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

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They're not editing other people's content. If they were to start deleting phrases to alter meaning or otherwise having a substantive effect on the content, they would be liable for that content;

They did that very thing on Trump's tweet about mail-in voting. They added some editorial content to his tweet.

The Prodigy holding makes Twitter liable for all content, not just what they edit.

Yes, I've read about a dozen cases. You don't know what you're talking about.

The Prodigy case is why section 230 exists in the first place, to correct a problem with the legal framework for libel.

Well you need to go back and re-read them, especially The Prodigy case.

In Prodigy, the court held that in editing any of the content provided by users (later defined in230 as "information content providers") made Prodigy responsible for the entire continent of anything on their system, as the publisher.

230 does not change the holding in Prodigy. Rather, it carves out an exception whereby Internet service providers can avoid civil liability as held in Prodigy, if they are only editing for obscenity.

The 230 exception to liability under Prodigy is if you were only editing for obscenity.

How many different ways do I need to say that?

.

 

[Blues Man]

They're not editing other people's content. If they were to start deleting phrases to alter meaning or otherwise having a substantive effect on the content, they would be liable for that content;

They did that very thing on Trump's tweet about mail-in voting. They added some editorial content to his tweet.

The Prodigy holding makes Twitter liable for all content, not just what they edit.

Yes, I've read about a dozen cases. You don't know what you're talking about.

The Prodigy case is why section 230 exists in the first place, to correct a problem with the legal framework for libel.

Well you need to go back and re-read them, especially The Prodigy case.

In Prodigy, the court held that in editing any of the content provided by users (later defined in230 as "information content providers") made Prodigy responsible for the entire continent of anything on their system, as the publisher.

230 does not change the holding in Prodigy. Rather, it carves out an exception whereby Internet service providers can avoid civil liability as held in Prodigy, if they are only editing for obscenity.

The 230 exception to liability under Prodigy is if you were only editing for obscenity.

.

I don't consider fact checking to be editorial content as it is not opinion.

I find it funny that no one is asking Trump to provide evidence for his assertions

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don't consider fact checking to be editorial content as it is not opinion.

Fact checking? No.

Posting an editorial statement about the content of a tweet (a statement about the tweet's truth)? YES. THAT IS PROVIDING OR ADDING TO THE CONTENT!!!

.

 

[Blues Man]

I don't consider fact checking to be editorial content as it is not opinion.

Fact checking? No.

Posting an editorial statement about the content of a tweet (a statement about the tweet's truth)? YES. THAT IS PROVIDING OR ADDING TO THE CONTENT!!!

.

I disagree.

I see it as no different than anyone else posting a link to a source that challenges any persons statements

 

[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.

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

There was never any shortage of aluminum or oil. Aluminum is the most abundant mineral on earth. Oil is also quite abundant,e specially in the 1910s. What Alcoa and Standard oil did is get all the customers. Simply having the largest market share is a crime according to federal anti-trust law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I disagree.

I see it as no different than anyone else posting a link to a source that challenges any persons statements

Yes. Any other person would have no liability protections under 230.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

There was never any shortage of aluminum or oil. Aluminum is the most abundant mineral on earth. Oil is also quite abundant,e specially in the 1910s. What Alcoa and Standard oil did is get all the customers. Simply having the largest market share is a crime according to federal anti-trust law.

It's becoming obvious that colfax needs to go back to law school.

.

 

[colfax_m]

They did that very thing on Trump's tweet about mail-in voting. They added some editorial content to his tweet.

The Prodigy holding makes Twitter liable for all content, not just what they edit.

Prodigy no longer applies since it was a court ruling under previous law.

Providing editorial content at the end of a post is not editing. I am not editing your post by replying to it. Twitter can only be held accountable for the speech they produce, which is the editorial content. They do not take responsibility for Trump's tweet since they had no meaningful effect on that speech.

Well you need to go back and re-read them, especially The Prodigy case.

In Prodigy, the court held that in editing any of the content provided by users (later defined in230 as "information content providers") made Prodigy responsible for the entire continent of anything on their system, as the publisher.

230 does not change the holding in Prodigy. Rather, it carves out an exception whereby Internet service providers can avoid civil liability as held in Prodigy, if they are only editing for obscenity.

