And to protect their reputation and liability they may edit any material being posted.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.www.theatlantic.com
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 definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
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 definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
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.
If you want to use the terminology the law actually uses, Twitter is a provider of an interactive computer service which means it bears no liability for user submitted posts. Period. No qualifications.