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

[Blues Man]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

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

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

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.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

More word-parsing. "I am right because QUIBBLE ABOUT THIS WORD CHOICE". Always a sign of someone who knows he's making a shit argument simply because he wants something whether it's right or not.

Words mean things.

If you say someone was punished you should be able to tell me who was punished and what that punishment was

Otherwise you're just making shit up

 

[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

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....

I doubt it has any teeth, but I wonder if you Trumptards realize that means even more aggressive content policing? If Trump posts lies, he has no protection.

That's the secret. They don't want section 230 repealed. They know that if Twitter is liable for Trump's tweets (or anyone else's), they'll have to kick them all off otherwise be sued into oblivion. Trump and the rest of the conservative internet sphere depend on these services to much to let that happen.

Nope, the intention here is not to lose section 230 protections, but to make Twitter comply with their demands in order to retain them. Their demands, more specifically, is to stop kicking off nutty fringe conservatives (Laura Loomer, Alex Jones, etc). If they promise to give a pass to political speech, they'll keep the protections they need to stay in business.

Trump is basically acting like a suicide bomber here. He has a list of demands and will blow the whole place up if they aren't given into.

 

[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....

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.

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.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

You have already decided in your head that you are right, everyone else is wrong, and you will continue to argue to that point for a thousand more 'pages' if you have to instead of engaging in conversation with an open mind.....which means any further arguing (not discussing) this with you is a pointless waste of time.

In the meantime the President just moved to strip Twitter of its govt-provided 302 Protections, which you agree they don't need anyway so the impact should be 'nil' and not worth arguing about.

Much like Barry's DACA edict, the courts have not ruled on Trump's '302 EO', so it remains 'law of the land' for now....and all your arguing against that fact doesn't change that it IS indeed a fact....for now.

'It is DONE' ... for now.

I'm not using words like "punished" or "censored"

Because they do not apply and I will keep telling you they do not apply just like the word "monopoly" does not apply.

As i said you people insist on making Twitter and Facebook etc more than what they are.

Social media sites are nothing but privately owned spaces where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements.

That is all they are , that is all they have ever been and that is all they will ever be.

"You are using these specific words, so if I just laser-focus on them and how they're the wrong words, that will make my argument correct!"

Social media sites are businesses, with customers, who have obligations to those customers defined by the type of business they are and by their own words making commitments to their customers. You can try to redefine what they are until the cows come home, and it will neither be true nor make a difference to that basic fact.

By the way, Grammar Nazi, there's a much shorter way to say "privately owned spaces where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements": PLATFORMS. You know, the thing you keep trying to claim they aren't in order to insist they deserve protection that exists only for platforms.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

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

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

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.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

You have already decided in your head that you are right, everyone else is wrong, and you will continue to argue to that point for a thousand more 'pages' if you have to instead of engaging in conversation with an open mind.....which means any further arguing (not discussing) this with you is a pointless waste of time.

In the meantime the President just moved to strip Twitter of its govt-provided 302 Protections, which you agree they don't need anyway so the impact should be 'nil' and not worth arguing about.

Much like Barry's DACA edict, the courts have not ruled on Trump's '302 EO', so it remains 'law of the land' for now....and all your arguing against that fact doesn't change that it IS indeed a fact....for now.

'It is DONE' ... for now.

I'm not using words like "punished" or "censored"

Because they do not apply and I will keep telling you they do not apply just like the word "monopoly" does not apply.

As i said you people insist on making Twitter and Facebook etc more than what they are.

Social media sites are nothing but privately owned spaces where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements.

That is all they are , that is all they have ever been and that is all they will ever be.

"You are using these specific words, so if I just laser-focus on them and how they're the wrong words, that will make my argument correct!"

Social media sites are businesses, with customers, who have obligations to those customers defined by the type of business they are and by their own words making commitments to their customers. You can try to redefine what they are until the cows come home, and it will neither be true nor make a difference to that basic fact.

By the way, Grammar Nazi, there's a much shorter way to say "privately owned spaces where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements": PLATFORMS. You know, the thing you keep trying to claim they aren't in order to insist they deserve protection that exists only for platforms.

No I am using the words you used in your arguments

And as I have said Twitter is neither a platform nor a publisher.