The 230 exception to liability under Prodigy is if you were only editing for obscenity.

How many different ways do I need to say that?

230 doesn't change the holding of Prodigy but as stated above, Prodigy no longer applies since the law changed. 230 does not make a carve out for "internet service providers" (that's a completely different business). It makes a carve out for "interactive computer service" providers, which Twitter absolutely is. That carve out does not have any contingencies.

You can say it as many ways as you want, but you're still wrong. You want us to believe that 230(c)(1) only applies under certain circumstances. It doesn't.

 

[iceberg]

They did that very thing on Trump's tweet about mail-in voting. They added some editorial content to his tweet.

The Prodigy holding makes Twitter liable for all content, not just what they edit.

Prodigy no longer applies since it was a court ruling under previous law.

Providing editorial content at the end of a post is not editing. I am not editing your post by replying to it. Twitter can only be held accountable for the speech they produce, which is the editorial content. They do not take responsibility for Trump's tweet since they had no meaningful effect on that speech.

Well you need to go back and re-read them, especially The Prodigy case.

In Prodigy, the court held that in editing any of the content provided by users (later defined in230 as "information content providers") made Prodigy responsible for the entire continent of anything on their system, as the publisher.

230 does not change the holding in Prodigy. Rather, it carves out an exception whereby Internet service providers can avoid civil liability as held in Prodigy, if they are only editing for obscenity.

The 230 exception to liability under Prodigy is if you were only editing for obscenity.

How many different ways do I need to say that?

230 doesn't change the holding of Prodigy but as stated above, Prodigy no longer applies since the law changed. 230 does not make a carve out for "internet service providers" (that's a completely different business). It makes a carve out for "interactive computer service" providers, which Twitter absolutely is. That carve out does not have any contingencies.

You can say it as many ways as you want, but you're still wrong. You want us to believe that 230(c)(1) only applies under certain circumstances. It doesn't.

from section 230:

Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section §230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section §230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.
----------
are they acting in "good faith" when this shit happens?

Anti-Trump Tweets Show Twitter's Top Censor Czar Doesn't Even Try To Hide His Bias

Yoel Roth, in charge of "developing and enforcing" rules for Twitter posts, shows his political bias by mocking the Trump administration and the everyday Americans who voted for him.

thefederalist.com

does he seem "in good faith" with this background?

Yoel Roth, Twitter's Head of Site Integrity: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Yoel Roth is Twitter's head of site integrity. Roth spearheaded the social media company's new fact-checking initiative that has been criticized by President Donald Trump.

heavy.com

Head of Twitter site integrity called Trump White House officials 'actual Nazis' and Mitch McConnell a 'bag of farts'

Twitter’s head of site integrity, Yoel Roth, has posted multiple tweets deriding people who voted for President Trump, his staff, and other Republicans. Roth’s responsibilities at Twitter include “election security and misinformation,” a role he has held since 2018. Roth compared Kellyanne...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

"Head of site integrity" Twitter fact-checker has history of far-left, politically ugly, demonizing posts - Geller Report

This goosestepping far-left loon is going to judge facts. We need government intervention. And we need it now.

gellerreport.com

seems the man has a history of openly supporting the democrats, open disdain for the right, and is far from "acting in good faith"

so they do not deserve those protections as they are being abused for their own beliefs and benefits.

 

[colfax_m]

They did that very thing on Trump's tweet about mail-in voting. They added some editorial content to his tweet.

The Prodigy holding makes Twitter liable for all content, not just what they edit.

Prodigy no longer applies since it was a court ruling under previous law.

Providing editorial content at the end of a post is not editing. I am not editing your post by replying to it. Twitter can only be held accountable for the speech they produce, which is the editorial content. They do not take responsibility for Trump's tweet since they had no meaningful effect on that speech.

Well you need to go back and re-read them, especially The Prodigy case.

In Prodigy, the court held that in editing any of the content provided by users (later defined in230 as "information content providers") made Prodigy responsible for the entire continent of anything on their system, as the publisher.

230 does not change the holding in Prodigy. Rather, it carves out an exception whereby Internet service providers can avoid civil liability as held in Prodigy, if they are only editing for obscenity.

