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

[iceberg]

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.

biden is quoted from 2017 saying it needs to be revoked. NOW. it was pretty clearly stated.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Please post the law that defines platform.

See, that's where you need to go back to PRE-law school. "Law" references many sources, including CASE HOLDINGS from courts.

Section 230 would define Twitter as a provider of interactive computer service.

Except when Twitter is contributing to the content.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

I don't either.

I just don't think they should get special protections when they are clearly acting in a fashion that does not warrant those protections, under the intent of the statute.

Joe Biden agrees with me.

.

 

[colfax_m]

See, that's where you need to go back to PRE-law school. "Law" references many sources, including CASE HOLDINGS from courts.

Fine. Post where it's legally defined.

Except when Twitter is contributing to the content.

Agreed. When they're contributing to the content as defined by the statute, they're responsible for that content. So when Twitter writes a blog post, they created that content and are responsible for it. When someone else produces the content, they are not considered the publisher of that information.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ******* 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?

You forgot the part where I said in exchange for being subjected to advertisements.

Twitter is nothing more than a seller of advertising space. It owns the space it allows people to use to post their drivel and it has complete control over that space and what is posted in it.


Twitter is a website that sells advertisements and in order to establish an audience for those ads it allows people to post shit. There is no protection of speech whatsoever

Twitter makes it quite clear that they can delete posts and take other actions against users who violate their rules

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

 

[Blues Man]

They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.

sure they are. but you wouldn't know the first amendment if it hit you in the face.

Actually I do know that only the government can violate your first amendment rights did you know that?

No private person company website etc can violate your first amendment rights

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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.

So basically, you're tired of not getting to be the only one who gets to call names and be nasty, so you're only going to talk when people stop using your tactics against you.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

I don't either.

I just don't think they should get special protections when they are clearly acting in a fashion that does not warrant those protections, under the intent of the statute.

Joe Biden agrees with me.

.

The "intent" doesn't matter nearly as much as the text. The text gives them immunity regardless of how they act.

Joe Biden has a more nuanced view of this issue. He wants more of the censorship you guys are complaining about. Biden wants Twitter (and other social media) to be responsible for lies and disinformation. Trump, on the other hands, wants Twitter to be forced to propogate the lies and misinformation.

That should tell you a lot about the character of these two guys.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.

Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users.

So what do they need protection from?

I agree they don't need it...so why are snowflakes wetting themselves about the President voiding giving them selective 302 Protection?

How the **** 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.

No, I'm not, because the only one declaring that this is about Alex Jones is you. My post is not defined by what YOU decide, in your infinite lack of wisdom, I "really" care about.

I have yet to say anything about Alex Jones, ever, because I wouldn't know Alex Jones from a hole in the wall.

Please explain to me how Trump's tweet about mail-in voting "glorified violence". Or are you now going to tell me that I wasn't really talking about that, I was REALLY talking about something else, because you decided I was?

 

[Juicin]

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'.


.

Yea that's how it works bud

Right wing sites can do the same thing

The communications decency act protects them no executive order is going to change the way the judges percieve this. It only affects prosecutors and regulators. As soon as the lawyers show up tho they just point to "objectionable" content

Welcome to the free market.

 

[basquebromance]

from Politico:

“I think part of the reason we’re here goes back to the arrogance of these tech companies,” she said. “They think they're above the law, they think the law doesn't apply to them. They think members of Congress are stupid. That’s part of the reason we’re seeing a backlash, is because they have just treated members’ concerns like crap, and hew to Section 230 like it’s their constitutional right. And it’s not.”

Trump's Twitter war aims to unite divided conservatives

For years, conservatives have debated how best to rein in tech companies. Trump has now offered an option, even if not everyone agrees with it.

www.politico.com

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ******* 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?

You forgot the part where I said in exchange for being subjected to advertisements.

Twitter is nothing more than a seller of advertising space. It owns the space it allows people to use to post their drivel and it has complete control over that space and what is posted in it.


Twitter is a website that sells advertisements and in order to establish an audience for those ads it allows people to post shit. There is no protection of speech whatsoever

Twitter makes it quite clear that they can delete posts and take other actions against users who violate their rules

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

I "forgot" nothing. I ignored it, because it's irrelevant.

If Twitter wants to be "nothing more than a seller of advertising space", then you need to let THEM know it. Because not only is that NOT the primary focus of their site BY THEIR OWN DESCRIPTION, that is also not what they say they want to do now, also BY THEIR OWN DESCRIPTION.

Twitter DOES make it quite clear they can take action against users who violate their rules. Show me where their rules include posting conservative content. You posted the rules, now cite me the point where conservative content is listed as against the rules. Show me where their rules say that being "untrue" is against their rules.

