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

[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.

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?

if they can edit posts as they want, what are you going to sue them for ya fuckstick? using the wrong font?

 

[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

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.

BFD I meant to say I never claimed twitter was a platform

 

[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.

BFD I meant to say I never claimed twitter was a platform

so you fuck up and change the entire stance of an argument and do a BFD now that you're caught?

fuck the hell off. at a MINIMUM you should be apologizing for the confusion your dumbass caused because you can't even get your own stance straight.

 

[mdk]

Toothless political theater for duopolist drones.

 

[OnePercenter]

Now they need to be just "platforms" and not "publishers". Well done Trump!

Someone gets your name and address and writes that you are a child molester. That's OK?

 

[candycorn]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

They edited your blob?

 

[colfax_m]

Now they need to be just "platforms" and not "publishers". Well done Trump!

Someone gets your name and address and writes that you are a child molester. That's OK?

Of course! They support the first amendment, obviously.

At least, they do until it actually affects them.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. Twitter occupies a specific market niche, and it has virtually 100% of the business in that niche. The justice department has taken numerous companies to court for exactly those circumstances. Just check out the cases of U.S vs Alcoa Aluminum. or U.S. vs Standard Oil.

 

[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

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.

Wrong. Twitter occupies a specific market niche, and it has virtually 100% of the business in that niche. The justice department has taken numerous companies to court for exactly those circumstances. Just check out the cases of U.S vs Alcoa Aluminum. or U.S. vs Standard Oil.

that's what he simply doesn't understand. he's equating twitter to this board.

this board is great as far as xenforo sites so. one of the most active i've seen. but the people who run it can in no way control what you or i say, nor verify the authenticity of it. so in the 90s, sect 230 came to life so owners of sites like this, VERY VERY COMMON in the 90s (mostly vbulletin) couldn't be held accountable for the things we say.

when twitter came into being, they needed that "protection" also so they were given platform status. doesn't matter if blues or anyone else agrees or disagrees with it. from a legal standpoint, it happened and that's how they've been governed and to a large degree, have grown.

but now they are not simply wanting protection from what you or i would say on twitter, they set themselves up to say what is true and false and that simply dives over the line of what a "platform" intention is. they are now "publishers" in the eyes of the law because they are creating or validating content. in this case, validating.

they are also doing it very unevenly. they cover a trump post for inciting violence but the head of twitters department that makes these decisions says divisive things quite often and has even called it an "emergency" and wants to "pull out all the stops" to get hillary elected.

can someone who has the power to say what is real or not to billions of people in the world take such an obvious bias AND continue to be allowed to have that control?

no. i don't care what side you are on. no.

all this "they're a private company" or "not a monopoly" - honestly it doesn't matter. they were classified as a platform, enjoyed the "you can't sue me" status and now that is on the way to ending. it's a part of a legal process that started back in the 90s.

i will fully agree the rules of engagement for social media are hard to define. but they must be moving forward. whatever the ever changing opinion anus-blues-boy here thinks simply is as irrelevant as what he says. it's legal, its in process and it's happening. whining you don't like it, just don't care.

esp when you can't even own up to misstatement that we all make. i make them and i own them, not get up in someones face for noticing. hell yesterday i made a huge error and posted the suicide note and when i was wrong, reported myself, edited what i could and moved on.

how it should be done, to me anyway.

so blues can ague his emotional imbalances all day long and it simply won't matter.

legally social media sites are considered a platform.
legally that is under review and quite likely to change.

as that is now in legal question, twitter needs to tread very carefully as not having this status opens them up to legal action out the ass.

whether bluesboy likes it or not.

 

[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

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.

