it is unclear whether it has any effect or not and as I said the new regulations under the Communications Decency Act have not been rewritten or published yet, so I appreciate the nice commercial he gave of what his intent is, but it doesn't change much at this point, so I can thank him for the pronouncement but it is totally unclear what effect it will have or if the courts would go along with it. Didn't it take like 9 months of writing and rewriting his executive order for his travel ban against Muslim countries to have an effect because it had legal issues requiring re-writing multiple times by order of the courts?

Yeah, that's because it was a statement ABOUT the executive order; it wasn't the executive order itself. You're supposed to actually read the executive order.

How dumb are you when you get snarky about "the nice commercial he gave" as though it was supposed to be anything else? If you're unclear about the executive order and you haven't made any effort to get yourself clear on it, that's YOUR problem, not anyone else's.

 

[FA_Q2]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.

but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.

social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.

No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.

Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.

Tough shit.

it has nothing to do with what trump likes or does not. to try and make it that simple is simply to feed your TDS and anti-trump "everything he does is" wrong limited mental capability.

you can't be both a platform and publisher. hell you're not supposed to own more than 3 "news" sites and that law has been pushed around also.

we need to separate these out. period.

and when you sell me space on your property, it's no longer private. they make money from my using their services, i am "paying" for that.

you can make this about trump if you like - but that's your own set limitation in what is really happening. this shit has been coming long before trump was in office. but hey - orange man bad n shit.

I have never been on the orange man bad bullshit train so try again.

you are saying trump is doing this and only he feels this way. he's acting out against those he doesn't like. that is "orange man bad" to me when trump is simply saying pick who you are so we can have you abide by those rules.

Of course it is Trump. We are discussing an EO. That means Trump. And no, he is not simply saying 'pick who you are' because Trump is being very selective when he addresses this type of thing. He only goes after those that go after him - one of the many things that IS bad about Trump.

what rules does social media need to follow now? who creates and enforces them? i don't see a whole lot. the wild west days of social media are over; ended by the push of the big boys in social media trying to make themselves more than they are.

The rules they fall under right now is more than sufficient. I actually am a small government guy so I do not not take government control over speech - which is EXACTLY what this is - lightly. I called the democrats out for the asinine bullshit authoritarian 'fairness doctrine' when they wanted to play content dictator. I will call Trump out on the exact same bullshit because that is all this is. Left wingers were incensed over the fact that the right virtually controls all political speech on the radio. Now right wingers are incensed that the left has a very out sized influence on social media platforms.

Here is the rub - this is how freedom works - people do and run their private property in ways that you may not like. That does not give the government the power to come in and ensure that they use it the way you may want them to.

they are politically motivated, use their platforms to dictate policy and cry foul when told to stop. now we are at a point where these companies, due to their own actions, can no longer enjoy the best of both and restrictions of neither.

they need to pick a side and go; or a new designation needs to come out for social media and rules of engagement set.

all there is to it and needs to happen with or without trump.

No, that certainly does not need to happen. I do not need nanny state government to come in and ensure that I have a space to operate on twitter or FB. When they editorialize (which labeling something as fact or fiction actually is so twitters action does not actually fall under 203) then sure they can be sued. Guess what - that is already the case. If they chose to censor then that is their own damn business - or at least it should be.

Interesting that the government who decided that twitter and FB cannot legally censor politicians as though poor powerless politicians need protection but now the government is also threatening to open them up to legal actions should they do anything else. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and demand that social media platforms act as free commercial outlets for politicians.

Government needs to get out of the business of regulating and controlling free association and speech and THAT is all there is to it.

You lying fucker?

Trump has never done that.

Obama has. He sent the IRS after everyone.
He spied on everyone that was a threat to him.
He sent armies of lawyers after critics and ruined people's lives.
Ever hear of Roger Stone or Michael Flynn?

Fucking dumbass.

Hell Obama sure limited the press and spied on them.

Trump is going through the system to enforce laws. Obama went around them.

Obama's failure to follow the law does not have any bearing on Trumps actions being correct or incorrect.

But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police.

Excusing one and attacking the other gets you said other.

I don't but, again, Obama's actions are not relevant in changing this law or writing that EO. They are simply not pertinent and I will not justify current actions of this presidency because Obama acted like an authoritarian.

