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

[Blues Man]

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....

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

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.

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?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

you clearly are devoid of any and all anti-trust history in the owrld.

Twitter does not have a monopoly.

Therefore anti trust laws do not apply

 

[iceberg]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.

Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users.

So what do they need protection from?

I agree they don't need it...so why are snowflakes wetting themselves about the President voiding giving them selective 302 Protection?

How the fuck should I know.

The EO is completely meaningless.

If Trump knew anything about the Constitution he would know that

Section 230 of the CDA makes Twitter not responsible for the postings of their users. If someone posts something defamatory, Twitter cannot be sued. Without it, Twitter wouldn't exist.

Trump is trying to take that away which will ruin Twitter. It's the political equivalent of throwing the frisbee on the roof and going home because no one wants to play with you.

Sure it could exist because Twitter has the right to edit, redact or refuse to post anything written by its users. Just like the way this site does

wrong.

 

[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....

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

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.

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?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

Twitter doesn't have a gaurenteed right to be sheilded from lawsuits. Why does that fail to penetrate your thick skull?

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
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.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

It is when they are calling you a liar.

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

You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.

Oops. Der it is.

I have done no such thing.

They are not a platform and never have been.

The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.

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.

If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.

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

www.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 definition

www.merriam-webster.com

now what part of Trump post was suppressed. deleted, redacted or omitted?

Wow you are too thick to understand we are way beyond Trump and well into defining rules of engagement for social media.

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.

And they can be sued if they do, moron. What part of that don't you get?

Sued for what exactly?

Twitter cannot violate the First amendment rights of any of its users.

 

[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....

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

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.

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?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

you clearly are devoid of any and all anti-trust history in the owrld.

Twitter does not have a monopoly.

Therefore anti trust laws do not apply

It certainly does have a monopoly.

 

[iceberg]

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....

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

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.

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?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

you clearly are devoid of any and all anti-trust history in the owrld.

Twitter does not have a monopoly.

Therefore anti trust laws do not apply

god damn you just like out your ass for a living.

i busted the fuck out of your I NEVER SAID THEY WERE NOT A PLATFORM yet you just ignore that reply where you flat out did.

are you trying to argue twitter and USMB are the same. they are not.

any attempt for you to continue to do so is simply you being an emo-dick. and since you have been proven to be a liar and make shit up as you go - there is zero point in talking to you about it now is there?

 

[Blues Man]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.

Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users.

So what do they need protection from?

I agree they don't need it...so why are snowflakes wetting themselves about the President voiding giving them selective 302 Protection?

How the fuck should I know.

The EO is completely meaningless.

If Trump knew anything about the Constitution he would know that

Section 230 of the CDA makes Twitter not responsible for the postings of their users. If someone posts something defamatory, Twitter cannot be sued. Without it, Twitter wouldn't exist.

Trump is trying to take that away which will ruin Twitter. It's the political equivalent of throwing the frisbee on the roof and going home because no one wants to play with you.

Sure it could exist because Twitter has the right to edit, redact or refuse to post anything written by its users. Just like the way this site does

wrong.

Says you

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
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.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

It is when they are calling you a liar.

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

You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.

Oops. Der it is.

I have done no such thing.

They are not a platform and never have been.

The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.

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.

If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.

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

www.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 definition

www.merriam-webster.com

now what part of Trump post was suppressed. deleted, redacted or omitted?

Wow you are too thick to understand we are way beyond Trump and well into defining rules of engagement for social media.

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.

And they can be sued if they do, moron. What part of that don't you get?

Sued for what exactly?

Twitter cannot violate the First amendment rights of any of its users.

If they ban someone for "hate speech," then they can be sued for slander.

 

[iceberg]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.

Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users.

So what do they need protection from?

I agree they don't need it...so why are snowflakes wetting themselves about the President voiding giving them selective 302 Protection?

How the fuck should I know.

The EO is completely meaningless.

If Trump knew anything about the Constitution he would know that

Section 230 of the CDA makes Twitter not responsible for the postings of their users. If someone posts something defamatory, Twitter cannot be sued. Without it, Twitter wouldn't exist.

Trump is trying to take that away which will ruin Twitter. It's the political equivalent of throwing the frisbee on the roof and going home because no one wants to play with you.

Sure it could exist because Twitter has the right to edit, redact or refuse to post anything written by its users. Just like the way this site does

wrong.

