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

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


'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?

You are a fucking hypocrite, telling me about "words mean things" and "own definitions in your personal dictionary" when you're sitting there trying to tell us, "Twitter is neither a publisher nor a platform, it's a social media site where people post for free", which is the definition of a platform.

Here's my response: "Your definition of social media sites is the definition of a platform." I have now said it three times. How many more times do you need before you sack up and acknowledge it, instead of ignoring it and demanding a response, ie. me saying what you want to hear?
 
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.
And, what's wrong with that?

.
 
Platform is not a legal term. It's something we use to describe some websites, but does not have a legal definition.
For purposes of 230, the term is "internet computer service." In many court holdings, they refer to them as platforms v. publishers.

So, yes. They do have a legal definition.

.
 
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.....


'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

"Twitter is not a platform nor is it a publisher. I can't tell you what the word is for this new third thing I've invented for it to be, but that's what it is! Never mind what Twitter says it is, it's something else!"

You tell us "You have posted several times" as though the fact that you posted it settles the matter and makes what you posted fact, completely ignoring the fact that every time you have, you've been disputed.
 
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.....


'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 communications decency act protects them from removing any "objectionable" content.

Which means this will be thrown out if the executive branch ever tries to enforce this shit. Objectionable = just about anything they want.

Congress needs to come in and change the communications decency act or get rid of it to change twitter's status.
 
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.....


'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

"Twitter is not a platform nor is it a publisher. I can't tell you what the word is for this new third thing I've invented for it to be, but that's what it is! Never mind what Twitter says it is, it's something else!"

You tell us "You have posted several times" as though the fact that you posted it settles the matter and makes what you posted fact, completely ignoring the fact that every time you have, you've been disputed.
he's just being fucking stupid at this point because the rest of the free world says platform.

bluesman says IS NOT NEENER NEENER and off we go.

platform:

platform:

legal debate:

he doesn't seem to understand business - ALL BUSINESSES - carry a designation and with it, rules of engagement. he's trying to pretend twitter and facbook are the same as in here.

he's a fuckhead.
 
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.....


'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.

I suspect you wouldn't know a fact if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left ass cheek. You're desperately trying to find some way to trivialize this and make it not about what it is, because you know you can't defend what Twitter and YouTube are doing, but you want them to keep doing it anyway. You kind of want to eat your cake and have it too, by celebrating suppression of your political opponents while still getting to tell yourself that you really like freedom. You want all private companies to be treated like your cheering sections, and it doesn't matter how many asinine, disjointed-from-all-reality arguments you have to spew in order to get it. An EO isn't going to do what YOU think EOs are supposed to do, because you got so enamored of FORMER President Obama using them as de facto laws that you can't wrap your mind around the possibility that everyone isn't a budding tyrant. We'll kick Congress into gear if and when it becomes necessary. You're just pissed that none of YOUR dear leaders are in a position to run interference for your agenda on this.
 
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.....


'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.

Specifically to the bolded section. Why not? Doesn't Twitter have a right to say what they believe is true? Isn't that all our right?
 
“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

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

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




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

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

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


:clap:


.
This is the appropriate remedy.

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

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


.
No, its not.

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

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.
you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.

but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.

social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.
No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.

Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.

Tough shit.
it has nothing to do with what trump likes or does not. to try and make it that simple is simply to feed your TDS and anti-trump "everything he does is" wrong limited mental capability.

you can't be both a platform and publisher. hell you're not supposed to own more than 3 "news" sites and that law has been pushed around also.

we need to separate these out. period.

and when you sell me space on your property, it's no longer private. they make money from my using their services, i am "paying" for that.

