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

sakinago

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
4,676
Reaction score
988
Points
185
“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.


:clap:


.
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.
They ban as well. Right above you there is mud claiming that they do, indeed, politically sensor. What do you think happens if he decides to sue even though it is utterly frivolous?

The site would cease to exist.

You cant become voiceless helpless surfs because a social media company removes you from their platform. Only the government has the power to truly take your voice away. Twitter removing you means you go elsewhere.

Give the government the power to tell twitter how it will regulate speech on its platform and then you truly will lose your voice as soon as the next Obama/Hillary/Pelosi clone takes office and gets to 'interpret' such regulation.
I’ve said this a few times now, but in the more antiquated forms of community post cork boards the same free speech protections exist. If your place of business has a community cork boar, you are not allowed to pick and choose what gets posted as long as it’s legal. So if you own a convenience store with a community cork board, and a competing store decides to post an advertisement on there, you cannot take it down, or cover it up with another flier. Or say someone posts a flier for a pro-choice rally and the business owner is pro-life, again it’s against the law to remove that flier. Similarly Google has been doing the same using algorithms to suppress business searches that compete with one of their subsidiaries. Same with likes of twitter and YouTube manipulating their algorithms and the next day the traffic for conservative content magically goes down by 40%. Same with the shadow banning, same with labeling pro-life content as porn, etc.

It’s a shame it came to this when it didn’t have too, but it was inevitable. I’ve heard basically all conservative content creators on YouTube and twitter tell the companies they’re happy to follow the company “policy”, but the policy rules are extremely vague, aren’t applied anywhere close to equally, and often get suspended or shut down when they are following the rules, and then have to go through a long and confusing process to hopefully get their content restored or remonetized. They often don’t even get an answer back from the companies.
 

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
5,378
Reaction score
2,834
Points
960
"President Donald Trump capped off a multiday tantrum at Twitter for appending a mild fact check to one of his false tweets by retaliating with the power of the federal government. The executive order he signed Thursday is slapdash and incoherent, rooted in a false premise, hypocritical and potentially unconstitutional, legally unenforceable yet dangerously authoritarian, with sections that read like a Fox News screed.

But to analyze the executive order’s flaws is to miss the point entirely.

Trump doesn’t actually care about making good policy, or about the underlying issues involved with regulating social media platforms. He cares about raising the cost of defiance until his perceived enemies break, and that’s what his executive order is intended to do. Even if it never fully takes effect or is thrown out by the courts, it forces Twitter to expend resources fighting it -- but if the company bends to Trump and does what he wants, maybe it will just go away."

 

sakinago

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
4,676
Reaction score
988
Points
185
"President Donald Trump capped off a multiday tantrum at Twitter for appending a mild fact check to one of his false tweets by retaliating with the power of the federal government. The executive order he signed Thursday is slapdash and incoherent, rooted in a false premise, hypocritical and potentially unconstitutional, legally unenforceable yet dangerously authoritarian, with sections that read like a Fox News screed.

But to analyze the executive order’s flaws is to miss the point entirely.

Trump doesn’t actually care about making good policy, or about the underlying issues involved with regulating social media platforms. He cares about raising the cost of defiance until his perceived enemies break, and that’s what his executive order is intended to do. Even if it never fully takes effect or is thrown out by the courts, it forces Twitter to expend resources fighting it -- but if the company bends to Trump and does what he wants, maybe it will just go away."

What about it isn’t good policy. This is nothing but an op-Ed. It basically just says trump is crazy and this EO sucks and is just him throwing a tantrum. But doesn’t say what about it is bad.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
15,660
Reaction score
2,018
Points
290
He didn't which is why he was sued and it was negated...I believe it was the law he tried to enact about the children of illegals in the US.
THANKS FOR PROVING YOU ARE EITHER A BAD LIAR OR JUST IGNORANT.

Barry did impose DACA through EO, and it was NOT 'negated'....until President Trump put an end to the Un-Constitutional EO.

Trump corrected Obama's huge intentional assault on the US Constitution., pone of many scandalous, corrupt abuses of power Barry and his administration were engaged in.

Unlike Barry's, President Trump's EO is perfectly legal, Constitutional. It is also the right thing to do, snowflake.
The courts have deferred to Presidents on who should be deported. It was not illegal. Obama made a contract and that contract should be honored. Americans support DACA and Ronald Reagan would have supported it. Reagan Republicans support it.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
15,660
Reaction score
2,018
Points
290
Twitter should not be protected. They shadowban, stifle speech and even delete followers at their own discretion while allowing communists to do as they please, spread hatred against America and even some to threaten the lives of Trump supporters without any problem.

Precisely what special protections should they have for all of this? What makes twitter "special", from any other business?
Republicans want to give immunity to businesses who disregard coronavirus restrictions in their workplace. Why should they be protected? Because Republicans like them. You are the Communist. Trump uses Twitter to spread hatred against Americans and Trump supporters threaten people who do not support Trump. You seem to be okay with that.