The 230 exception to liability under Prodigy is if you were only editing for obscenity.

How many different ways do I need to say that?

230 doesn't change the holding of Prodigy but as stated above, Prodigy no longer applies since the law changed. 230 does not make a carve out for "internet service providers" (that's a completely different business). It makes a carve out for "interactive computer service" providers, which Twitter absolutely is. That carve out does not have any contingencies.

You can say it as many ways as you want, but you're still wrong. You want us to believe that 230(c)(1) only applies under certain circumstances. It doesn't.

from section 230:

Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section §230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section §230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.
----------
are they acting in "good faith" when this shit happens?

Anti-Trump Tweets Show Twitter's Top Censor Czar Doesn't Even Try To Hide His Bias

Yoel Roth, in charge of "developing and enforcing" rules for Twitter posts, shows his political bias by mocking the Trump administration and the everyday Americans who voted for him.

thefederalist.com

does he seem "in good faith" with this background?

Yoel Roth, Twitter's Head of Site Integrity: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Yoel Roth is Twitter's head of site integrity. Roth spearheaded the social media company's new fact-checking initiative that has been criticized by President Donald Trump.

heavy.com

Head of Twitter site integrity called Trump White House officials 'actual Nazis' and Mitch McConnell a 'bag of farts'

Twitter’s head of site integrity, Yoel Roth, has posted multiple tweets deriding people who voted for President Trump, his staff, and other Republicans. Roth’s responsibilities at Twitter include “election security and misinformation,” a role he has held since 2018. Roth compared Kellyanne...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

"Head of site integrity" Twitter fact-checker has history of far-left, politically ugly, demonizing posts - Geller Report

This goosestepping far-left loon is going to judge facts. We need government intervention. And we need it now.

gellerreport.com

seems the man has a history of openly supporting the democrats, open disdain for the right, and is far from "acting in good faith"

so they do not deserve those protections as they are being abused for their own beliefs and benefits.

230(c)(2) is all but irrelevant since 230(c)(1) already prevents Twitter from being treated as a publisher or speaker of user submitted content. That distinction alone prevents them from being held liable. Yoel Roth is liable for his own statements but that has basically nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

 

[iceberg]

They did that very thing on Trump's tweet about mail-in voting. They added some editorial content to his tweet.

The Prodigy holding makes Twitter liable for all content, not just what they edit.

Prodigy no longer applies since it was a court ruling under previous law.

Providing editorial content at the end of a post is not editing. I am not editing your post by replying to it. Twitter can only be held accountable for the speech they produce, which is the editorial content. They do not take responsibility for Trump's tweet since they had no meaningful effect on that speech.

Well you need to go back and re-read them, especially The Prodigy case.

In Prodigy, the court held that in editing any of the content provided by users (later defined in230 as "information content providers") made Prodigy responsible for the entire continent of anything on their system, as the publisher.

230 does not change the holding in Prodigy. Rather, it carves out an exception whereby Internet service providers can avoid civil liability as held in Prodigy, if they are only editing for obscenity.

The 230 exception to liability under Prodigy is if you were only editing for obscenity.

How many different ways do I need to say that?

230 doesn't change the holding of Prodigy but as stated above, Prodigy no longer applies since the law changed. 230 does not make a carve out for "internet service providers" (that's a completely different business). It makes a carve out for "interactive computer service" providers, which Twitter absolutely is. That carve out does not have any contingencies.

You can say it as many ways as you want, but you're still wrong. You want us to believe that 230(c)(1) only applies under certain circumstances. It doesn't.

from section 230:

Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section §230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section §230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.
----------
are they acting in "good faith" when this shit happens?

Anti-Trump Tweets Show Twitter's Top Censor Czar Doesn't Even Try To Hide His Bias

Yoel Roth, in charge of "developing and enforcing" rules for Twitter posts, shows his political bias by mocking the Trump administration and the everyday Americans who voted for him.

thefederalist.com

does he seem "in good faith" with this background?