you can make this about trump if you like - but that's your own set limitation in what is really happening. this shit has been coming long before trump was in office. but hey - orange man bad n shit.
I have never been on the orange man bad bullshit train so try again.
you are saying trump is doing this and only he feels this way. he's acting out against those he doesn't like. that is "orange man bad" to me when trump is simply saying pick who you are so we can have you abide by those rules.
Of course it is Trump. We are discussing an EO. That means Trump. And no, he is not simply saying 'pick who you are' because Trump is being very selective when he addresses this type of thing. He only goes after those that go after him - one of the many things that IS bad about Trump.
what rules does social media need to follow now? who creates and enforces them? i don't see a whole lot. the wild west days of social media are over; ended by the push of the big boys in social media trying to make themselves more than they are.
The rules they fall under right now is more than sufficient. I actually am a small government guy so I do not not take government control over speech - which is EXACTLY what this is - lightly. I called the democrats out for the asinine bullshit authoritarian 'fairness doctrine' when they wanted to play content dictator. I will call Trump out on the exact same bullshit because that is all this is. Left wingers were incensed over the fact that the right virtually controls all political speech on the radio. Now right wingers are incensed that the left has a very out sized influence on social media platforms.

Here is the rub - this is how freedom works - people do and run their private property in ways that you may not like. That does not give the government the power to come in and ensure that they use it the way you may want them to.
they are politically motivated, use their platforms to dictate policy and cry foul when told to stop. now we are at a point where these companies, due to their own actions, can no longer enjoy the best of both and restrictions of neither.

they need to pick a side and go; or a new designation needs to come out for social media and rules of engagement set.

all there is to it and needs to happen with or without trump.
No, that certainly does not need to happen. I do not need nanny state government to come in and ensure that I have a space to operate on twitter or FB. When they editorialize (which labeling something as fact or fiction actually is so twitters action does not actually fall under 203) then sure they can be sued. Guess what - that is already the case. If they chose to censor then that is their own damn business - or at least it should be.

Interesting that the government who decided that twitter and FB cannot legally censor politicians as though poor powerless politicians need protection but now the government is also threatening to open them up to legal actions should they do anything else. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and demand that social media platforms act as free commercial outlets for politicians.

Government needs to get out of the business of regulating and controlling free association and speech and THAT is all there is to it.
You lying fucker?

Trump has never done that.

Obama has. He sent the IRS after everyone.
He spied on everyone that was a threat to him.
He sent armies of lawyers after critics and ruined people's lives.
Ever hear of Roger Stone or Michael Flynn?

Fucking dumbass.
Hell Obama sure limited the press and spied on them.

Trump is going through the system to enforce laws. Obama went around them.
Obama's failure to follow the law does not have any bearing on Trumps actions being correct or incorrect.
But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police.

Excusing one and attacking the other gets you said other.
I don't but, again, Obama's actions are not relevant in changing this law or writing that EO. They are simply not pertinent and I will not justify current actions of this presidency because Obama acted like an authoritarian.

Obama CLEARLY and REGULARLY used the long arm of government to attack the free press. Because Obama 'got away' with those actions, would you excuse the Trump presidency if he were to tap the phones of reporters to arrest sources?

Can you actually claim that your statement 'But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police' is consistent with the answer you give to the question above?
Imtalking big picture, not every move.
So that is a no, it is not consistent with the answer to that question.

How does that not give you pause on the stance you are taking here.
However, while Trump is at war with the media, as far as I know, he's, not spying on them. Outside that actions are very similar.

Now, if we are saying Trump's attacks on Twitter and Facebook are attacks on "the media" then are you saying these entities are in fact "media" and not "platforms"?
We are not saying that. You brought up the media earlier and used Obama's spying on them as a justification for the statement in question. I was pointing out that it is hypocritical to justify Trump's actions as good by using bad actions of the previous president.

Essentially, you cannot justify Trump going after social media platforms because Obama tried to go after those that criticized him as empty head was trying to do at the start of this off shoot and has distracted me from actually addressing the real conversation:

Trump is taking the action yes.

The actions have been asked for before he took office.

People seem to refuse the big picture so they can bitch about the pieces.

To say the gov needs to get out of regulating speech is, only part of the problem. Social media needs to stop that shit also.
Sure, people have called for it in the past but that also has nothing to do with the fact that this is Trump's action and it is still wrong.