Do I have to tell you again what social media sites are?

 

[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....

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.

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.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

More word-parsing. "I am right because QUIBBLE ABOUT THIS WORD CHOICE". Always a sign of someone who knows he's making a shit argument simply because he wants something whether it's right or not.

Words mean things.

If you say someone was punished you should be able to tell me who was punished and what that punishment was

Otherwise you're just making shit up

Words DO mean things, and if you think being labeled a liar isn't a punishment just because it's not you and it's not something you care about, you should be able to explain to me when you became Grand High Arbiter of Objective Reality.

Otherwise, you're just trying to get your way and pretend it's not shitty.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

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

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

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.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

More word-parsing. "I am right because QUIBBLE ABOUT THIS WORD CHOICE". Always a sign of someone who knows he's making a shit argument simply because he wants something whether it's right or not.

Words mean things.

If you say someone was punished you should be able to tell me who was punished and what that punishment was

Otherwise you're just making shit up

Words DO mean things, and if you think being labeled a liar isn't a punishment just because it's not you and it's not something you care about, you should be able to explain to me when you became Grand High Arbiter of Objective Reality.

Otherwise, you're just trying to get your way and pretend it's not shitty.

every single politician that ever lived has been called a liar.

And to be honest no one called him a liar all they did was point people to another source and then people were free to make up their own minds

 

[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....

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.

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.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

You have already decided in your head that you are right, everyone else is wrong, and you will continue to argue to that point for a thousand more 'pages' if you have to instead of engaging in conversation with an open mind.....which means any further arguing (not discussing) this with you is a pointless waste of time.

In the meantime the President just moved to strip Twitter of its govt-provided 302 Protections, which you agree they don't need anyway so the impact should be 'nil' and not worth arguing about.

Much like Barry's DACA edict, the courts have not ruled on Trump's '302 EO', so it remains 'law of the land' for now....and all your arguing against that fact doesn't change that it IS indeed a fact....for now.

'It is DONE' ... for now.

I'm not using words like "punished" or "censored"

Because they do not apply and I will keep telling you they do not apply just like the word "monopoly" does not apply.

As i said you people insist on making Twitter and Facebook etc more than what they are.

Social media sites are nothing but privately owned spaces where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements.

That is all they are , that is all they have ever been and that is all they will ever be.

"You are using these specific words, so if I just laser-focus on them and how they're the wrong words, that will make my argument correct!"

Social media sites are businesses, with customers, who have obligations to those customers defined by the type of business they are and by their own words making commitments to their customers. You can try to redefine what they are until the cows come home, and it will neither be true nor make a difference to that basic fact.

By the way, Grammar Nazi, there's a much shorter way to say "privately owned spaces where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements": PLATFORMS. You know, the thing you keep trying to claim they aren't in order to insist they deserve protection that exists only for platforms.

No I am using the words you used in your arguments

And as I have said Twitter is neither a platform nor a publisher.

Do I have to tell you again what social media sites are?

No, you are trying to make an argument by quibbling over individual words. "Bri says they censor. THIS isn't technically censorship, so my argument must be right!" "You say punishment, so I say that's not really a punishment because I don't think it would be a big deal, and that makes your argument vanish!" "Twitter isn't a platform or a publisher, nevermind what THEY say they are, because if I redefine them as some new thing besides that, I'm sure that will make them outside of your objections!"

Do I have to tell you again that your definition of social media sites is the definition of a platform? Go ahead, condescendingly offer to contradict your own argument like you're being brilliant instead of making a fool of yourself.

 

[iceberg]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

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

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

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.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

More word-parsing. "I am right because QUIBBLE ABOUT THIS WORD CHOICE". Always a sign of someone who knows he's making a shit argument simply because he wants something whether it's right or not.

Words mean things.

If you say someone was punished you should be able to tell me who was punished and what that punishment was

Otherwise you're just making shit up

platform is a word.
is defines the role of a business and how they must operate.

yet you don't like it so you make up your own shit.

wheee.

 

[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....

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.

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.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

More word-parsing. "I am right because QUIBBLE ABOUT THIS WORD CHOICE". Always a sign of someone who knows he's making a shit argument simply because he wants something whether it's right or not.

Words mean things.