Obama CLEARLY and REGULARLY used the long arm of government to attack the free press. Because Obama 'got away' with those actions, would you excuse the Trump presidency if he were to tap the phones of reporters to arrest sources?

Can you actually claim that your statement 'But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police' is consistent with the answer you give to the question above?

Imtalking big picture, not every move.

So that is a no, it is not consistent with the answer to that question.

How does that not give you pause on the stance you are taking here.

However, while Trump is at war with the media, as far as I know, he's, not spying on them. Outside that actions are very similar.

Now, if we are saying Trump's attacks on Twitter and Facebook are attacks on "the media" then are you saying these entities are in fact "media" and not "platforms"?

We are not saying that. You brought up the media earlier and used Obama's spying on them as a justification for the statement in question. I was pointing out that it is hypocritical to justify Trump's actions as good by using bad actions of the previous president.

Essentially, you cannot justify Trump going after social media platforms because Obama tried to go after those that criticized him as empty head was trying to do at the start of this off shoot and has distracted me from actually addressing the real conversation:

Trump is taking the action yes.

The actions have been asked for before he took office.

People seem to refuse the big picture so they can bitch about the pieces.

To say the gov needs to get out of regulating speech is, only part of the problem. Social media needs to stop that shit also.

Sure, people have called for it in the past but that also has nothing to do with the fact that this is Trump's action and it is still wrong.

You are correct, social media should also not be in the business of controlling the exchange of ideas on their platforms. The stark difference here, though, is that social media is NOT an arm of the government. What they should and should not do is entirely separate from what big government enforcement must be brought to bear to control them. Just because social media should allow open communication does not warrant the government trying to force them to act the way they want and this is particularly the case when you are trying to regulate political speech.

I am not a subject of twitter. FB cannot put me in jail if I do or do not use their platform as they intend. They are not government.

Do you actually trust the government to decide what is and is not 'correct' or what is or is not political speech? I sure as hell do not. Do you have any idea what the democrats will use this type of craziness for when they are the ones writing the law as will INEVITABLY happen? I sure as hell would not be comfortable with Obama deciding how social media platforms must treat information shared on their sites on AGW. I sure as hell would be even less comfortable with them defining the protections they do and do not get for posts covering Russian interference in our elections.

What you are essentially advocating for is allowing the government to withdraw protections that ALL platforms receive, publishers and non publishers alike as, again, such sites have comment sections as well based on how they control their content. I do not trust the government with that power in any shape or form. Hell, Obama already showed us the way - post something that the current administration does not like and they will put you in some limbo for years until you give up just like the IRS did. What I do trust is my own 2 eyes because those eyes will go elsewhere. Hence why I have no interest or plans to ever open twitter under any circumstances. WE get complete control over these platforms by agreeing to use or avoid them.

That most people seem not to care is not a problem that government needs to solve. It is an intrinsic cost of actual freedom.

Well this got way out of what and now you are making connections on your own conjecture.

Way out of what?

I am not making connections on my own conjecture - these are the very things that have been talked about in this thread and many others - regulating how such platforms may remove unwanted content or removing current protections media sites have for people posting content on their platform. What I said falls under one of those 2 actions.

Allowing bad behavior encourages bad behavior +1.

Doesn't mean the same behavior. In fact it tends to vary to what is important to either group. All I meant to say on that.

YES Trump is taking on Twitter.

YES I felt it needed to be done before Trump hit office.

No I don't like how Trump is doing it but the way we do things these days is extreme. All of us.

Social media needs rules of fair play. They are, neither a platform or a publisher. So in that light what rules must they adhere to TODAY?

I don't see a whole lot of rules or boundaries for what they can and can't do with their business. I see them for most other, businesses.

So time to stop hiding behind 230 and define the rules they must play by. If they are going to be political it must be stated for example.

Hope that makes more sense.

I am fine with requiring statements or other such disclosures. No problem there. The rhetoric is just removing 203 protections though and/or outright regulating how they may remove content and that is flatly wrong. Most here have been calling for outright regulation of content, the absolute worst of any 'solution.'