Wrong. Twitter occupies a specific market niche, and it has virtually 100% of the business in that niche. The justice department has taken numerous companies to court for exactly those circumstances. Just check out the cases of U.S vs Alcoa Aluminum. or U.S. vs Standard Oil.

microsoft in the 90s. i was hired by MS in 1992 and the DOJ stuff was coming on strong. i got to watch from the inside how you must change as you grow to a point. as ballmer himself said towards the end, you keep growing, you eventually get to a point where you can't keep doing what got you there. (something to that effect).

people can get mad. to be honest i didn't care for it much when i was at MS because i was doing the TEAM mentality. "we built it how come we can't take advantage of it!"

well it makes a lot more sense when you're not personally invested in it.

setting up another twitter or facebook is easy. but the days of running from one "platform" to another are pretty much over. most of the new sites i've been are so far to the right it was just as pointless as facebook. these days facebook really isn't that far to the left but they do lean that way.

if myspace would drop the stupid "flow" and UI issues they have they could make a run to take a lot of the segment back. but they went "music" and died as musicians go where the people are, not to sites dedicated to them.

flat out, we need alternatives and it's hard to do when people are set in their ways. microsoft was forced to include other browsers and software on the desktop because otherwise they had an unfair advantage. they were forced to sell an OS without the extras like media player, utilities, a browser, so people had to go look and make a choice.

funny to me when the left mocks the right for not being able to make a competitor to "social media" of the left yet then they turn around and cry NOT A MONOLOPY...

well, which is it?

 

[colfax_m]

funny to me when the left mocks the right for not being able to make a competitor to "social media" of the left yet then they turn around and cry NOT A MONOLOPY...

well, which is it?

It's neither.

The problem is that if a social media company were to behave in the way you want the giants to behave, without the "censorship" that the right complains about, they wouldn't succeed.

So why can't the right not make a competitor? Because their business model doesn't work and they want to force that model on everyone else. Not because it's a monopoly.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong. Twitter occupies a specific market niche, and it has virtually 100% of the business in that niche. The justice department has taken numerous companies to court for exactly those circumstances. Just check out the cases of U.S vs Alcoa Aluminum. or U.S. vs Standard Oil.

You cite cases against companies monopolizing finite natural resources. There is nothing finite about the internet. You cannot monopolize the internet.

 

[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.

Wrong. Twitter occupies a specific market niche, and it has virtually 100% of the business in that niche. The justice department has taken numerous companies to court for exactly those circumstances. Just check out the cases of U.S vs Alcoa Aluminum. or U.S. vs Standard Oil.

I disagree with that assessment.

Twitter is nothing but a message board that allows people to use it for free so it can sell advertising. Just like Facebook, Instagram etc.

Twitter being Twitter does not prevent any other person or company from doing the exact same thing they do.

 

[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.

Wrong. Twitter occupies a specific market niche, and it has virtually 100% of the business in that niche. The justice department has taken numerous companies to court for exactly those circumstances. Just check out the cases of U.S vs Alcoa Aluminum. or U.S. vs Standard Oil.

that's what he simply doesn't understand. he's equating twitter to this board.

this board is great as far as xenforo sites so. one of the most active i've seen. but the people who run it can in no way control what you or i say, nor verify the authenticity of it. so in the 90s, sect 230 came to life so owners of sites like this, VERY VERY COMMON in the 90s (mostly vbulletin) couldn't be held accountable for the things we say.

when twitter came into being, they needed that "protection" also so they were given platform status. doesn't matter if blues or anyone else agrees or disagrees with it. from a legal standpoint, it happened and that's how they've been governed and to a large degree, have grown.

but now they are not simply wanting protection from what you or i would say on twitter, they set themselves up to say what is true and false and that simply dives over the line of what a "platform" intention is. they are now "publishers" in the eyes of the law because they are creating or validating content. in this case, validating.

they are also doing it very unevenly. they cover a trump post for inciting violence but the head of twitters department that makes these decisions says divisive things quite often and has even called it an "emergency" and wants to "pull out all the stops" to get hillary elected.

can someone who has the power to say what is real or not to billions of people in the world take such an obvious bias AND continue to be allowed to have that control?

no. i don't care what side you are on. no.

all this "they're a private company" or "not a monopoly" - honestly it doesn't matter. they were classified as a platform, enjoyed the "you can't sue me" status and now that is on the way to ending. it's a part of a legal process that started back in the 90s.

i will fully agree the rules of engagement for social media are hard to define. but they must be moving forward. whatever the ever changing opinion anus-blues-boy here thinks simply is as irrelevant as what he says. it's legal, its in process and it's happening. whining you don't like it, just don't care.

esp when you can't even own up to misstatement that we all make. i make them and i own them, not get up in someones face for noticing. hell yesterday i made a huge error and posted the suicide note and when i was wrong, reported myself, edited what i could and moved on.

how it should be done, to me anyway.

so blues can ague his emotional imbalances all day long and it simply won't matter.

legally social media sites are considered a platform.
legally that is under review and quite likely to change.

as that is now in legal question, twitter needs to tread very carefully as not having this status opens them up to legal action out the ass.

whether bluesboy likes it or not.