You are correct, social media should also not be in the business of controlling the exchange of ideas on their platforms. The stark difference here, though, is that social media is NOT an arm of the government. What they should and should not do is entirely separate from what big government enforcement must be brought to bear to control them. Just because social media should allow open communication does not warrant the government trying to force them to act the way they want and this is particularly the case when you are trying to regulate political speech.

I am not a subject of twitter. FB cannot put me in jail if I do or do not use their platform as they intend. They are not government.

Do you actually trust the government to decide what is and is not 'correct' or what is or is not political speech? I sure as hell do not. Do you have any idea what the democrats will use this type of craziness for when they are the ones writing the law as will INEVITABLY happen? I sure as hell would not be comfortable with Obama deciding how social media platforms must treat information shared on their sites on AGW. I sure as hell would be even less comfortable with them defining the protections they do and do not get for posts covering Russian interference in our elections.

What you are essentially advocating for is allowing the government to withdraw protections that ALL platforms receive, publishers and non publishers alike as, again, such sites have comment sections as well based on how they control their content. I do not trust the government with that power in any shape or form. Hell, Obama already showed us the way - post something that the current administration does not like and they will put you in some limbo for years until you give up just like the IRS did. What I do trust is my own 2 eyes because those eyes will go elsewhere. Hence why I have no interest or plans to ever open twitter under any circumstances. WE get complete control over these platforms by agreeing to use or avoid them.

That most people seem not to care is not a problem that government needs to solve. It is an intrinsic cost of actual freedom.
Well this got way out of what and now you are making connections on your own conjecture.
Way out of what?

I am not making connections on my own conjecture - these are the very things that have been talked about in this thread and many others - regulating how such platforms may remove unwanted content or removing current protections media sites have for people posting content on their platform. What I said falls under one of those 2 actions.
Allowing bad behavior encourages bad behavior +1.

Doesn't mean the same behavior. In fact it tends to vary to what is important to either group. All I meant to say on that.

YES Trump is taking on Twitter.

YES I felt it needed to be done before Trump hit office.

No I don't like how Trump is doing it but the way we do things these days is extreme. All of us.

Social media needs rules of fair play. They are, neither a platform or a publisher. So in that light what rules must they adhere to TODAY?

I don't see a whole lot of rules or boundaries for what they can and can't do with their business. I see them for most other, businesses.

So time to stop hiding behind 230 and define the rules they must play by. If they are going to be political it must be stated for example.

Hope that makes more sense.
I am fine with requiring statements or other such disclosures. No problem there. The rhetoric is just removing 203 protections though and/or outright regulating how they may remove content and that is flatly wrong. Most here have been calling for outright regulation of content, the absolute worst of any 'solution.'

IF they come up with a better legal structure for media platforms than the old 203 rules that may be better than what we have but I have serious doubts that such will come anywhere near improving things though. If that is what you are looking for than explain what you think they should be trying to accomplish then. What would be 'better' than the current framework?
My apologies. I tend to think out loud at times in broad terms to help define, then narrow, the focus. That can be hard to follow, I know.
No need for apologies - If I come off as crass or in your face it is not intended. One of my cornerstones in my political philosophy is free speech though so I can come across as an ass sometimes in that arena. It is, IMHO, the most important part of any free society and I see the speech laws in other supposedly free nations like the UK and cringe.
Right now I don't have a good answer on how, to solve this. But the old rules do not apply. Doubting any effort will impact positive change may be true, but hardly a good way to enter into the effort.
Fair enough. I do not think that the politicians are entering this in good faith though and the proof of that abounds. Most of the congressional bobble heads on the right have made public statements about this and not a single one that I can think of has made any indication that this is anything but a mirror of the fairness doctrine. Trump certainly does not come off as actually having a genuine interest in proper regulation here.
Right now social media is setting up to govern what is right or wrong; true or a lie. In no way do I believe this, is, their call to make.

If you are tied to a media or political side it MUST be declared.

If a site uses politifact for example to refute Trump, should they have to disclose they are owned by a left wing news outlet? If not, why not? Isn't it pertinent to knowing all "the facts"?