IF they come up with a better legal structure for media platforms than the old 203 rules that may be better than what we have but I have serious doubts that such will come anywhere near improving things though. If that is what you are looking for than explain what you think they should be trying to accomplish then. What would be 'better' than the current framework?

 

[iceberg]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.

but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.

social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.

No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.

Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.

Tough shit.

it has nothing to do with what trump likes or does not. to try and make it that simple is simply to feed your TDS and anti-trump "everything he does is" wrong limited mental capability.

you can't be both a platform and publisher. hell you're not supposed to own more than 3 "news" sites and that law has been pushed around also.

we need to separate these out. period.

and when you sell me space on your property, it's no longer private. they make money from my using their services, i am "paying" for that.

you can make this about trump if you like - but that's your own set limitation in what is really happening. this shit has been coming long before trump was in office. but hey - orange man bad n shit.

I have never been on the orange man bad bullshit train so try again.

you are saying trump is doing this and only he feels this way. he's acting out against those he doesn't like. that is "orange man bad" to me when trump is simply saying pick who you are so we can have you abide by those rules.

Of course it is Trump. We are discussing an EO. That means Trump. And no, he is not simply saying 'pick who you are' because Trump is being very selective when he addresses this type of thing. He only goes after those that go after him - one of the many things that IS bad about Trump.

what rules does social media need to follow now? who creates and enforces them? i don't see a whole lot. the wild west days of social media are over; ended by the push of the big boys in social media trying to make themselves more than they are.

The rules they fall under right now is more than sufficient. I actually am a small government guy so I do not not take government control over speech - which is EXACTLY what this is - lightly. I called the democrats out for the asinine bullshit authoritarian 'fairness doctrine' when they wanted to play content dictator. I will call Trump out on the exact same bullshit because that is all this is. Left wingers were incensed over the fact that the right virtually controls all political speech on the radio. Now right wingers are incensed that the left has a very out sized influence on social media platforms.

Here is the rub - this is how freedom works - people do and run their private property in ways that you may not like. That does not give the government the power to come in and ensure that they use it the way you may want them to.

they are politically motivated, use their platforms to dictate policy and cry foul when told to stop. now we are at a point where these companies, due to their own actions, can no longer enjoy the best of both and restrictions of neither.

they need to pick a side and go; or a new designation needs to come out for social media and rules of engagement set.

all there is to it and needs to happen with or without trump.

No, that certainly does not need to happen. I do not need nanny state government to come in and ensure that I have a space to operate on twitter or FB. When they editorialize (which labeling something as fact or fiction actually is so twitters action does not actually fall under 203) then sure they can be sued. Guess what - that is already the case. If they chose to censor then that is their own damn business - or at least it should be.

Interesting that the government who decided that twitter and FB cannot legally censor politicians as though poor powerless politicians need protection but now the government is also threatening to open them up to legal actions should they do anything else. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and demand that social media platforms act as free commercial outlets for politicians.

Government needs to get out of the business of regulating and controlling free association and speech and THAT is all there is to it.

You lying fucker?

Trump has never done that.

Obama has. He sent the IRS after everyone.
He spied on everyone that was a threat to him.
He sent armies of lawyers after critics and ruined people's lives.
Ever hear of Roger Stone or Michael Flynn?

Fucking dumbass.

Hell Obama sure limited the press and spied on them.

Trump is going through the system to enforce laws. Obama went around them.

Obama's failure to follow the law does not have any bearing on Trumps actions being correct or incorrect.

But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police.

Excusing one and attacking the other gets you said other.

I don't but, again, Obama's actions are not relevant in changing this law or writing that EO. They are simply not pertinent and I will not justify current actions of this presidency because Obama acted like an authoritarian.

Obama CLEARLY and REGULARLY used the long arm of government to attack the free press. Because Obama 'got away' with those actions, would you excuse the Trump presidency if he were to tap the phones of reporters to arrest sources?

Can you actually claim that your statement 'But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police' is consistent with the answer you give to the question above?

Imtalking big picture, not every move.

So that is a no, it is not consistent with the answer to that question.

How does that not give you pause on the stance you are taking here.

However, while Trump is at war with the media, as far as I know, he's, not spying on them. Outside that actions are very similar.

Now, if we are saying Trump's attacks on Twitter and Facebook are attacks on "the media" then are you saying these entities are in fact "media" and not "platforms"?