Yoel Roth, Twitter's Head of Site Integrity: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Yoel Roth is Twitter's head of site integrity. Roth spearheaded the social media company's new fact-checking initiative that has been criticized by President Donald Trump.

heavy.com

Head of Twitter site integrity called Trump White House officials 'actual Nazis' and Mitch McConnell a 'bag of farts'

Twitter’s head of site integrity, Yoel Roth, has posted multiple tweets deriding people who voted for President Trump, his staff, and other Republicans. Roth’s responsibilities at Twitter include “election security and misinformation,” a role he has held since 2018. Roth compared Kellyanne...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

"Head of site integrity" Twitter fact-checker has history of far-left, politically ugly, demonizing posts - Geller Report

This goosestepping far-left loon is going to judge facts. We need government intervention. And we need it now.

gellerreport.com

seems the man has a history of openly supporting the democrats, open disdain for the right, and is far from "acting in good faith"

so they do not deserve those protections as they are being abused for their own beliefs and benefits.

230(c)(2) is all but irrelevant since 230(c)(1) already prevents Twitter from being treated as a publisher or speaker of user submitted content. That distinction alone prevents them from being held liable. Yoel Roth is liable for his own statements but that has basically nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

so - are you trying to tell me that the head of twitters site integritys open bias is not an issue? his WE MUST STOP TRUMP tweets are not subject to the same riot inciting tags he puts on trumps posts?

this is not defending trump - this is saying no one entity should be able to do this. period. end of story. he's being allowed protections to push his bias and that needs to end.

if he wants to push his bias fine. but any and all protections to him and twitter are gone because he does them under his twitter role.

and removing "platform" protection pretty much makes them now libel.

arguments to the contrary are pointless. if you WANT it to be different, well that isn't the same as where we are now. i don't think rules for social media that make sense exist today and that needs to be resolved.

today.

using 1990s laws is stupid.

common IT activities in 1996:
The web browser of choice was Netscape Navigator, followed by Microsoft Internet Explorer as a distant second (Microsoft launched IE 3 in 1996). Most people used dial-up Internet connections with mighty speeds ranging from 28.8Kbps to 33.6Kbps. Highly modern 56Kbps modems would arrive in 1997.

we are a long long way from those times and technology and certainly our lives then were not as internet-intwined as they are today.

 

[colfax_m]

They did that very thing on Trump's tweet about mail-in voting. They added some editorial content to his tweet.

The Prodigy holding makes Twitter liable for all content, not just what they edit.

Prodigy no longer applies since it was a court ruling under previous law.

Providing editorial content at the end of a post is not editing. I am not editing your post by replying to it. Twitter can only be held accountable for the speech they produce, which is the editorial content. They do not take responsibility for Trump's tweet since they had no meaningful effect on that speech.

Well you need to go back and re-read them, especially The Prodigy case.

In Prodigy, the court held that in editing any of the content provided by users (later defined in230 as "information content providers") made Prodigy responsible for the entire continent of anything on their system, as the publisher.

230 does not change the holding in Prodigy. Rather, it carves out an exception whereby Internet service providers can avoid civil liability as held in Prodigy, if they are only editing for obscenity.

The 230 exception to liability under Prodigy is if you were only editing for obscenity.

How many different ways do I need to say that?

230 doesn't change the holding of Prodigy but as stated above, Prodigy no longer applies since the law changed. 230 does not make a carve out for "internet service providers" (that's a completely different business). It makes a carve out for "interactive computer service" providers, which Twitter absolutely is. That carve out does not have any contingencies.

You can say it as many ways as you want, but you're still wrong. You want us to believe that 230(c)(1) only applies under certain circumstances. It doesn't.

from section 230:

Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section §230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section §230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.
----------
are they acting in "good faith" when this shit happens?

Anti-Trump Tweets Show Twitter's Top Censor Czar Doesn't Even Try To Hide His Bias

Yoel Roth, in charge of "developing and enforcing" rules for Twitter posts, shows his political bias by mocking the Trump administration and the everyday Americans who voted for him.

thefederalist.com

does he seem "in good faith" with this background?

