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

[Cellblock2429]

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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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....

/——/ The next step is for the EO to be court tested.

 

[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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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.

Lawyers will sue the company because they have all the money.

It sucks to be twitter and youTube without 230 protection, doesn't it?

Just because a lawyer will sue a company doesn't mean the suit will stand the rigors of the law.

Like I said you can't have it both ways.

You cannot tell a social media site that it can't censor and then say they are responsible for every word that people post

That isn't what Trump is saying, dumbass. Twitter is censoring. Therefore it's responsible. If it didn't censor, then it would be protected. Leave it to to TDS moron to get it exactly backwards.

Hey FUCKSTICK

I didn't vote for Trump.

And FAct checking is not censoring

Of course it's censoring. It's definitely editorializing. And we never guessed that you didn't vote for Trump.

It is not censorship.

Was anything posted redacted or removed?

If twitter wants to they can ban trump from their website.

. . . Which would be censorship.

Interesting how you've spent multiple posts squawking, "But that's not censorship! But that's not censorship!" as though that was a deeply meaningful distinction, only to then end up with, "But they can censor if they want to."

 

[Blues Man]

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

how can an opinion be fact checked?

Easy

It is trumps opinion that mail in ballots are subject to fraud even though he uses them himself

All anyone has to do is see if that has happened in all the years mail in ballots have been used.

That is how you fact check an opinion

 

[colfax_m]

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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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....

/——/ The next step is for the EO to be court tested.

Depending on what they think they're going to do with it, it'll probably either be a meaningless executive order or struck down.

 

[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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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.

Twitter IS responsible for what people post, if they make a policy of curating postings and posters. THEY can't have it both ways.

Recommending a fact check is not curating content.

 

[Blues Man]

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

Twitter doesn't "comment" on a post. They change the post. Editorializing.

But you just keep clinging to that whole word-parsing thing. I'm sure that'll work.

What Trump wrote was not changed.

There was nothing in his post that was deleted redacted or changed.

A link was posted to other sources that is all

 

[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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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

If the terms of service say that Twitter is allowed to conduct arbitrary censorship of your content, then they can be sued.

FAct checking is not censorship

Again, it's editorializing.

But by all means, make your entire case on, "Aha! You didn't use the exact word, so it's okay!"

Posting a link is not editorializing

 

[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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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....

/——/ The next step is for the EO to be court tested.

No, the next step is for the FCC and FTC to look into the directives the EO gave them, and come up with a finding and plan of resolution, if they determine one is needed. Then THAT will be court tested.

There's nothing about the President directing agencies in his administration to look into something that can or should be court tested.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

Twitter doesn't "comment" on a post. They change the post. Editorializing.

But you just keep clinging to that whole word-parsing thing. I'm sure that'll work.

What Trump wrote was not changed.

There was nothing in his post that was deleted redacted or changed.

A link was posted to other sources that is all

Twitter added to the post with its little "Fact Check: Go read this OTHER viewpoint" attachment.

Honestly, do you even hear yourself, with all this weaseling around and word-parsing? "Nothing happened, because of THIS very carefully chosen description. They didn't change his words or delete anything, they JUST added something to the post." They changed his post, and your "Well, I'll just subtly change the definition of "changing his post", and hope you don't notice" isn't going to work.

I expect better from you than that.

 

[easyt65]

Recommending a fact check is not curating content.

That's right - keep wailing and fighting over the fact that the President just stripped Govt-provided 302 protection from Twitter, a protection you and I both agreed they do not need.

Since that is so, again, why are snowflakes going insane, as if President Trump / the Govt just stole something form them that has always been their 'God-Given' possession from the time they were born?

'No harm, no foul', right?

The govt is not doling out free protection to massive private businesses that don't need them anyway.

Time to move on and accept it as life, which will not have an impact on Twitter anyway, as you and others seem to be stating.....

 

[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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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

If the terms of service say that Twitter is allowed to conduct arbitrary censorship of your content, then they can be sued.

FAct checking is not censorship

Again, it's editorializing.

But by all means, make your entire case on, "Aha! You didn't use the exact word, so it's okay!"

Posting a link is not editorializing

It most certainly is, by any definition other than whatever you made up right this moment to justify what you want to see as okay.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

It is when they are calling you a liar.

Then sue for libel and see what the courts think

And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them

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

Oops. Der it is.

I have done no such thing.

They are not a platform and never have been.

The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.

Platforms Are Not Publishers

The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.

www.theatlantic.com

The world is wrong. Just like you are.

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

So what's your problem then? Other than total ignorance of the topic.

Wow you are too thick to realize I don't have a problem with what Twitter did.

I just happen to actually know the definition of censorship and fact checking is not censorship.

Definition of CENSORSHIP

the institution, system, or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively; the office, power, or term of a Roman censor… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of CENSOR

a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as; an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter; an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

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

Wow, you are too thick to realize we DO realize you have no problem with what Twitter did, and the question was, "What's your problem with the response?"