We are not saying that. You brought up the media earlier and used Obama's spying on them as a justification for the statement in question. I was pointing out that it is hypocritical to justify Trump's actions as good by using bad actions of the previous president.

Essentially, you cannot justify Trump going after social media platforms because Obama tried to go after those that criticized him as empty head was trying to do at the start of this off shoot and has distracted me from actually addressing the real conversation:

Trump is taking the action yes.

The actions have been asked for before he took office.

People seem to refuse the big picture so they can bitch about the pieces.

To say the gov needs to get out of regulating speech is, only part of the problem. Social media needs to stop that shit also.

Sure, people have called for it in the past but that also has nothing to do with the fact that this is Trump's action and it is still wrong.

You are correct, social media should also not be in the business of controlling the exchange of ideas on their platforms. The stark difference here, though, is that social media is NOT an arm of the government. What they should and should not do is entirely separate from what big government enforcement must be brought to bear to control them. Just because social media should allow open communication does not warrant the government trying to force them to act the way they want and this is particularly the case when you are trying to regulate political speech.

I am not a subject of twitter. FB cannot put me in jail if I do or do not use their platform as they intend. They are not government.

Do you actually trust the government to decide what is and is not 'correct' or what is or is not political speech? I sure as hell do not. Do you have any idea what the democrats will use this type of craziness for when they are the ones writing the law as will INEVITABLY happen? I sure as hell would not be comfortable with Obama deciding how social media platforms must treat information shared on their sites on AGW. I sure as hell would be even less comfortable with them defining the protections they do and do not get for posts covering Russian interference in our elections.

What you are essentially advocating for is allowing the government to withdraw protections that ALL platforms receive, publishers and non publishers alike as, again, such sites have comment sections as well based on how they control their content. I do not trust the government with that power in any shape or form. Hell, Obama already showed us the way - post something that the current administration does not like and they will put you in some limbo for years until you give up just like the IRS did. What I do trust is my own 2 eyes because those eyes will go elsewhere. Hence why I have no interest or plans to ever open twitter under any circumstances. WE get complete control over these platforms by agreeing to use or avoid them.

That most people seem not to care is not a problem that government needs to solve. It is an intrinsic cost of actual freedom.

Well this got way out of what and now you are making connections on your own conjecture.

Way out of what?

I am not making connections on my own conjecture - these are the very things that have been talked about in this thread and many others - regulating how such platforms may remove unwanted content or removing current protections media sites have for people posting content on their platform. What I said falls under one of those 2 actions.

Allowing bad behavior encourages bad behavior +1.

Doesn't mean the same behavior. In fact it tends to vary to what is important to either group. All I meant to say on that.

YES Trump is taking on Twitter.

YES I felt it needed to be done before Trump hit office.

No I don't like how Trump is doing it but the way we do things these days is extreme. All of us.

Social media needs rules of fair play. They are, neither a platform or a publisher. So in that light what rules must they adhere to TODAY?

I don't see a whole lot of rules or boundaries for what they can and can't do with their business. I see them for most other, businesses.

So time to stop hiding behind 230 and define the rules they must play by. If they are going to be political it must be stated for example.

Hope that makes more sense.

I am fine with requiring statements or other such disclosures. No problem there. The rhetoric is just removing 203 protections though and/or outright regulating how they may remove content and that is flatly wrong. Most here have been calling for outright regulation of content, the absolute worst of any 'solution.'

IF they come up with a better legal structure for media platforms than the old 203 rules that may be better than what we have but I have serious doubts that such will come anywhere near improving things though. If that is what you are looking for than explain what you think they should be trying to accomplish then. What would be 'better' than the current framework?

My apologies. I tend to think out loud at times in broad terms to help define, then narrow, the focus. That can be hard to follow, I know.

Right now I don't have a good answer on how, to solve this. But the old rules do not apply. Doubting any effort will impact positive change may be true, but hardly a good way to enter into the effort.

Right now social media is setting up to govern what is right or wrong; true or a lie. In no way do I believe this, is, their call to make.

If you are tied to a media or political side it MUST be declared.

If a site uses politifact for example to refute Trump, should they have to disclose they are owned by a left wing news outlet? If not, why not? Isn't it pertinent to knowing all "the facts"?