Yoel Roth, Twitter's Head of Site Integrity: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Yoel Roth is Twitter's head of site integrity. Roth spearheaded the social media company's new fact-checking initiative that has been criticized by President Donald Trump.

heavy.com

Head of Twitter site integrity called Trump White House officials 'actual Nazis' and Mitch McConnell a 'bag of farts'

Twitter’s head of site integrity, Yoel Roth, has posted multiple tweets deriding people who voted for President Trump, his staff, and other Republicans. Roth’s responsibilities at Twitter include “election security and misinformation,” a role he has held since 2018. Roth compared Kellyanne...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

"Head of site integrity" Twitter fact-checker has history of far-left, politically ugly, demonizing posts - Geller Report

This goosestepping far-left loon is going to judge facts. We need government intervention. And we need it now.

gellerreport.com

seems the man has a history of openly supporting the democrats, open disdain for the right, and is far from "acting in good faith"

so they do not deserve those protections as they are being abused for their own beliefs and benefits.

230(c)(2) is all but irrelevant since 230(c)(1) already prevents Twitter from being treated as a publisher or speaker of user submitted content. That distinction alone prevents them from being held liable. Yoel Roth is liable for his own statements but that has basically nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

so - are you trying to tell me that the head of twitters site integritys open bias is not an issue? his WE MUST STOP TRUMP tweets are not subject to the same riot inciting tags he puts on trumps posts?

this is not defending trump - this is saying no one entity should be able to do this. period. end of story. he's being allowed protections to push his bias and that needs to end.

if he wants to push his bias fine. but any and all protections to him and twitter are gone because he does them under his twitter role.

and removing "platform" protection pretty much makes them now libel.

arguments to the contrary are pointless. if you WANT it to be different, well that isn't the same as where we are now. i don't think rules for social media that make sense exist today and that needs to be resolved.

today.

using 1990s laws is stupid.

common IT activities in 1996:
The web browser of choice was Netscape Navigator, followed by Microsoft Internet Explorer as a distant second (Microsoft launched IE 3 in 1996). Most people used dial-up Internet connections with mighty speeds ranging from 28.8Kbps to 33.6Kbps. Highly modern 56Kbps modems would arrive in 1997.

we are a long long way from those times and technology and certainly our lives then were not as internet-intwined as they are today.

I'm so sick of people trying to police each other's bias. You saying that Yoel Roth doesn't have a first amendment right to express his opinion of Trump? Of course not. No one would ever say that, I hope. But here we are trying to punish Twitter with legal repercussions because he does so. Bogus, if you ask me. Now if you want to question something Twitter has done, go for it, but don't drag into it his personal political views. That's bullshit and it's trying to suppress individual rights.

Technology has changed, but the fundamental reasons for the law did not. If anything, given the massive amount of content being produced by users makes section 230 MORE necessary than ever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

Let me see if I got this right. Trump "calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act" , but these regulations have not been written, approved or disseminated yet down through the bureaucracy or the courts, right?

"My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”
He has instructed the FTC to not allow deceptive trade practices when they buy and sell things?

Like the guy said in GhostBusters:
View attachment 342507

That does "do it", if the "it" in question is setting policy directives for the departments of the executive branch to then carry out . . . which is what his job actually is.

I have no idea what "it" YOU thought he was supposed to do.

His statement was kind of ambiguous. he did not mention anything related to what regulated trade practice he was talking about so it is unclear whether it has any effect or not and as I said the new regulations under the Communications Decency Act have not been rewritten or published yet, so I appreciate the nice commercial he gave of what his intent is, but it doesn't change much at this point, so I can thank him for the pronouncement but it is totally unclear what effect it will have or if the courts would go along with it. Didn't it take like 9 months of writing and rewriting his executive order for his travel ban against Muslim countries to have an effect because it had legal issues requiring re-writing multiple times by order of the courts?

Yeah, that's because it was a statement ABOUT the executive order; it wasn't the executive order itself. You're supposed to actually read the executive order.

How dumb are you when you get snarky about "the nice commercial he gave" as though it was supposed to be anything else? If you're unclear about the executive order and you haven't made any effort to get yourself clear on it, that's YOUR problem, not anyone else's.

How snarky? I thought is was pretty good snark. Thanks for noticing.
I just found it on White House .gov. Pretty much like in the commercial from the president. Don't look for any change soon, dud.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship


Infrastructure & Technology


Issued on: May 28, 2020

• Share:
• 
  

All News

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.






