Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.It is when they are calling you a liar.I'm not letting anyone do anything.Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.Right because yo can't have it both waysSocial media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.
FAct checking is not censorship
Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship
Then sue for libel and see what the courts think
And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them
Oops. Der it is.
I have done no such thing.
They are not a platform and never have been.
Platforms Are Not Publishers
The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.www.theatlantic.com
The world is wrong. Just like you are.
From your linkThe world disagrees. I now factcheck you.You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.It is when they are calling you a liar.I'm not letting anyone do anything.Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.Right because yo can't have it both waysSocial media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.
FAct checking is not censorship
Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship
Then sue for libel and see what the courts think
And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them
Oops. Der it is.
I have done no such thing.
They are not a platform and never have been.
Platforms Are Not Publishers
The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.
You don't even know what Twitter is yet you keep telling me you know what they have the right to do.If you don't need a fact checker then why the fuck are you allowing Twitter to do that?If it's, that easy what the fuck do I need a fact checker for?It is when you have the unchecked power to say what the facts are.That isn't what Trump is saying, dumbass. Twitter is censoring. Therefore it's responsible. If it didn't censor, then it would be protected. Leave it to to TDS moron to get it exactly backwards.Just because a lawyer will sue a company doesn't mean the suit will stand the rigors of the law.Lawyers will sue the company because they have all the money.Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.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.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...."
Twitter is not responsible for what people post
You can't have it both ways.
It sucks to be twitter and youTube without 230 protection, doesn't it?
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
Hey FUCKSTICK
I didn't vote for Trump.
And FAct checking is not censoring
Anyone can know what the facts are that's what makes them facts.
Dude your circular logic just totaled itself on dumbass lane.
Who said you needed a fact checker?
Twitter did not censor any of Trumps posts they simply posted additional information regarding the subject matter
Why is that illegal?
Fucking check please. You just don't understand any of this in a manner that isn't Trump centric.
I'm not allowing or not allowing anything.
IDGAF if Twitter fact checks every post.
IMO they have every right to do so.
What's the difference from some other user posting a link to information that contradicts Trumps ravings?
There is none.
There was no censorship whatsoever.
You funny, mang.
And classified legally as a platform.From your linkThe world disagrees. I now factcheck you.You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.It is when they are calling you a liar.I'm not letting anyone do anything.Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.Right because yo can't have it both waysSocial media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.
FAct checking is not censorship
Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship
Then sue for libel and see what the courts think
And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them
Oops. Der it is.
I have done no such thing.
They are not a platform and never have been.
Platforms Are Not Publishers
The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the internet are not media. They are something new we do not yet fully understand.
And since when did The Atlantic Monthly speak for the entire world?
Show me where I said that's what it was.You don't even know what Twitter is yet you keep telling me you know what they have the right to do.If you don't need a fact checker then why the fuck are you allowing Twitter to do that?If it's, that easy what the fuck do I need a fact checker for?It is when you have the unchecked power to say what the facts are.That isn't what Trump is saying, dumbass. Twitter is censoring. Therefore it's responsible. If it didn't censor, then it would be protected. Leave it to to TDS moron to get it exactly backwards.Just because a lawyer will sue a company doesn't mean the suit will stand the rigors of the law.Lawyers will sue the company because they have all the money.Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.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.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...."
Twitter is not responsible for what people post
You can't have it both ways.
It sucks to be twitter and youTube without 230 protection, doesn't it?
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
Hey FUCKSTICK
I didn't vote for Trump.
And FAct checking is not censoring
Anyone can know what the facts are that's what makes them facts.
Dude your circular logic just totaled itself on dumbass lane.
Who said you needed a fact checker?
Twitter did not censor any of Trumps posts they simply posted additional information regarding the subject matter
Why is that illegal?
Fucking check please. You just don't understand any of this in a manner that isn't Trump centric.
I'm not allowing or not allowing anything.
IDGAF if Twitter fact checks every post.
IMO they have every right to do so.
What's the difference from some other user posting a link to information that contradicts Trumps ravings?
There is none.
There was no censorship whatsoever.
You funny, mang.
Look up the definition of censorship.
If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.It is when they are calling you a liar.I'm not letting anyone do anything.Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.Right because yo can't have it both waysSocial media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.
FAct checking is not censorship
Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship
Then sue for libel and see what the courts think
And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them
Oops. Der it is.
I have done no such thing.
They are not a platform and never have been.
Platforms Are Not Publishers
The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.
The world is wrong. Just like you are.
So what's your problem then? Other than total ignorance of the topic.
www.merriam-webster.com
www.merriam-webster.com
Wow you are too thick to understand we are way beyond Trump and well into defining rules of engagement for social media.If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.It is when they are calling you a liar.I'm not letting anyone do anything.Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.Right because yo can't have it both waysSocial media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.
FAct checking is not censorship
Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship
Then sue for libel and see what the courts think
And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them
Oops. Der it is.
I have done no such thing.
They are not a platform and never have been.
Platforms Are Not Publishers
The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.
The world is wrong. Just like you are.
So what's your problem then? Other than total ignorance of the topic.
Wow you are too thick to realize I don't have a problem with what Twitter did.
I just happen to actually know the definition of censorship and fact checking is not censorship.
Definition of CENSORSHIP
the institution, system, or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively; the office, power, or term of a Roman censor… See the full definition
Definition of CENSOR
a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as; an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter; an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful… See the full definition
now what part of Trump post was suppressed. deleted, redacted or omitted?
No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?So a ToS invalidates law.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?Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.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.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...."