For example

Twitter fact-checker has history of politically charged posts

“I think if you run a company like Twitter you'd probably first look at what that individual would put out on Twitter themselves,” McCarthy told reporters outside the Capitol in referenc…

nypost.com

Twitter’s “Head of Site Integrity” Yoel Roth, who is in charge of the team responsible for developing and enforcing the social media site’s rules, faced heavy criticism Wednesday for previous 2017 tweets in which he referred to team Trump as “ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE” and called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “personality-free bag of farts.”

So how come he wasn't fact checked that there are no nazis in the whitehouse? Yet I'm supposed to believe the head of site integrity is neutral?

Not interested in politically motivated people fact checking me.

Find a true neutral, if possible, org and give it a shot.

Who would you suggest be the fact checker for us all?

 

[bripat9643]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

This executive order, like so many Trump pronouncements, has absolutely no teeth and will probably be struck down by the courts.

Why do you say that? If they engage in editorializing content, then they are a publisher. If they want to remain a platform for views and not become an editor, then they are fine to continue with the protection. The social media needs to decide who they want to be when they grow up and then they can be assigned appropriately.

Yippee. If Trumpy Bear gets his way, the floodgates are open for everyone he has every attacked or slandered on Twitter, to sue him. The Bidens, the Rich Family, Ambassador Stevens Family, and all of the women he called "liars" when they accused him of sexual assault, can now sue him, as can Joe Scarborough, Hillary Clinton, and Comey, Brennan, and everyone else he disparaged via twitter while firing.

TRUMP WILL BE BANKRUPTED BY THE SLANDER SUITS.

YOU do realize you dumb broad, that all those lies and slander from the left that was used to attack the President and his family can also be sued now? Is that what the ends have come to?

Do we get to sue Trump everytime he lies and thus tie up the courts until his death?

Depends. Can you learn to tell the difference between "lies" and "says things I don't like"?

Can you? I've seen no evidence that you know the difference between what Trump tells you and the truth. You seem to think they're one and the same. They're not.

I've seen no evidence you have the brain wattage to recognize and identify what you're seeing correctly, so this post means even less to me than your posts usually do.

For the record, though, I can tell the difference between lies and other things I just don't like. I have a great deal of aversion to stupidity, which is why I dislike your posts, but I'm pretty sure you're too mentally challenged to actually lie.

She lies all the time. No one could be that stupid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

...Do you want the "truth police" to come from big tech? This is the left for you, folks. There is no way to stop their horde.

Time for your Orange Baboon-God to put on his Big Girl Panties and take criticism and fact-checking like a Man for once, rather than a fragile-ego Princess.

Time for you to stop acting like everything the left does is automatically okay because you like it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Funny...Twitter had zero issue with this Tweet

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

This executive order, like so many Trump pronouncements, has absolutely no teeth and will probably be struck down by the courts.

Why do you say that? If they engage in editorializing content, then they are a publisher. If they want to remain a platform for views and not become an editor, then they are fine to continue with the protection. The social media needs to decide who they want to be when they grow up and then they can be assigned appropriately.

They are not publishers. They are a platform and have every right to add context. They censored nothing.

They censor thousands of people very day. The terminate accounts. The delete posts. They shadow ban.

How fucking stupid are you?

You are definitely fucking stupid. They can do that just as a store can ban speech from their store and bar people from the store.

Except that WalMart doesn't present itself as an open-space platform for communication, now does it?

Actually, bakeries can't tell homosexuals that they don't want to bake them a cake of their design.

Quite true.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

This executive order, like so many Trump pronouncements, has absolutely no teeth and will probably be struck down by the courts.

Why do you say that? If they engage in editorializing content, then they are a publisher. If they want to remain a platform for views and not become an editor, then they are fine to continue with the protection. The social media needs to decide who they want to be when they grow up and then they can be assigned appropriately.

Yippee. If Trumpy Bear gets his way, the floodgates are open for everyone he has every attacked or slandered on Twitter, to sue him. The Bidens, the Rich Family, Ambassador Stevens Family, and all of the women he called "liars" when they accused him of sexual assault, can now sue him, as can Joe Scarborough, Hillary Clinton, and Comey, Brennan, and everyone else he disparaged via twitter while firing.