The White House

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. P

www.whitehouse.gov

I'm sure you did think it was "pretty good snark". You were wrong. You were also apparently wrong about what you thought executive orders were supposed to do.

Doesn't look like I am wrong about this one, after reading it. Doubt it will keep twitter from posting a fact checking link below his tweet if it contains lies.

If you think the executive order itself was supposed to keep Twitter from doing anything, then you are indeed wrong, and have no understanding whatsoever of what executive orders are or are for.

This one does not do much in the short term. I suspect twitter and facebook have lawyers that will deal with it if they thing it needs dealing with. I certainly do not think they deserve any protection from lawsuits that most businesses do not have. I did not know they had them until yesterday as I have never tweet and dropped facebook over a year ago.

*sigh* Look, Mensa Boy, let's get clear about what executive orders do and don't do, so that you will stop bothering me with this asinine babble about "doesn't do much in the short term".

EOs are not intended to be laws, or regulations, or any of the things that Obama used to use them for. They exist primarily to state the President's policy direction on a subject, and to issue directives to the people in the executive branch as to what he wants done and what general policy direction he expects the administration to move in. That's it.

So no, if you're a dumbass who was expecting an executive order was going to jerk a knot in Twitter's tail and make them toe the President's line - or who was expecting it to TRY to do those things, anyway - then you are so far off base that you're wandering around in a completely 'nother ballpark.

Well I am sure we can agree that I never said I thought it would jerk a not in twitter's tail. I even on one post went so far as to remind how long it took him to get his Muslim travel ban past the courts. The guy is an idiot. I gave up on him getting much right 9 months into his presidency if you can call it that. He is no better at executive orders than he is at paying hush money to hook, pretty ineffective. You only confirmed we had the same understanding of executive orders. I think you will agree that some are more effective than others, I thought you were trying to make a positive point for the trump executive order and trying to get me to go look them up for you, which I felt no inclination to do. Hopefully you have gotten this executive order fixation out of you system now. I may have gotten you wrong if you were not excited by his executive order and introductory commercial. I did what I could for you, by posting the actual order from White house.gov, but it was basically like the commercial, which explains why I was and am not impressed. I won't have to worry about twitter, as I explained, I don't tweet.

I just heard, "I believe I was right all along, because I was going to believe that no matter what you said. Hopefully, you will now decide to be smart by agreeing with me."

Dismissed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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....

will this only deny liberals "free speech" or is there a possibility that conservatives might lose some, too?

No ones free speech is being denied. The only difference between twitter and a newspaper, in the old days of twitter, was they did not select what content could be posted, promoted, or suppressed. They do that now. With this EO, they can continue to do this as much as they want. They can outright ban all conservatives if they want. But just like a newspaper they can be found liable in civil court. So twitter (or whatever other social media) can either revert back to their previous policy of letting whoever post whatever they want as long as it’s legal, or they can continue down the path they have been taking.

In more antiquated forms of “public forums” the same rules apply. If your place of business had a “community” cork board, then it’d be a violation of a persons (the original “posters”) free speech rights if a manager, employee, or whoever came by and took down fliers, or used another flier to cover it up. So twitter/YouTube/Facebook/etc can decided if they are a community cork board, or if they are publisher. Either choice is legal. Either choice doesn’t violate anybody’s free speech rights

When they ban some conservative for "hate speech" they can be sued into bankruptcy.

No, liable is a pretty high standard. But if some crazy person on there says trump is a lizard person that raped his daughter, then yes they can get sued into bankruptcy.

Yeah, but that's the thing: we're talking about the Internet, so you know some crazy person IS going to say that.

So it’s in social media’s interest that they revert back to platforms and let whomever post about whatever they want to, as long as it’s legal. Basically adopt the first amendment as their policy.

Perhaps, or perhaps they'll decide they want to continue to act as publishers, and accept their responsibilities and liabilities as such. The point is, they won't get to continue eating their cake and having it as well, being whichever one they want at any given moment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Prodigy no longer applies since it was a court ruling under previous law.

WRONG!!

Go back to law school.

