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

[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

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:

Why Twitter is the Ideal Platform for Engagement

If LinkedIn is your office and Facebook is your living room, then Twitter is the bar—and a marketer's best platform for audience engagement.

www.convinceandconvert.com

platform:

From Twitter to Tumblr: the 10 best social media platforms ranked

Facebook? Twitter? Snapchat? Which site gets the top spot.

metro.co.uk

legal debate:

Platform, or Publisher?

When the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on social media censorship late last month, liberal Democratic congressman Ted Lieu transformed into a hardcore libertarian. “This is a stupid and ridiculous hearing,” he said, because “the First Amendment applies to the government, not private...

www.city-journal.org

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.

Twitter even defines itself as a platform. But apparently, he knows better than they do if it lets him get his way.

 

[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....

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".

The X rules: safety, privacy, authenticity, and more

Understand the limitations on the type of content and behavior that we allow, to ensure free and safe conversation.

help.twitter.com

Who exactly decides which are "abusing" their power?

 

[Coyote]

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'?




.

When we post, we post like any other members.

 

[easyt65]

....btw....'It's STILL 'DONE' despite the 25 PAGES of whining, arguing, and claims to the opposite by the Left.

As stated, Trump's 302 Revoking EO is as final right now as Obama's DACA in the sense that the USSC has not heard / decided on either. (Of course Trump did revoke / eliminate Barry's Un-Constitutional EO....

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

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



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

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

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





.

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

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

Like the guy said in GhostBusters:
View attachment 342507

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

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

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

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

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

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


Infrastructure & Technology


Issued on: May 28, 2020

• 
  
• Share:
• 
  

All News

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






The White House

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | The White House

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

www.whitehouse.gov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dismissed.

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.

You gave an opinion, and I gave mine back. Sorry if you thought giving your opinion meant that you got to be the only one who did so. Not sorry to have to take away your ego boost from thinking that being criticized meant you "hurt my feelings". It actually just means I think you're stupid.

But hey, if lying to yourself takes away the sting of being viewed with disdain . . . whatever keeps you going.

 

[easyt65]

Who exactly decides which are "abusing" their power?

Fir Twitter, they have their anti-free speech, mega-liberal, TDS-suffering / Trump-hating panel tpo decide what ideas and discussions are allowed for now....

 

[Coyote]

....btw....'It's STILL 'DONE' despite the 25 PAGES of whining, arguing, and claims to the opposite by the Left.

As stated, Trump's 302 Revoking EO is as final right now as Obama's DACA in the sense that the USSC has not heard / decided on either. (Of course Trump did revoke / eliminate Barry's Un-Constitutional EO....

This one will likely get stuck in the courts but it does rather wreck your past claims of overreaching EO's doesn't it?

It's also going to cause more aggressive policing of the content.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Just out of curiosity, did you go to law school?

Yes, there was a legal framework before 230. It was the same framework that applied to libel in any other media.

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.

Twitter definitely is an information content provider by commenting on Trump's tweets. So are you by posting here, as am I and so is Trump. According the law, we are each accountable for that information content that we provide, but no further. I am not responsible for your posts. Trump is not responsible for mine. Twitter isn't responsible for Trump's posts. I kinda like it that way.

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.

Nope. There is no such provision in the law for that. You're making a really weird argument that is in no way supported by the actual letter of the law. You're trying to make it say something that it definitely does not. There is no dichotomy between interactive computer service and content providers.

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."

Again, Twitter is a content provider for the content they provide, which means if Twitter writes a blog post, they are the content provider for that blog post. They do not provide the content of Trump's tweet. That's what Trump does. Twitter does not become the content provider of that tweet by putting a link to the bottom. They do not become a content provider for deleting tweets.

Twitter is and always will be a provider of interactive computer service because they allow people to log onto their service and tweet their own messages. Deleting tweets does not change that.

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)."

I totally agree with the statement you quoted from wikipedia. The letter of the law is the most important in interpretation. Section 230(c)(1) is broad by the plain language. There are no stipulations attached. Section 230(c)(2) is a bit more narrow. But since Twitter is already give broad protection under 230(c)(1), the more narrow protection under 230(c)(2) is redundant.

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.”

Section 230(c)(1) has been cited again and again as suitable reason to take down content without having to pass the "good" samaritan" rationale in 230(c)(2). Controlling precedent is on my side. For example:

Third Party Content. Murphy’s tweets qualify. Note how this move continues to collapse 230(c)(1) and 230(c)(2) by treating the filtered/removed content as third-party content. The court addresses this issue in a footnote, citing Barrett v. Rosenthal and claiming “controlling authority has squarely rejected Plaintiffs’ argument ‘that a broad reading of section 230(c)(I) would make section 230(c)(2) unnecessary.'”