TRUMP WILL BE BANKRUPTED BY THE SLANDER SUITS.

YOU do realize you dumb broad, that all those lies and slander from the left that was used to attack the President and his family can also be sued now? Is that what the ends have come to?

Do we get to sue Trump everytime he lies and thus tie up the courts until his death?

Depends. Can you learn to tell the difference between "lies" and "says things I don't like"?

Can you? I've seen no evidence that you know the difference between what Trump tells you and the truth. You seem to think they're one and the same. They're not.

I've seen no evidence you have the brain wattage to recognize and identify what you're seeing correctly, so this post means even less to me than your posts usually do.

For the record, though, I can tell the difference between lies and other things I just don't like. I have a great deal of aversion to stupidity, which is why I dislike your posts, but I'm pretty sure you're too mentally challenged to actually lie.

She lies all the time. No one could be that stupid.

Oh, how I wish that were true. Sadly, I have had to accept the fact that people CAN, in fact, truly be that stupid.

 

[mudwhistle]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

Censoring is editorializing, moron. If they don't want to follow the rules, then their protection from lawsuits will be stripped from them.

Nope, every website censors. Including this one.

Want this law to go away then message boards like this one will cease to exist. That is just a fact.

This website censors very little, and they spell out very plainly the things that aren't allowed. Opinions the moderators don't agree with isn't included.

Bullshit.
Try posting something negative about Muslims and see what happens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

Censoring is editorializing, moron. If they don't want to follow the rules, then their protection from lawsuits will be stripped from them.

Nope, every website censors. Including this one.

Want this law to go away then message boards like this one will cease to exist. That is just a fact.

This website censors very little, and they spell out very plainly the things that aren't allowed. Opinions the moderators don't agree with isn't included.

So says most of the right here.

Many of the nut jobs that get regulated tot he rubber room would disagree. Certainly, many of the hard left wing nutjobs in the legal system might disagree as well when Russian conspiracy threads are sent there.

Do you trust those judges to make the right call in those circumstances? Even worse, all it takes is a single frivolous lawsuit from Joe Noone to make a site like this one financially untenable. And worst of all, virtually every single one of those tiny conservative platforms that currently exist as both a publisher and a comment site for conservatives to share opinions would disappear as well with a single frivolous lawsuit. This is essentially what Media Matters does though they go after advertisers atm and they are VERY good at it. Open that Pandora's Box and you would be arming them with a bazooka to take down everyone they disagree with.

Therein lies the other problem, the left is FAR better at using the outrage machine to make platforms and alternative media sources disappear than the right is.

They can disagree all they want. Moving the thread to a different topic heading is not the same as deleting it and banning you from posting.

If we refuse to fight for what's right because we're afraid our opponents will fight back, then we deserve to become voiceless, helpless serfs.

 

[BlueGin]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

DePlatformAPalooza 2020 begins! This is gonna be sweet!

They were doing that anyway...nothing has changed there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

You are quite correct about "bad comments", if what you're talking about is foul language, racist remarks, threats of violence, harassment and stalking . . . if what you mean by "bad comments" is "opinions I don't agree with", that's something else. And by picking and choosing who can and can't post and what they can and can't post, they are actually MAKING themselves liable, arguably, for the content.

Who is censoring according to political content on USMB? Cite an example.

See my previous post for the actions that I am talking about.

Picking who can and cannot post is not editorializing. That is just not the same thing. Disallowing Joe Noone from posting does not equate to making an affirmative statement.

I never said it was editorializing. I said it was censoring.

 

[iceberg]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

Censoring is editorializing, moron. If they don't want to follow the rules, then their protection from lawsuits will be stripped from them.

Nope, every website censors. Including this one.

Want this law to go away then message boards like this one will cease to exist. That is just a fact.

This website censors very little, and they spell out very plainly the things that aren't allowed. Opinions the moderators don't agree with isn't included.

I've gotten deleted a few times. But just a few. Likely deserved it a lot more often.

 

[Billy000]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

God the cringe level I feel on this board is just way too much some times lol.

How convenient you suddenly have this timely point of view about business freedom! I’m sure it had nothing to do with Trump telling you how to think.