Twitter is not responsible for what people post
You can't have it both ways.
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
You funny.
What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
We understand that you have no problem with the leftwing management of Twitter censoring conservatives. Are you really that thick?If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.It is when they are calling you a liar.I'm not letting anyone do anything.Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.Right because yo can't have it both waysSocial media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.
FAct checking is not censorship
Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship
Then sue for libel and see what the courts think
And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them
Oops. Der it is.
I have done no such thing.
They are not a platform and never have been.
Platforms Are Not Publishers
The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.
The world is wrong. Just like you are.
So what's your problem then? Other than total ignorance of the topic.
Wow you are too thick to realize I don't have a problem with what Twitter did.
I just happen to actually know the definition of censorship and fact checking is not censorship.
Definition of CENSORSHIP
the institution, system, or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively; the office, power, or term of a Roman censor… See the full definition
Definition of CENSOR
a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as; an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter; an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful… See the full definition
now what part of Trump post was suppressed. deleted, redacted or omitted?
Obamaa made a deal with the Iranians too. Not every deal Obamaa made should be honored.THANKS FOR PROVING YOU ARE EITHER A BAD LIAR OR JUST IGNORANT.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.
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.
Wow you are too thick to understand we are way beyond Trump and well into defining rules of engagement for social media.If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.It is when they are calling you a liar.I'm not letting anyone do anything.Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.Right because yo can't have it both waysSocial media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.
FAct checking is not censorship
Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship
Then sue for libel and see what the courts think
And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them
Oops. Der it is.
I have done no such thing.
They are not a platform and never have been.
Platforms Are Not Publishers
The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.
The world is wrong. Just like you are.
So what's your problem then? Other than total ignorance of the topic.
Wow you are too thick to realize I don't have a problem with what Twitter did.
I just happen to actually know the definition of censorship and fact checking is not censorship.
Definition of CENSORSHIP
the institution, system, or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively; the office, power, or term of a Roman censor… See the full definition
Definition of CENSOR
a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as; an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter; an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful… See the full definition
now what part of Trump post was suppressed. deleted, redacted or omitted?
News publishers have rules to follow and avenues of recourse for grievences.
Platforms not so much.
NOW IF YOU MUST "TRUMP" THIS UP all Trump did was remove 230 protection.
Platform protections.
Now you claim Twitter is NOT a platform, ergo what Trump did has zero impact.
So Beavis what the fuck you bitching about? Trump didn't change a thing to you.
Back to big picture... No social media has no "category" today so 1990s rules have been used. It is time we write, rules of play for social media.
No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorshipNo, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?So a ToS invalidates law.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?Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.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.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...."
Twitter is not responsible for what people post
You can't have it both ways.
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
You funny.
What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
over what?Tell me that after the lawsuits.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....
Sure we do. You can't deny a business to a group. BTW, twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them. there are also monopoly laws.No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorshipNo, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?So a ToS invalidates law.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?Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.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.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...."
Twitter is not responsible for what people post
You can't have it both ways.
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
You funny.
What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.
You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.
And Twitter does bot have a guaranteed 'Right' to US Government protections that shield them from the consequences of running their business as they want to.
Twitter isn’t legally a platform or a publisher. They’re both and neither. These terms are meaningless and have no legal utility in this situation. People are tossing them around because they sound right and think they know what they’re talking about.Wow you are too thick to understand we are way beyond Trump and well into defining rules of engagement for social media.If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.It is when they are calling you a liar.I'm not letting anyone do anything.Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.Right because yo can't have it both waysSocial media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.
FAct checking is not censorship
Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship
Then sue for libel and see what the courts think
And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them
Oops. Der it is.
I have done no such thing.
They are not a platform and never have been.
Platforms Are Not Publishers
The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.
The world is wrong. Just like you are.
So what's your problem then? Other than total ignorance of the topic.
Wow you are too thick to realize I don't have a problem with what Twitter did.
I just happen to actually know the definition of censorship and fact checking is not censorship.
Definition of CENSORSHIP
the institution, system, or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively; the office, power, or term of a Roman censor… See the full definition
Definition of CENSOR
a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as; an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter; an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful… See the full definition
now what part of Trump post was suppressed. deleted, redacted or omitted?
News publishers have rules to follow and avenues of recourse for grievences.
Platforms not so much.
NOW IF YOU MUST "TRUMP" THIS UP all Trump did was remove 230 protection.
Platform protections.
Now you claim Twitter is NOT a platform, ergo what Trump did has zero impact.
So Beavis what the fuck you bitching about? Trump didn't change a thing to you.
Back to big picture... No social media has no "category" today so 1990s rules have been used. It is time we write, rules of play for social media.
I never claimed Twitter is not a platform nor have I claimed Twitter is a publisher
I have always claimed that Twitter can do whatever it wants in regards to commenting on the posts of its users, banning users, deleting posts etc because they are a private company and can make any rules they want for those who they allow to use their service.
The EO.over what?Tell me that after the lawsuits.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....
What is the suit going to claim? On what grounds?and twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them.No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorshipNo, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?So a ToS invalidates law.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?Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.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.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...."
Twitter is not responsible for what people post
You can't have it both ways.
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
You funny.
What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.
Sue for what? exactly?and twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them.No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorshipNo, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?So a ToS invalidates law.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?Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.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.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...."
Twitter is not responsible for what people post
You can't have it both ways.
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
You funny.
What law?
No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.
But you don't want them to do that right?
Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?
If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.