What makes twitter different is that thousands of messages go through twitter. It is not feasible for 6them to police every message. Even without the protection, they clearly are not publishers. A publisher makes agreements with writers to write something. Twitter makes no such agreements. They have every right to regulate what is said on their property just as a retail store has a right to do so. Try to make political speech on Walmart property and see how long that lasts. Clearly Republicans want to stifle speech.
 
Last edited:

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,713
Reaction score
1,440
Points
195
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.....


'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....


:)
It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
15,660
Reaction score
2,018
Points
290
He didn't which is why he was sued and it was negated...I believe it was the law he tried to enact about the children of illegals in the US.
THANKS FOR PROVING YOU ARE EITHER A BAD LIAR OR JUST IGNORANT.

Barry did impose DACA through EO, and it was NOT 'negated'....until President Trump put an end to the Un-Constitutional EO.

Trump corrected Obama's huge intentional assault on the US Constitution., pone of many scandalous, corrupt abuses of power Barry and his administration were engaged in.

Unlike Barry's, President Trump's EO is perfectly legal, Constitutional. It is also the right thing to do, snowflake.
Trump's EO is not constitutional nor legal. The EO itself shows how Trump has assaulted the Constitution. EOs cannot change existing laws.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
15,660
Reaction score
2,018
Points
290
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.....


'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.
They can't do it if they want to be protected from lawsuits under regulation 230, you dumb moron.
There is no regulation 230 you moron. What we are talking about is Section 230 of the of the Communications Decency Act. That means it has to be changed by law not by EO
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
124,263
Reaction score
18,373
Points
2,180
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.....


'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.
They can't do it if they want to be protected from lawsuits under regulation 230, you dumb moron.
There is no regulation 230 you moron. What we are talking about is Section 230 of the of the Communications Decency Act. That means it has to be changed by law not by EO
ROFL! Yeah, that's entirely different! What a fucking maroon.

Trump isn't changing anything. He's enforcing the regulation. Only companies that serve as a common carrier are exempt from lawsuits over their content, and Twitter and youTube no longer qualify.

Hard to believe that a moron who just defended Obama for violating immigration law when he issued his DACA order would post that idiocy.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
124,263
Reaction score
18,373
Points
2,180
He didn't which is why he was sued and it was negated...I believe it was the law he tried to enact about the children of illegals in the US.
THANKS FOR PROVING YOU ARE EITHER A BAD LIAR OR JUST IGNORANT.

Barry did impose DACA through EO, and it was NOT 'negated'....until President Trump put an end to the Un-Constitutional EO.

Trump corrected Obama's huge intentional assault on the US Constitution., pone of many scandalous, corrupt abuses of power Barry and his administration were engaged in.

Unlike Barry's, President Trump's EO is perfectly legal, Constitutional. It is also the right thing to do, snowflake.
Trump's EO is not constitutional nor legal. The EO itself shows how Trump has assaulted the Constitution. EOs cannot change existing laws.
IS DACA legal or constitutional, eh moron?
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
124,263
Reaction score
18,373
Points
2,180
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.....


'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....


:)
It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."
When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,713
Reaction score
1,440
Points
195
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.....


'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....


:)
It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."
When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.
Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
124,263
Reaction score
18,373
Points
2,180
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.....


'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....


:)
It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."
When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.
Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.
Lawyers will sue the company because they have all the money.

It sucks to be twitter and youTube without 230 protection, doesn't it?
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
26,500
Reaction score
4,878
Points
290
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.....


'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....


:)
It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."
When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.
Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.
They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
62,573
Reaction score
17,074
Points
2,290
He didn't which is why he was sued and it was negated...I believe it was the law he tried to enact about the children of illegals in the US.
THANKS FOR PROVING YOU ARE EITHER A BAD LIAR OR JUST IGNORANT.

Barry did impose DACA through EO, and it was NOT 'negated'....until President Trump put an end to the Un-Constitutional EO.

Trump corrected Obama's huge intentional assault on the US Constitution., pone of many scandalous, corrupt abuses of power Barry and his administration were engaged in.

Unlike Barry's, President Trump's EO is perfectly legal, Constitutional. It is also the right thing to do, snowflake.
The courts have deferred to Presidents on who should be deported. It was not illegal. Obama made a contract and that contract should be honored. Americans support DACA and Ronald Reagan would have supported it. Reagan Republicans support it.
'contract'? Obama admitted to violating the Constitution. Obama's DACA EO is In-Constitutional. Even Barry was honest enough to admit it - why can't you?
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,713
Reaction score
1,440
Points
195
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.....


'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....


:)
It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."
When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.
Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.
Lawyers will sue the company because they have all the money.

It sucks to be twitter and youTube without 230 protection, doesn't it?
Just because a lawyer will sue a company doesn't mean the suit will stand the rigors of the law.

Like I said you can't have it both ways.

You cannot tell a social media site that it can't censor and then say they are responsible for every word that people post
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,713
Reaction score
1,440
Points
195
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.....


'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....


:)
It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."
When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.
Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.
They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?
You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top