Says you

and you again ignore my busting the shit out of you for lying.

and for the record - biden also wants twitter to lose section 230 status. why? because they should not have the power to do what you say they can do.

now for 230 to apply they must be a platform or removing that designation has zero effect. so you're now saying your LYING ASS EMOTIONAL ASSHURT SELF knows more about this than twitter themselves, trump, biden and the rest of the free world who understands this shit.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
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.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

It is when they are calling you a liar.

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

You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.

Oops. Der it is.

I have done no such thing.

They are not a platform and never have been.

The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.

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.

If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.

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

www.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 definition

www.merriam-webster.com

now what part of Trump post was suppressed. deleted, redacted or omitted?

Wow you are too thick to understand we are way beyond Trump and well into defining rules of engagement for social media.

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.

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.

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.

And to protect their reputation and liability they may edit any material being posted.

What part of "no liability" didn't you understand?

 

[colfax_m]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.

Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users.

So what do they need protection from?

I agree they don't need it...so why are snowflakes wetting themselves about the President voiding giving them selective 302 Protection?

How the fuck should I know.

The EO is completely meaningless.

If Trump knew anything about the Constitution he would know that

Section 230 of the CDA makes Twitter not responsible for the postings of their users. If someone posts something defamatory, Twitter cannot be sued. Without it, Twitter wouldn't exist.

Trump is trying to take that away which will ruin Twitter. It's the political equivalent of throwing the frisbee on the roof and going home because no one wants to play with you.

Sure it could exist because Twitter has the right to edit, redact or refuse to post anything written by its users. Just like the way this site does

They definitely do. However, before Section 230 was put into place in the mid 90s, there were message boards online. One company that ran a message board would filter out profanity and other objectional material. Someone on that message board sued the company (Prodigy) for defamation after a user on the message board posted something defamatory. The court held that Prodigy was a publisher of all user submitted information since they exercised their right to moderate their board.

That's not what anyone wanted, so they made any company that ran a message board or anything like it immune from libel lawsuits for the posting of their users specifically so that message boards would continue deleting material that was objectionable.

So by taking away section 230, Twitter would either have to stop moderating all together or they would have to take responsibility for their users postings. Either way, it would probably destroy Twitter. The presence of section 230 is what made the internet the internet.

 

[Blues Man]

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....

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

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.

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?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

you clearly are devoid of any and all anti-trust history in the owrld.

Twitter does not have a monopoly.

Therefore anti trust laws do not apply

It certainly does have a monopoly.

No it doesn't.

You can post in literally millions of other forums on the internet.

You can get your own URL and publish your opinions on anything you want.

Twitter does not control that.

The First amendment does not guarantee you access to an audience.

 

[Blues Man]

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....

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

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.

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?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

you clearly are devoid of any and all anti-trust history in the owrld.

Twitter does not have a monopoly.

Therefore anti trust laws do not apply

god damn you just like out your ass for a living.

i busted the fuck out of your I NEVER SAID THEY WERE NOT A PLATFORM yet you just ignore that reply where you flat out did.

are you trying to argue twitter and USMB are the same. they are not.

any attempt for you to continue to do so is simply you being an emo-dick. and since you have been proven to be a liar and make shit up as you go - there is zero point in talking to you about it now is there?

Quote where I said Twitter was a platform

 

[colfax_m]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.

Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users.

So what do they need protection from?

I agree they don't need it...so why are snowflakes wetting themselves about the President voiding giving them selective 302 Protection?

How the fuck should I know.

The EO is completely meaningless.

If Trump knew anything about the Constitution he would know that

Section 230 of the CDA makes Twitter not responsible for the postings of their users. If someone posts something defamatory, Twitter cannot be sued. Without it, Twitter wouldn't exist.

Trump is trying to take that away which will ruin Twitter. It's the political equivalent of throwing the frisbee on the roof and going home because no one wants to play with you.

Sure it could exist because Twitter has the right to edit, redact or refuse to post anything written by its users. Just like the way this site does

wrong.

Not wrong. Twitter retains full ownership rights of everything on their website.

It's a property issue.

 

[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....

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

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.

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?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

you clearly are devoid of any and all anti-trust history in the owrld.

Twitter does not have a monopoly.

Therefore anti trust laws do not apply

It certainly does have a monopoly.

No it doesn't.

You can post in literally millions of other forums on the internet.

You can get your own URL and publish your opinions on anything you want.