If you say someone was punished you should be able to tell me who was punished and what that punishment was

Otherwise you're just making shit up

Words DO mean things, and if you think being labeled a liar isn't a punishment just because it's not you and it's not something you care about, you should be able to explain to me when you became Grand High Arbiter of Objective Reality.

Otherwise, you're just trying to get your way and pretend it's not shitty.

every single politician that ever lived has been called a liar.

And to be honest no one called him a liar all they did was point people to another source and then people were free to make up their own minds

More weaseling. It's amazing how quickly you can revert to arguing like a leftist when it suits your purposes. I continue to be ashamed and embarrassed for you.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

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

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

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.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

You have already decided in your head that you are right, everyone else is wrong, and you will continue to argue to that point for a thousand more 'pages' if you have to instead of engaging in conversation with an open mind.....which means any further arguing (not discussing) this with you is a pointless waste of time.

In the meantime the President just moved to strip Twitter of its govt-provided 302 Protections, which you agree they don't need anyway so the impact should be 'nil' and not worth arguing about.

Much like Barry's DACA edict, the courts have not ruled on Trump's '302 EO', so it remains 'law of the land' for now....and all your arguing against that fact doesn't change that it IS indeed a fact....for now.

'It is DONE' ... for now.

I'm not using words like "punished" or "censored"

Because they do not apply and I will keep telling you they do not apply just like the word "monopoly" does not apply.

As i said you people insist on making Twitter and Facebook etc more than what they are.

Social media sites are nothing but privately owned spaces where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements.

That is all they are , that is all they have ever been and that is all they will ever be.

"You are using these specific words, so if I just laser-focus on them and how they're the wrong words, that will make my argument correct!"

Social media sites are businesses, with customers, who have obligations to those customers defined by the type of business they are and by their own words making commitments to their customers. You can try to redefine what they are until the cows come home, and it will neither be true nor make a difference to that basic fact.

By the way, Grammar Nazi, there's a much shorter way to say "privately owned spaces where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements": PLATFORMS. You know, the thing you keep trying to claim they aren't in order to insist they deserve protection that exists only for platforms.

No I am using the words you used in your arguments

And as I have said Twitter is neither a platform nor a publisher.

Do I have to tell you again what social media sites are?

No, you are trying to make an argument by quibbling over individual words. "Bri says they censor. THIS isn't technically censorship, so my argument must be right!" "You say punishment, so I say that's not really a punishment because I don't think it would be a big deal, and that makes your argument vanish!" "Twitter isn't a platform or a publisher, nevermind what THEY say they are, because if I redefine them as some new thing besides that, I'm sure that will make them outside of your objections!"

Do I have to tell you again that your definition of social media sites is the definition of a platform? Go ahead, condescendingly offer to contradict your own argument like you're being brilliant instead of making a fool of yourself.

Like i said words mean things.

If you have your own definitions for the words you use please post a link to your personal dictionary.

Now do you want to respond to the post where I told you what social media sites actually are or not?

 

[Blues Man]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

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

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

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.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

More word-parsing. "I am right because QUIBBLE ABOUT THIS WORD CHOICE". Always a sign of someone who knows he's making a shit argument simply because he wants something whether it's right or not.

Words mean things.

If you say someone was punished you should be able to tell me who was punished and what that punishment was

Otherwise you're just making shit up

platform is a word.
is defines the role of a business and how they must operate.

yet you don't like it so you make up your own shit.

wheee.

And Twitter is not a platform nor is it a publisher.

I have posted several times now as to the actual nature of social media so read that post and I'll be more than happy to read your response

 

[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

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.

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.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

More word-parsing. "I am right because QUIBBLE ABOUT THIS WORD CHOICE". Always a sign of someone who knows he's making a shit argument simply because he wants something whether it's right or not.

Words mean things.

If you say someone was punished you should be able to tell me who was punished and what that punishment was

Otherwise you're just making shit up

platform is a word.
is defines the role of a business and how they must operate.

yet you don't like it so you make up your own shit.

wheee.

Platform is not a legal term. It's something we use to describe some websites, but does not have a legal definition.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS?! What the fuck is it with you and straw men today?

I get that you'd really like to make up the argument you're debating against instead of having to do the messy work of dealing with the real one, but you can go sit in front of a mirror if you're going to debate the voices in your head.