Providing editorial content at the end of a post is not editing. I am not editing your post by replying to it. Twitter can only be held accountable for the speech they produce, which is the editorial content. They do not take responsibility for Trump's tweet since they had no meaningful effect on that speech.

Say that again? Providing EDITORIAL content at the end of a post is not EDITING???

Say it again until the nonsensical nature of that statement it sinks in.

230 doesn't change the holding of Prodigy but as stated above, Prodigy no longer applies since the law changed. 230 does not make a carve out for "internet service providers" (that's a completely different business). It makes a carve out for "interactive computer service" providers, which Twitter absolutely is. That carve out does not have any contingencies.

Prodigy has not been overturned in its entirety by statute. That's not how it works. Statutes may act to modify existing law that makes portions of decisions no longer necessary. But, to make a holding inapplicable in its entirety, a Court must overturn it.

But let's go with your interpretation and admission that Twitter is an "interactive computer service" for purposes of 230.

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Prodigy held the following:

https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4540Let it be clear that this Court is in full agreement with Cubby and Auvil. Computer bulletin boards should generally be regarded in the same context as bookstores, libraries and network affiliates. [See Edward V. DiLello, Functional Equivalency and Its application to Freedom of Speech on Computer Bulletin Boards, 26 Colum.J.Law & Soc.Probs. 199, 210-211 (1993).] It is PRODIGY's own policies, technology and staffing decisions which have altered the scenario and mandated the finding that it is a publisher.

PRODIGY's conscious choice, to gain the benefits of editorial control, has opened it up to a greater liability than CompuServe and other computer networks that make no such choice. For the record, the fear that this Court's finding of publisher status for PRODIGY will compel all computer networks to abdicate control of their bulletin boards, incorrectly presumes that the market will refuse to compensate a network for its increased control and the resulting increased exposure. [See, Eric Schlachter, Cyberspace, The Free Market and The Free Marketplace of Ideas: Recognizing Legal Differences in Computer Bulletin Board Functions, 16 Hastings Communication and Entertainment L.J., 87, 138-139.] Presumably PRODIGY's decision to regulate the content of its bulletin boards was in part influenced by its desire to attract a market it perceived to exist consisting of users seeking a "family-oriented" computer service. This decision simply required that to the extent computer networks provide such services, they must also accept the concomitant legal consequences. In addition, the Court also notes that the issues addressed herein may ultimately be preempted by federal law if the Communications Decency Act of 1995, several versions of which are pending in Congress, is enacted. [See, Congressional Quarterly US S 652, Congressional Quarterly US HR 1004, and Congressional Quarterly US S 314.]

Compare:
"Computer bulletin boards should generally be regarded in the same context as bookstores, libraries and network affiliates."

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

230 is, in essence CODIFYING Cubby, Auvil, and Prodigy as they relate to the above.


Now look at this and compare:
"PRODIGY's conscious choice, to gain the benefits of editorial control, has opened it up to a greater liability than CompuServe and other computer networks that make no such choice."

"(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;"

This is the only part of Prodigy the statute modifies.

Why would 230 need to include an exclusion from liability such as this if interactive computer services (TWITTER) have general immunity, no matter what type of editorial control or actions they take?

Your interpretation of 230 renders the Civil Liability section MEANINGLESS.

The only interpretation of 230 as it relates to existing case law is that give full meaning and effect to each portion is that, for example, Twitter is only shielded from CIVIL LIABILITY if it is acting in good faith to remove material that is obscene/etc.


.

 

[Cecilie1200]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.

My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”



The United States Government should not be in the business of picking select companies to reward with liability shields, especially when they operate in ways that are against the US Constitution and Constitutional Rights.

The President did NOT take action to stop Twitters and other private companies from operating as they so choose but took action to remove govt protections that prevent them from having to face the consequences of their choice to operate their companies as they choose.

The President did not strip Twitter of anything that was 'theirs'. He just acted to deny giving companies like Twitter protections they did not earn and did not deserve.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

Censoring is editorializing, moron. If they don't want to follow the rules, then their protection from lawsuits will be stripped from them.

Nope, every website censors. Including this one.

Want this law to go away then message boards like this one will cease to exist. That is just a fact.

This website censors very little, and they spell out very plainly the things that aren't allowed. Opinions the moderators don't agree with isn't included.