Twitter does not control that.

The First amendment does not guarantee you access to an audience.

Twitter is not a message board, moron.

 

[iceberg]

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....

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

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.

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?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

you clearly are devoid of any and all anti-trust history in the owrld.

Twitter does not have a monopoly.

Therefore anti trust laws do not apply

god damn you just like out your ass for a living.

i busted the fuck out of your I NEVER SAID THEY WERE NOT A PLATFORM yet you just ignore that reply where you flat out did.

are you trying to argue twitter and USMB are the same. they are not.

any attempt for you to continue to do so is simply you being an emo-dick. and since you have been proven to be a liar and make shit up as you go - there is zero point in talking to you about it now is there?

Quote where I said Twitter was a platform

i already have stated my case, fucknugget. twitter *is* a platform and you keep saying it isn't.

you claimed you never said twitter was NOT a platform but you did.

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

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

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

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

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

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

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

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

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

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Blues Man]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.

Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users.

So what do they need protection from?

I agree they don't need it...so why are snowflakes wetting themselves about the President voiding giving them selective 302 Protection?

How the fuck should I know.

The EO is completely meaningless.

If Trump knew anything about the Constitution he would know that

Section 230 of the CDA makes Twitter not responsible for the postings of their users. If someone posts something defamatory, Twitter cannot be sued. Without it, Twitter wouldn't exist.

Trump is trying to take that away which will ruin Twitter. It's the political equivalent of throwing the frisbee on the roof and going home because no one wants to play with you.

Sure it could exist because Twitter has the right to edit, redact or refuse to post anything written by its users. Just like the way this site does

They definitely do. However, before Section 230 was put into place in the mid 90s, there were message boards online. One company that ran a message board would filter out profanity and other objectional material. Someone on that message board sued the company (Prodigy) for defamation after a user on the message board posted something defamatory. The court held that Prodigy was a publisher of all user submitted information since they exercised their right to moderate their board.

That's not what anyone wanted, so they made any company that ran a message board or anything like it immune from libel lawsuits for the posting of their users specifically so that message boards would continue deleting material that was objectionable.

So by taking away section 230, Twitter would either have to stop moderating all together or they would have to take responsibility for their users postings. Either way, it would probably destroy Twitter. The presence of section 230 is what made the internet the internet.

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....

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

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.

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?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

you clearly are devoid of any and all anti-trust history in the owrld.

Twitter does not have a monopoly.

Therefore anti trust laws do not apply

It certainly does have a monopoly.

No it doesn't.

You can post in literally millions of other forums on the internet.

You can get your own URL and publish your opinions on anything you want.

Twitter does not control that.

The First amendment does not guarantee you access to an audience.

Twitter is not a message board, moron.

Of course it is.

It's only different from this place in the size of its user numbers.

 

[colfax_m]

now for 230 to apply they must be a platform or removing that designation has zero effect. so you're now saying your LYING ASS EMOTIONAL ASSHURT SELF knows more about this than twitter themselves, trump, biden and the rest of the free world who understands this shit.

You don't understand this. I doubt Trump does either. Section 230 does not apply to "platforms". It applies to all providers of "interactive computer services".

Ironic that you're accusing others of emotional when you use the term "asshurt" in all caps.

 

[iceberg]

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....

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

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.

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?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

you clearly are devoid of any and all anti-trust history in the owrld.

Twitter does not have a monopoly.

Therefore anti trust laws do not apply

god damn you just like out your ass for a living.

i busted the fuck out of your I NEVER SAID THEY WERE NOT A PLATFORM yet you just ignore that reply where you flat out did.

are you trying to argue twitter and USMB are the same. they are not.

any attempt for you to continue to do so is simply you being an emo-dick. and since you have been proven to be a liar and make shit up as you go - there is zero point in talking to you about it now is there?

Quote where I said Twitter was a platform

i already have fucknugget.

It's not in the quote tree Fuckstick.

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

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

because now they are 2 separate threads, fucksausage.

post 292 you say they are not a platform and never have been.

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

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

then post 311 you say you NEVER CLAIMED TWITTER WAS NOT A PLATFORM

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

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

now kindly fuck the hell off.

 

[Blues Man]

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....

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

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.

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?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

Twitter doesn't have a gaurenteed right to be sheilded from lawsuits. Why does that fail to penetrate your thick skull?

Where did I ever say it did?