"Twitter doesn't need 230 protections . . . and it also has 230 protections. So if it has 230 protections, what does it need protection from?" That is literally what you just said.

See if you can muster up some vestige of BluesMan buried under this "I want my own way, so anything that gives me that is suddenly good and right" left-thinker who has appeared, and try to focus on the actual debate here.

Twitter defines itself as a platform; you, Grammar Nazi that you have tried to be, have also defined them as a platform, while trying to fraudulently pretend that if you don't use that specific word, you're describing something different.

Twitter is only not legally responsible for the content posted on its site under the protection of Section 230, as a platform. There is not some natural, intrinsic, organic "right" to non-responsibility; that can only be conveyed by law, as in Section 230.

If Twitter is not a platform, no matter what else it is, then it doesn't fall under the protection of Section 230 and it IS legally responsible for what is posted on its site. That's it, that's all, there is no third choice, no matter how much you try to invent one.

 

[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

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.

Criticism IS Freedom of Speech, censorship is not

 

[iceberg]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

I doubt it has any teeth, but I wonder if you Trumptards realize that means even more aggressive content policing? If Trump posts lies, he has no protection.

That's the secret. They don't want section 230 repealed. They know that if Twitter is liable for Trump's tweets (or anyone else's), they'll have to kick them all off otherwise be sued into oblivion. Trump and the rest of the conservative internet sphere depend on these services to much to let that happen.

Nope, the intention here is not to lose section 230 protections, but to make Twitter comply with their demands in order to retain them. Their demands, more specifically, is to stop kicking off nutty fringe conservatives (Laura Loomer, Alex Jones, etc). If they promise to give a pass to political speech, they'll keep the protections they need to stay in business.

Trump is basically acting like a suicide bomber here. He has a list of demands and will blow the whole place up if they aren't given into.

no. i don't want one company to be able to say THIS IS TRUE and have billions believe it just because.

we are so far beyond trump its painful as fuck to discuss huge issues with massive implications. I CAN GOD DAMN PROMISE YOU if this were leaning to the right 2 things - 1. i'd still be for them not having this ability and 2. you'd FINALLY be agreeing with me.

you and everyone else focused on TRUMP have him so far and deep into your head you can't see issues, only anger. i can't talk to you about the issue cause it's always back to your anger and you hate trump and since i don't agree with you i must love trump.

fuck that shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

"I state the EO is meaningless, therefore it is true, because I can shout the word 'Constitution!' to make it so, and no I can't prove it's meaningless or that the Constitution makes it so, how DARE you ask!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Twitter does NOT have the right to edit, redact, or refuse without becoming a publisher and taking on the legal responsibilities thereof . . . just like the way the site is finding out. And no, Twitter could never survive being a publisher.

 

[Coyote]

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....

I doubt it has any teeth, but I wonder if you Trumptards realize that means even more aggressive content policing? If Trump posts lies, he has no protection.

I doubt you even understand the legitimate purpose of an EO if you think it's supposed to "have teeth", but I wonder if you TrumpHateTards realize that you've gotten the whole situation backwards due to your "I don't need to get facts about this, because my TDS has TOLD me what's true."

I suspect that you Trumptards lack much in the way of facts here. Your knickers are in a knot because they banned Alex Jones (you know the nut that promoted pizza gate) and are finally refusing to promote Trump's lies and conspiracy theories wholesale. You kind of want to have your cake and eat it too - you want some private companies to be treated like private companies and you want some to not be. Well an EO is not going to do a darn thing here except make the Trumptards happy. You need to kick Congress' butt in gear, have them rethink how these platforms are regulated since they are essentially their own category, and pass some legislation. Instead you're having a snowflake whinefest over Dear Leader's twits being fact-checked.

 

[Coyote]

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

Twitter does NOT have the right to edit, redact, or refuse without becoming a publisher and taking on the legal responsibilities thereof . . . just like the way the site is finding out. And no, Twitter could never survive being a publisher.

Sure they do. For example, they take down terrorist recruiting material.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nonsense. That case took place under one legal framework. No we have a different legal framework. It no longer is relevant other than a historical lesson. It does not serve as precedent.

again, go back to law school. You were obviously and properly taught.