For example
Twitter’s “Head of Site Integrity” Yoel Roth, who is in charge of the team responsible for developing and enforcing the social media site’s rules, faced heavy criticism Wednesday for previous 2017 tweets in which he referred to team Trump as “ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE” and called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “personality-free bag of farts.”
Disclosure laws make sense and have been a part of our legal framework for a very long time. The problem I have is that there is no indication that they are not disclosing things as your cite points out. You know exactly who the twitter fact checker is and have the capability to check into him. Do we need a review of the current framework to bring about disclosure laws? No. Would disclosure change current interactions between current law and the platform? No, they have literally nothing to do with each other. From there it is clear that threatening to remove 203 protections have nothing to do with that step forward. While I would support such changes, I have not seen anyone seriously considering them. I think that is mostly because it would not really grant the administration any increase of real power over social media platforms so the pols are not that interested.

I would contend that even with current 203 protections, declaring a truth as a lie would not fall under those protections anyway. That is an affirmative statement from the site itself and, therefore, would fall under other laws and be subject to libel suits. Proving harm in court is another story all together though.
So how come he wasn't fact checked that there are no nazis in the whitehouse? Yet I'm supposed to believe the head of site integrity is neutral?

Not interested in politically motivated people fact checking me.

Find a true neutral, if possible, org and give it a shot.

Who would you suggest be the fact checker for us all?
Because the site is avidly left wing. That has been rather clear for a long time and cuts against your argument (the fact that it is well known). That other avid left wingers deny it is irrelevant as well. I am also not interested in an avid left winger fact checking me hence why I would simply not use those platforms. That is what it will always come back to - YOU are the fact checker and arbiter of who is going to fact check your statements. I have no need of any third party to check what I post and, if the site does so in a manner that is against my wishes, I will simply cease to use it.

Passing more laws creates that fact checker. Right now it is you who gets to make that choice. The only real argument is the market share that current social media platforms have. However, that is not an indication that we need more laws. Myspace used to occupy the entire social media landscape. Now they barely exist. The only way to ensure FB or twitter never go away is to regulate the market so that no one else can come in and they are never going to change their stripes.
in this case it would seem the head of twitters "head of site integrity" has a vast history of his own anti-trump rhetoric.


so the person we are counting on for twitter to be "honest" about facts says there are NAZIs in the whitehouse.

how is that ok? how is that not flagged as a lie? it certainly is. not liking someone doesn't make them a nazi. but we can't speak in "gray tones" anymore. we've become binary. with me | against me.

then:

"
Twitter's "Head of Site Integrity" Yoel Roth boasts on his LinkedIn that he is in charge of "developing and enforcing Twitter’s rules," like the one that led Twitter to slap a new "misleading" warning label on two of President Trump's tweets concerning nationwide mail-in balloting on Tuesday.

However, Roth's own barrage of anti-Trump, politically charged tweets seemingly calls into question whether he should be creating guidelines for the president and other Twitter users, especially when Twitter is under fire for its alleged left-wing bias.

Commentators, meanwhile, have argued that Trump's tweets on the risks of mail-in voting were not actually misleading, and the president accused Twitter of seeking to "interfere" in the upcoming election under the guise of a supposedly neutral "fact-checking" policy. Experts have said that a "genuine absentee ballot fraud scandal" is currently underway in a New Jersey city council election, for example.

Roth has previously referred to Trump and his team as "ACTUAL NAZIS," mocked Trump supporters by saying that "we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason," and called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a "personality-free bag of farts." Last August, Twitter suspended McConnell's Twitter account, prompting the GOP to threaten to cut off advertising on the site until Twitter relented.

In September 2016, Roth tweeted, "I’ve never donated to a presidential campaign before, but I just gave $100 to Hillary for America. We can’t fu-k around anymore."

When Trump won the November 2016 election, Roth dejectedly chalked the development up to "[Bernie] Sanders protest voters, and racism," before sounding more optimistic notes.

"I’m almost ready to stop dwelling on how my friends are complicit in the election of Donald Trump," he said on Jan. 7, 2017. "Almost."