I've gotten deleted a few times. But just a few. Likely deserved it a lot more often.

I doubt it was for being conservative, though.

No it was for being a dick.

Well, I applaud your honesty and self-awareness, anyway.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Google, Twitter, Facebook and all Big TECH are Far Left Communist agitators and anti American treasonous SOB's. They are Monopolies that act like UTILITIES.

To be precise, they're monopolies which act like monopolies, but pretend they're utilities.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They did that very thing on Trump's tweet about mail-in voting. They added some editorial content to his tweet.

The Prodigy holding makes Twitter liable for all content, not just what they edit.

Prodigy no longer applies since it was a court ruling under previous law.

Providing editorial content at the end of a post is not editing. I am not editing your post by replying to it. Twitter can only be held accountable for the speech they produce, which is the editorial content. They do not take responsibility for Trump's tweet since they had no meaningful effect on that speech.

Well you need to go back and re-read them, especially The Prodigy case.

In Prodigy, the court held that in editing any of the content provided by users (later defined in230 as "information content providers") made Prodigy responsible for the entire continent of anything on their system, as the publisher.

230 does not change the holding in Prodigy. Rather, it carves out an exception whereby Internet service providers can avoid civil liability as held in Prodigy, if they are only editing for obscenity.

The 230 exception to liability under Prodigy is if you were only editing for obscenity.

How many different ways do I need to say that?

230 doesn't change the holding of Prodigy but as stated above, Prodigy no longer applies since the law changed. 230 does not make a carve out for "internet service providers" (that's a completely different business). It makes a carve out for "interactive computer service" providers, which Twitter absolutely is. That carve out does not have any contingencies.

You can say it as many ways as you want, but you're still wrong. You want us to believe that 230(c)(1) only applies under certain circumstances. It doesn't.

from section 230:

Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section §230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section §230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.
----------
are they acting in "good faith" when this shit happens?

Anti-Trump Tweets Show Twitter's Top Censor Czar Doesn't Even Try To Hide His Bias

Yoel Roth, in charge of "developing and enforcing" rules for Twitter posts, shows his political bias by mocking the Trump administration and the everyday Americans who voted for him.

thefederalist.com

does he seem "in good faith" with this background?

Yoel Roth, Twitter's Head of Site Integrity: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Yoel Roth is Twitter's head of site integrity. Roth spearheaded the social media company's new fact-checking initiative that has been criticized by President Donald Trump.

heavy.com

Head of Twitter site integrity called Trump White House officials 'actual Nazis' and Mitch McConnell a 'bag of farts'

Twitter’s head of site integrity, Yoel Roth, has posted multiple tweets deriding people who voted for President Trump, his staff, and other Republicans. Roth’s responsibilities at Twitter include “election security and misinformation,” a role he has held since 2018. Roth compared Kellyanne...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

"Head of site integrity" Twitter fact-checker has history of far-left, politically ugly, demonizing posts - Geller Report

This goosestepping far-left loon is going to judge facts. We need government intervention. And we need it now.

gellerreport.com

seems the man has a history of openly supporting the democrats, open disdain for the right, and is far from "acting in good faith"

so they do not deserve those protections as they are being abused for their own beliefs and benefits.

More to the point, when they start curating their content like a publisher does, do they qualify for 230 at all?

 

[Cecilie1200]

He didn't which is why he was sued and it was negated...I believe it was the law he tried to enact about the children of illegals in the US.

THANKS FOR PROVING YOU ARE EITHER A BAD LIAR OR JUST IGNORANT.

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

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

Unlike Barry's, President Trump's EO is perfectly legal, Constitutional. It is also the right thing to do, snowflake.

The courts have deferred to Presidents on who should be deported. It was not illegal. Obama made a contract and that contract should be honored. Americans support DACA and Ronald Reagan would have supported it. Reagan Republicans support it.

Yes, if one President makes an egregious error, the rest of the nation should suffer with that error forever, rather than rectifying it. Of course, that defeats the whole purpose of electing a new administration every four years . . . and somehow, I doubt you'd take that view about literally anything ever enacted by a Republican.

 

[DOTR]

Another excellent move by our President.