There was no legal framework before 230. Statutes do not render court decisions invalid and do not overturn them Except to the extent that the language in the statute conflicts with the language in the holding. Everything else in the whole thing is still controlling law unless overturned by a court.

.

No, it's not editing any more than me replying to your post is editing. They are separate statements from separate speakers. Trump's statement is there, unedited, in it's original form.

why am I not surprised that you cannot see how making such comments amounts to taking an active role and actually publishing content. It doesn't matter if the statement is separate. They are not acting as a mere conduit for information content providers, they are becoming information content providers and if you can't see the difference then you have no business discussing this topic.

Please explain to me how Twitter is not becoming an information content provider by commenting on trumps tweets.

This ought to be good.

Not quite. Prodigy is saying that any attempt at moderation strips the status as a "bookstore, library or network affiliate" which is what 230 prevents.

Yes, any attempt at moderation strips Twitter of its "interactive computer service" status and makes Twitter an "information content provider."

However, 230 carves out an exception to becoming an "information content provider" if Twitter is only removing material that is obscene/etc.

You should definitely look very closely at this part of the quote you generously provided:
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.
You'll note that even the court case you're referring to acknowledges the case is irrelevant if the CDA of 1995 (which contains in the infamous section 230) passes.

So?

I've already acknowledged that portions of the Prodigy holding would be overturned by the statute. Other portions have not been overturned as I have clearly demonstrated.

And nothing in that changes what I have said. And it certainly does not give Twitter a permanent, unchangeable "interactive computer service" status if they take on the role of editing and providing content, a.k.a. being any and "information content provider."

230(c)(1) renders 230(c)(2) redundant. The mere fact that section 230(c)(1) prevents Twitter from being considered a publisher immunizes it from basically all civil liability. It does not need section 230(c)(2).

This is, unequivocally, wrong in every sense of the word.

You have completely ignored or you are filthy ignorant of the rules of statute interpretation.

One section of a statute cannot render another section redundant.

This is such a basic legal concept in principle that there is no way anyone who does not understand this should be talking about legal issues.

because you were obviously poorly informed and have no business talking about statutory construction, I'm not going to waste anymore time on this. I'm just gonna cut and paste what is contained in Wikipedia, and if you have something to the contrary you feel free to look it up and provide it.

• We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:" Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254.
  [*]9th Circuit Court of Appeals: In the dissent from en banc rehearing of Silveira v. Lockyer312 F.3rd 1052 (2002), dissent at 328 F.3d 567 (2003) at 575, Judge Kleinfeld stated "it is 'a cardinal principle of statutory construction that we must give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.' Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)."

False. From the plain language of the law, Section 230(c)(1) is sufficient for (as far as I can tell) every purpose we are discussing. There is no stipulation in any part of the law that stops 230(c)(1) from being relevant. This has been interpreted broadly and existing case law backs me up.

First, Section 230(c)(1) specifies that service providers and users may not “be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Courts have interpreted this provision broadly, holding that Section 230(c)(1) immunity may apply in any suit in which the plaintiff seeks to hold the provider liable “as the publisher” of another’s information, apart from the express exceptions discussed below.

As long as they are not editing the content.

The section below gives them permission to edit certain content and maintain their liability protections.


As for the remainder of your cited document:


"Consequently, one court described Section 230(c)(2) as applying when a service provider “does filter out offensive material,” while Section 230(c)(1) applies when providers “refrain from filtering or censoring the information on their sites. But as one Section 230 scholar has pointed out, courts sometimes collapse the distinctions between these two provisions and cite Section 230(c)(1) in dismissing suits premised on service providers’ decisions to take down certain content. This development could be significant. As noted, Section 230(c)(2) grants immunity only for actions “taken in good faith,” while Section 230(c)(1) contains no similar requirement. In this sense, Section 230(c)(2) immunity is narrower than Section 230(c)(1)’s liability shield. At least one trial court has rejected a plaintiff’s attempt to claim Section 230(c)(1) immunity over Section 230(c)(2) immunity, saying that where Section 230(c)(2)’s “more specific immunity” covered the disputed actions, the court would not apply Section 230(c)(1) because that would improperly “render[] the good-faith requirement superfluous.”

.