Now, where did Iceberg say what Twitter did IN THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE was censorship, Grammar Nazi?

 

[easyt65]

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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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....

/——/ The next step is for the EO to be court tested.

No, the next step is for the FCC and FTC to look into the directives the EO gave them, and come up with a finding and plan of resolution, if they determine one is needed. Then THAT will be court tested.

There's nothing about the President directing agencies in his administration to look into something that can or should be court tested.

Do you think the Court is going to order the Federal Govt to give selective, huge, wealthy private businesses special protections that are not afforded to all businesses, protections that were GIVEN to them, not ones they always held privately on their own?

Do you think the Federal Govt can not / is not allowed to terminate a program / perk / 'freebies' that help massive, rich leftist privately owned companies make even massive amounts more of money?

Can you point to where in the Constitution the Federal Govt is tasked with doing so?

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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....

/——/ The next step is for the EO to be court tested.

No, the next step is for the FCC and FTC to look into the directives the EO gave them, and come up with a finding and plan of resolution, if they determine one is needed. Then THAT will be court tested.

There's nothing about the President directing agencies in his administration to look into something that can or should be court tested.

Do you think the Court is going to order the Federal Govt to give selective, huge, wealthy private businesses special protections that are not afforded to all businesses, protections that were GIVEN to them, not ones they always held privately on their own?

Do you think the Federal Govt can not / is not allowed to terminate a program / perk / 'freebies' that help massive, rich leftist privately owned companies make even massive amounts more of money?

Can you point to where in the Constitution the Federal Govt is tasked with doing so?

/——-/ It ain’t law till the courts say its Constitutional. Don’t get pissed at me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

It is when they are calling you a liar.

Then sue for libel and see what the courts think

And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them

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

Oops. Der it is.

I have done no such thing.

They are not a platform and never have been.

The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.

Platforms Are Not Publishers

The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.

www.theatlantic.com

The world is wrong. Just like you are.

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

So what's your problem then? Other than total ignorance of the topic.

Wow you are too thick to realize I don't have a problem with what Twitter did.

I just happen to actually know the definition of censorship and fact checking is not censorship.

Definition of CENSORSHIP

the institution, system, or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively; the office, power, or term of a Roman censor… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of CENSOR

a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as; an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter; an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

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

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

News publishers have rules to follow and avenues of recourse for grievences.

Platforms not so much.

NOW IF YOU MUST "TRUMP" THIS UP all Trump did was remove 230 protection.

Platform protections.

Now you claim Twitter is NOT a platform, ergo what Trump did has zero impact.

So Beavis what the **** you bitching about? Trump didn't change a thing to you.

Back to big picture... No social media has no "category" today so 1990s rules have been used. It is time we write, rules of play for social media.

I never claimed Twitter is not a platform nor have I claimed Twitter is a publisher

I have always claimed that Twitter can do whatever it wants in regards to commenting on the posts of its users, banning users, deleting posts etc because they are a private company and can make any rules they want for those who they allow to use their service.

Except that, like all private companies, they are required to be up-front and honest with their customers about those rules. Otherwise, they're committing fraud.

Also, if they are going to claim immunity from liability as a specific type of business, then they have to meet the definition of that type of business.

And you do seem to consistently and stubbornly ignore that point.

 

[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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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 ******* 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.

No, but if you follow the rules of Twitter and end up punished because of shadow rules that were never explicitly stated, then you have been defrauded.

 

[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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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 ******* 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.

and twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them.

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Straw man.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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....

The Left/Dems FEAR freedom of speech because totalitarianism can't survive scrutiny

 

[colfax_m]

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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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....

The Left/Dems FEAR freedom of speech because totalitarianism can't survive scrutiny

This coming from the political party that went batshit crazy because Twitter included an article at the end of Trump’s tweet.

Apparently y’all don’t support freedom of speech for everyone.

 

[Blues Man]

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

Twitter doesn't "comment" on a post. They change the post. Editorializing.

But you just keep clinging to that whole word-parsing thing. I'm sure that'll work.

What Trump wrote was not changed.

There was nothing in his post that was deleted redacted or changed.

A link was posted to other sources that is all

Twitter added to the post with its little "Fact Check: Go read this OTHER viewpoint" attachment.

Honestly, do you even hear yourself, with all this weaseling around and word-parsing? "Nothing happened, because of THIS very carefully chosen description. They didn't change his words or delete anything, they JUST added something to the post." They changed his post, and your "Well, I'll just subtly change the definition of "changing his post", and hope you don't notice" isn't going to work.

I expect better from you than that.

So what?

Nothing Trump wrote was changed, redacted or omitted.

I suppose if that link was posted in a separate entry then it wouldn't get your panties in a twist right?