"Massive anti-Trump protest headed up Valencia St," Roth wrote on Jan. 20, 2017, followed by a "heart" emoji and the words "San Francisco.""

now - would someone who is in charge of twitters "site integrity" actually be unbiased behind the scenes when he is definitely NOT unbiased on their own site?

when these employs with an open disdain for trump and republicans / conservatives in general are in charge of "the truth" we have a ton of problems.

so if we must "discuss" fact checking, then it can't be the site policing itself. EVER. anyone doing it can't be associated to the site. EVER.

these rules need to be outlined moving forward and we need to understand how to handle the power of social media. we can't leave it to a company to police itself and then use their standards to set how we all must view things or be called out.

esp when they have shown an open bias to anyone *not* them.
I already addressed this.

We KNOW that they are biased - that is neither in contention or a surprise no matter what they may or may not claim. Should Daily KOS be allowed to police their own comments section? Should the daily Beast be able to police their own comments section? Of course they should be able to do such things - it is their company and their property. If we do not like the way they do so it is within our power to simply not use their service.

Having a third party do so does not eliminate the bias, it just moves it somewhere else.

Again, the government is the worst possible sensor not just because it is unconstitutional but also because it is universal. Right now you can crate a competitor, you can use another service or you can avoid them entirely. Give government the oversight and there is no escaping it - the law applies to everyone. The democrats will use it to the fullest extent possible as well, I guarantee it.
 
The communications decency act protects them from removing any "objectionable" content.

Democrats and snowflakes have proven that the word objectionable' to them means any opinion, idea or thought that does not support / promote the Liberal Progressives Socialist Democrat Deep State policies and agendas.....

Liberals and the ChiComs have a lot in common in regards to 'removing any objectionable content'.


.
 
Platform is not a legal term. It's something we use to describe some websites, but does not have a legal definition.
For purposes of 230, the term is "internet computer service." In many court holdings, they refer to them as platforms v. publishers.

So, yes. They do have a legal definition.

.
Please post the law that defines platform.

Section 230 would define Twitter as a provider of interactive computer service.
 
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.
And, what's wrong with that?

.

Quite a lot. I don't really want people to be afraid to rid their own platforms of the goofballs, fringe kooks and trolls. The internet is toxic enough the way it is.
 
“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

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

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




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

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

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


:clap:


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

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

Like the guy said in GhostBusters:
View attachment 342507

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

I have no idea what "it" YOU thought he was supposed to do.
His statement was kind of ambiguous. he did not mention anything related to what regulated trade practice he was talking about so it is unclear whether it has any effect or not and as I said the new regulations under the Communications Decency Act have not been rewritten or published yet, so I appreciate the nice commercial he gave of what his intent is, but it doesn't change much at this point, so I can thank him for the pronouncement but it is totally unclear what effect it will have or if the courts would go along with it. Didn't it take like 9 months of writing and rewriting his executive order for his travel ban against Muslim countries to have an effect because it had legal issues requiring re-writing multiple times by order of the courts?

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

How dumb are you when you get snarky about "the nice commercial he gave" as though it was supposed to be anything else? If you're unclear about the executive order and you haven't made any effort to get yourself clear on it, that's YOUR problem, not anyone else's.
How snarky? I thought is was pretty good snark. Thanks for noticing.
I just found it on White House .gov. Pretty much like in the commercial from the president. Don't look for any change soon, dud.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship


Infrastructure & Technology


Issued on: May 28, 2020








  • Share:




menuAll News

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




White House Logo

The White House

I'm sure you did think it was "pretty good snark". You were wrong. You were also apparently wrong about what you thought executive orders were supposed to do.
Doesn't look like I am wrong about this one, after reading it. Doubt it will keep twitter from posting a fact checking link below his tweet if it contains lies.