The moderators here can and do control what gets posted here.

They can delete posts and ban users

 

[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

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.

Wrong. Twitter occupies a specific market niche, and it has virtually 100% of the business in that niche. The justice department has taken numerous companies to court for exactly those circumstances. Just check out the cases of U.S vs Alcoa Aluminum. or U.S. vs Standard Oil.

I disagree with that assessment.

Twitter is nothing but a message board that allows people to use it for free so it can sell advertising. Just like Facebook, Instagram etc.

Twitter being Twitter does not prevent any other person or company from doing the exact same thing they do.

the law and legal classifications disagree with you.

that's what matters in the end. you may as well be arguing a car isn't a car but legally it's seen as such so legally it is. you not liking it won't change a thing.

 

[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

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.

BFD I meant to say I never claimed twitter was a platform

so you fuck up and change the entire stance of an argument and do a BFD now that you're caught?

fuck the hell off. at a MINIMUM you should be apologizing for the confusion your dumbass caused because you can't even get your own stance straight.

Fuck off

There is your apology, Fuckstick

 

[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

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.

Wrong. Twitter occupies a specific market niche, and it has virtually 100% of the business in that niche. The justice department has taken numerous companies to court for exactly those circumstances. Just check out the cases of U.S vs Alcoa Aluminum. or U.S. vs Standard Oil.

that's what he simply doesn't understand. he's equating twitter to this board.

this board is great as far as xenforo sites so. one of the most active i've seen. but the people who run it can in no way control what you or i say, nor verify the authenticity of it. so in the 90s, sect 230 came to life so owners of sites like this, VERY VERY COMMON in the 90s (mostly vbulletin) couldn't be held accountable for the things we say.

when twitter came into being, they needed that "protection" also so they were given platform status. doesn't matter if blues or anyone else agrees or disagrees with it. from a legal standpoint, it happened and that's how they've been governed and to a large degree, have grown.

but now they are not simply wanting protection from what you or i would say on twitter, they set themselves up to say what is true and false and that simply dives over the line of what a "platform" intention is. they are now "publishers" in the eyes of the law because they are creating or validating content. in this case, validating.

they are also doing it very unevenly. they cover a trump post for inciting violence but the head of twitters department that makes these decisions says divisive things quite often and has even called it an "emergency" and wants to "pull out all the stops" to get hillary elected.

can someone who has the power to say what is real or not to billions of people in the world take such an obvious bias AND continue to be allowed to have that control?

no. i don't care what side you are on. no.

all this "they're a private company" or "not a monopoly" - honestly it doesn't matter. they were classified as a platform, enjoyed the "you can't sue me" status and now that is on the way to ending. it's a part of a legal process that started back in the 90s.

i will fully agree the rules of engagement for social media are hard to define. but they must be moving forward. whatever the ever changing opinion anus-blues-boy here thinks simply is as irrelevant as what he says. it's legal, its in process and it's happening. whining you don't like it, just don't care.

esp when you can't even own up to misstatement that we all make. i make them and i own them, not get up in someones face for noticing. hell yesterday i made a huge error and posted the suicide note and when i was wrong, reported myself, edited what i could and moved on.

how it should be done, to me anyway.

so blues can ague his emotional imbalances all day long and it simply won't matter.

legally social media sites are considered a platform.
legally that is under review and quite likely to change.

as that is now in legal question, twitter needs to tread very carefully as not having this status opens them up to legal action out the ass.

whether bluesboy likes it or not.

The moderators here can and do control what gets posted here.

They can delete posts and ban users

and section 230 gives them the ability to do so w/o us suing them.

that is given to a platform.

twitter legally has been classified as a "platform" or at least has enjoyed the benefits of said designation. trump is working to remove that and we will have to figure how how to classify social media at that point i suppose.

to this day you simply do not and will not take the time to understand what a platform / publisher is, why it applies, and how they have been classified before.

you are simply an emotional basket case whining you don't like it.