Twitter Gets Another Significant Section 230 Win in Lawsuit by Suspended User-Murphy v. Twitter - Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Murphy had about 25,000 Twitter followers. She repeatedly referred to a trangender female as male in her tweets. Twitter suspended her account for “misgendering.” After more negative interactions between them, Twitter permanently banned Murphy. Murphy claimed that Twitter changed its...

blog.ericgoldman.org

I'm looking for the court case that treats 230(c)(2) in a way you suggest but cannot find one. Any ideas?

 

[easyt65]

This one will likely get stuck in the courts...

Until then....it's 'DONE'.

Have a nice day....

 

[White 6]

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

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

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



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

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

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





.

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

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

Like the guy said in GhostBusters:
View attachment 342507

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

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

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

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

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

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


Infrastructure & Technology


Issued on: May 28, 2020

• 
  
• Share:
• 
  

All News

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






The White House

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | The White House

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

www.whitehouse.gov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dismissed.

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.

You gave an opinion, and I gave mine back. Sorry if you thought giving your opinion meant that you got to be the only one who did so. Not sorry to have to take away your ego boost from thinking that being criticized meant you "hurt my feelings". It actually just means I think you're stupid.

But hey, if lying to yourself takes away the sting of being viewed with disdain . . . whatever keeps you going.

Well, It's mot like you disputed his proven difficulties with Executive Orders. You just did not like it that I said it out loud. What happened to all those alternative facts, your boy's girls talk about?

 

[Coyote]

This one will likely get stuck in the courts...

Until then....it's 'DONE'.

Have a nice day....

I will...cause....Trump's tweeter will be muzzled...next time he tweets conspiracy theory lies (like the one about Scarborough) - they will have to do something about it or be sued. Could be wildly interesting and chaotic.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

I never said Twitter needed any protections not once in any post.

It doesn't need them because it it not a platform or a publisher.

How many times do I have to say this to you before you understand it?

 

[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.

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.

Biden wants to get rid of law that shields companies like Facebook from liability for what their users post

Biden's stance is more extreme than many lawmakers' who have confronted tech executives about the legal protection known as Section 230.

www.cnbc.com

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.

i discussed the issue.

i've been discussing the issue IN DEPTH all through the thread.

now - biden wants to repeal Section 230 also for much of the same reasons.

so - is repealing section 230 about TRUMP!!! or about the fact many on both sides feel it needs to be done?

 

[FA_Q2]

And those screaming at Trump for destroying the internet...

Trump and Biden both want to revoke Section 230, but for different reasons

The section of a 1996 law is often heralded as the "most important law" regarding the internet.

www.businessinsider.com

Get mad at Biden too.

My point remains a 1990s law no longer applies to today's, technology. Would seem BOTH candidates agree.

This should splode some heads.

Not really.

Both parties agree on one thing VERY consistently - the expansion of state power.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Yes it does because Twitter is nothing but a private space where people are allowed to communicate for free in exchange for being subjected to advertising. And as it is a private space the owners of that space can do what they will. If you don't like it you do not have to use it

It is not a publisher it is not a platform it is nothing b ut what it is and you cannot make it be more than that.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

and posts about fake at home COVID tests among other things

 

[colfax_m]

now - biden wants to repeal Section 230 also for much of the same reasons.

Actually Biden wants to repeal 230 for a totally opposite reason. Trump wants Twitter to let anything go. Biden wants Twitter to be responsible for lies and misinformation.

 

[iceberg]

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.

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

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

www.washingtonexaminer.com

by this guy. you should see how often he encourages violence to the right and so forth.

unchecked.

now should someone making it a personal mission to get hillary elected (failed of course) be able to use their "platform" to take a side and influence voters? esp if they're going to hold the other side to a different standard than themselves or their own?

 

[Blues Man]

From the National Review, as conservative publication

It Doesn’t Matter If Twitter Is a ‘Publisher’ or a ‘Platform” | National Review

If a new bill passes that deprives tech companies of liable protections for third-party comments, the Internet is going to be overwhelmed with lawsuits.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[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....

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".

The X rules: safety, privacy, authenticity, and more

Understand the limitations on the type of content and behavior that we allow, to ensure free and safe conversation.

help.twitter.com

Who exactly decides which are "abusing" their power?

this guy.

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

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

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Head of Twitter's fact checking has a history of anti-Trump tweets

Prior tweets from Yoel Roth, whose official title at Twitter is head of Site Integrity, emerged after the social media giant put a fact-checking warning on Trump's posts for the first time on Tuesday.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Editorial: Twitter "Head of Site Integrity" is a long-time Trump-hating, anti-Republican zealot

Yoel Roth, recently appointed to the position, has a lengthy history of anti-Trump, anti-Republican tweets; once referred to Trump administration as "Nazis"

www.lawenforcementtoday.com