If you think the executive order itself was supposed to keep Twitter from doing anything, then you are indeed wrong, and have no understanding whatsoever of what executive orders are or are for.
This one does not do much in the short term. I suspect twitter and facebook have lawyers that will deal with it if they thing it needs dealing with. I certainly do not think they deserve any protection from lawsuits that most businesses do not have. I did not know they had them until yesterday as I have never tweet and dropped facebook over a year ago.

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

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

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

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

Dismissed.
View attachment 343895

Don't get your hopes up, Chuckles. Just because you have lost THIS discussion doesn't mean you're going to spout lies in the future without getting checked on them.

Once you've conclusively proven to everyone that you're a third-rate bullshitter who never has anything substantial to say, THEN you'll be ignored entirely like all other blathering nutcases.
It is an opinion post so I gave opinion. Sorry your feeling were hurt. You love him. I don't. I simply pointed out how long it took to get a working travel ban as an example of his skill with Executive Orders. Surprised you are back. This was part of yesterday's post. You must be bored. Maybe you should go back and read the post from WhiteHouse.gov and re-evaluation how soon and to what extent what he said will really have the effect you desire. He is the one that said it. Maybe you really just don't trust him not to pull your chain, but feel you must defend, even if you don't believe. Sorry you are having a slow day. Maybe it will pick up. I thought you were through when you dismissed on the other earlier part of the thread.
 
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.....


'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.
you always gotta make this about trump don't you?

well buckle up. from 2017.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden wants to get rid of the legal protection that has shielded social media companies including Facebook from liability for users’ posts.

The former vice president’s stance, presented in an interview with The New York Times editorial board, is more extreme than that of other lawmakers who have confronted tech executives about the legal protection from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

“Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said in the interview published Friday.

----------
you and other people who suffer but don't suffer TDS continue to make anything trump does WRONG - even if your own side agrees.

now what? bidentards also?

and lookie there, Blues Man - biden thinks they're platforms also.
 
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.

We're not talking about enforcing their basic TOS, but thank you so much for your consistency in attempting the leftist conflation dodge.
 
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.....


'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.
you always gotta make this about trump don't you?

well buckle up.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden wants to get rid of the legal protection that has shielded social media companies including Facebook from liability for users’ posts.

The former vice president’s stance, presented in an interview with The New York Times editorial board, is more extreme than that of other lawmakers who have confronted tech executives about the legal protection from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

“Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said in the interview published Friday.

----------
you and other people who suffer but don't suffer TDS continue to make anything trump does WRONG - even if your own side agrees.

now what? bidentards also?


I'm done with caring, tired of the constant refrains of libtard, leftard, TDS, etc. etc. I'm replying in kind to idiots. My patience is done. However if you actually want to discuss the issue, I'm happy to do so without utilizing such triggering verbal cues.
 
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.

We're not talking about enforcing their basic TOS, but thank you so much for your consistency in attempting the leftist conflation dodge.

Yes, you are. That was why Alex Jones was banned finally, and you guys have yet to stop whining about it.

Trump's tweet was flagged for violating their TOS rules on glorifying violence.
 
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.....


'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 communications decency act protects them from removing any "objectionable" content.

Which means this will be thrown out if the executive branch ever tries to enforce this shit. Objectionable = just about anything they want.

Congress needs to come in and change the communications decency act or get rid of it to change twitter's status.

Wrong. "Objectionable" has to be clearly defined for users ahead of time, and Twitter has done so . . . and they didn't say word one about political perspective.

And no, Congress does not need to remove all protections from other platforms which are NOT abusing their power just to rein in one platform which is.

Tell you what, just so everyone isn't talking blind about what they "think" this or that means, here's Twitter's own Terms of Service. It defines objectionable content on Twitter pretty clearly. You show me where it includes "politically conservative", and then we'll talk about whether they can "do whatever they want".

 
I'm done with caring, tired of the constant refrains of libtard, leftard, TDS, etc. etc. I'm replying in kind to idiots. My patience is done. However if you actually want to discuss the issue, I'm happy to do so without utilizing such triggering verbal cues.

How unprofessionally 'Non-moderator'-like'... won't you get in trouble for taking yourself 'off the chain'?

:cool:


.
 

Forum List

Back
Top