Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
No I am using the words you used in your argumentsI'm not using words like "punished" or "censored"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.No one was "punished"who was "punished"?No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorshipNo, 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?So a ToS invalidates law.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?Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.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.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...."
Twitter is not responsible for what people post
You can't have it both ways.
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
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.
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.
Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?
Spare me.
Who is using straw men here?
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.
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.
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?