 

[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.

BFD I meant to say I never claimed twitter was a platform

so you fuck up and change the entire stance of an argument and do a BFD now that you're caught?

fuck the hell off. at a MINIMUM you should be apologizing for the confusion your dumbass caused because you can't even get your own stance straight.

Fuck off

There is your apology, Fuckstick

way to own up to your mistakes. i never have a problem doing it cause it's the right thing to do.

you seem to have a problem with it and since you're simply mad at the world for it not being how you want it to be, i will slide you to ignore and move right along.

 

[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.

Wrong. Twitter occupies a specific market niche, and it has virtually 100% of the business in that niche. The justice department has taken numerous companies to court for exactly those circumstances. Just check out the cases of U.S vs Alcoa Aluminum. or U.S. vs Standard Oil.

that's what he simply doesn't understand. he's equating twitter to this board.

this board is great as far as xenforo sites so. one of the most active i've seen. but the people who run it can in no way control what you or i say, nor verify the authenticity of it. so in the 90s, sect 230 came to life so owners of sites like this, VERY VERY COMMON in the 90s (mostly vbulletin) couldn't be held accountable for the things we say.

when twitter came into being, they needed that "protection" also so they were given platform status. doesn't matter if blues or anyone else agrees or disagrees with it. from a legal standpoint, it happened and that's how they've been governed and to a large degree, have grown.

but now they are not simply wanting protection from what you or i would say on twitter, they set themselves up to say what is true and false and that simply dives over the line of what a "platform" intention is. they are now "publishers" in the eyes of the law because they are creating or validating content. in this case, validating.

they are also doing it very unevenly. they cover a trump post for inciting violence but the head of twitters department that makes these decisions says divisive things quite often and has even called it an "emergency" and wants to "pull out all the stops" to get hillary elected.

can someone who has the power to say what is real or not to billions of people in the world take such an obvious bias AND continue to be allowed to have that control?

no. i don't care what side you are on. no.

all this "they're a private company" or "not a monopoly" - honestly it doesn't matter. they were classified as a platform, enjoyed the "you can't sue me" status and now that is on the way to ending. it's a part of a legal process that started back in the 90s.

i will fully agree the rules of engagement for social media are hard to define. but they must be moving forward. whatever the ever changing opinion anus-blues-boy here thinks simply is as irrelevant as what he says. it's legal, its in process and it's happening. whining you don't like it, just don't care.

esp when you can't even own up to misstatement that we all make. i make them and i own them, not get up in someones face for noticing. hell yesterday i made a huge error and posted the suicide note and when i was wrong, reported myself, edited what i could and moved on.

how it should be done, to me anyway.

so blues can ague his emotional imbalances all day long and it simply won't matter.

legally social media sites are considered a platform.
legally that is under review and quite likely to change.

as that is now in legal question, twitter needs to tread very carefully as not having this status opens them up to legal action out the ass.

whether bluesboy likes it or not.

The moderators here can and do control what gets posted here.

They can delete posts and ban users

and section 230 gives them the ability to do so w/o us suing them.

that is given to a platform.

twitter legally has been classified as a "platform" or at least has enjoyed the benefits of said designation. trump is working to remove that and we will have to figure how how to classify social media at that point i suppose.

to this day you simply do not and will not take the time to understand what a platform / publisher is, why it applies, and how they have been classified before.

you are simply an emotional basket case whining you don't like it.

The that protection was given in error which is what I have been trying to say all along, Fuckstick.

It doesn't apply because Twitter is neither a platform nor a publisher

 

[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

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.

BFD I meant to say I never claimed twitter was a platform

so you fuck up and change the entire stance of an argument and do a BFD now that you're caught?

fuck the hell off. at a MINIMUM you should be apologizing for the confusion your dumbass caused because you can't even get your own stance straight.

Fuck off

There is your apology, Fuckstick

way to own up to your mistakes. i never have a problem doing it cause it's the right thing to do.

you seem to have a problem with it and since you're simply mad at the world for it not being how you want it to be, i will slide you to ignore and move right along.

What you didn't like my apology, Fuckstick?