 

[Juicin]

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

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

The 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

Objectionable can mean literally anything they want

Most of these sites have a clause that states they can terminate service....For whatever reason they want

The law gives them that power. IT's just one ToS change away from being legal even if twitter doesn't have the correct ToS

So no you're wrong. Terms of Service are writtern by twitter lawyers they can change them overnight to whatever they want. I'm 100% that's in the language of the current ToS

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Straw man.

No that is all that happened here

The straw man is your "it's not against the law". Who said it was? We've said, and will continue to say, that it is editorializing, which makes Twitter no longer fit the definition of a platform. Now YOU'RE trying to argue a defense against something that wasn't said.

If Twitter, or someone at Twitter, wants to respond to his post with a link, they can go right ahead. Making it essentially part of HIS post, that's editorializing, and no amount of weaseling around and making up new definitions and talking about "They JUST did this" and "that's ALL that happened" is going to make other people see it as the no big deal you want it to be.

This idiot keeps repeating the same argument over and over again. Arguing with him is taking a ride on the wheel of circular logic. That's pretty much true about every TDS moron in this forum on every issue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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'.


.

Yea that's how it works bud

Right wing sites can do the same thing

The communications decency act protects them no executive order is going to change the way the judges percieve this. It only affects prosecutors and regulators. As soon as the lawyers show up tho they just point to "objectionable" content

Welcome to the free market.

Wrong. The Communications Decency Act protects specific kinds of websites. If Twitter no longer meets that definition, then they can be prosecuted. No, the EO doesn't change how judges see things, but neither do laws enacted by Congress sometimes. The EO CAN change how the FCC and FTC see things, which CAN change how judges see things.

As soon as the lawyers show up to "point to objectionable content", they'd better be prepared to also point to where that content is listed in the TOS.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ******* 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.

What is the legal definition of "Platform" as it relates to websites?

You must know it right?

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

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ******* 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?

You forgot the part where I said in exchange for being subjected to advertisements.

Twitter is nothing more than a seller of advertising space. It owns the space it allows people to use to post their drivel and it has complete control over that space and what is posted in it.


Twitter is a website that sells advertisements and in order to establish an audience for those ads it allows people to post shit. There is no protection of speech whatsoever

Twitter makes it quite clear that they can delete posts and take other actions against users who violate their rules

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

I "forgot" nothing. I ignored it, because it's irrelevant.

If Twitter wants to be "nothing more than a seller of advertising space", then you need to let THEM know it. Because not only is that NOT the primary focus of their site BY THEIR OWN DESCRIPTION, that is also not what they say they want to do now, also BY THEIR OWN DESCRIPTION.

Twitter DOES make it quite clear they can take action against users who violate their rules. Show me where their rules include posting conservative content. You posted the rules, now cite me the point where conservative content is listed as against the rules. Show me where their rules say that being "untrue" is against their rules.

Twitter clearly lays out that it reserves the right to edit content and regulate users.

If you don't like it don't use it.

And there was not a single word of Trumps ridiculous post that was changed or edited or deleted was there? So tell me what other "conservative content" has been edited because wqe all know damn well that Trump's was not

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

The 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

Objectionable can mean literally anything they want

Most of these sites have a clause that states they can terminate service....For whatever reason they want

The law gives them that power. IT's just one ToS change away from being legal even if twitter doesn't have the correct ToS

So no you're wrong. Terms of Service are writtern by twitter lawyers they can change them overnight to whatever they want. I'm 100% that's in the language of the current ToS

Their terms of service mean they are not eligible for protection from lawsuits under regulation 230.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

The 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

Objectionable can mean literally anything they want

Most of these sites have a clause that states they can terminate service....For whatever reason they want

The law gives them that power. IT's just one ToS change away from being legal even if twitter doesn't have the correct ToS

So no you're wrong. Terms of Service are writtern by twitter lawyers they can change them overnight to whatever they want. I'm 100% that's in the language of the current ToS

No, it can't "mean literally anything they want" . . . unless they put it in the TOS. I have posted the TOS, and issued an invitation to show me where conservative content is listed as "objectionable" anywhere in there. Please feel free to stop asserting it as fact, and start proving it.

"They get the protection of this law, because they have the protection of this law right now" is too circular and ridiculous to even deserve response.

Twitter can change their TOS, but they haven't. Again, feel free to show me where their TOS covers any of this.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Oh, I remember that. What conduct of Alex Jones was allegedly outside their TOS rules? Do you remember?

What is this "Abusive Behavior" TOS:

"You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else's voice."

And, I am no fan of Alex Jones. He was asking questions and presenting a narrative that some found "noxious" and despite Jack Dorsey's continued, repeated stance that Jones had not violated their TOS, suddenly decided that he had, and killed Jones' presence. Ironically, in direct contradiction to the "or silence someone else's voice" part of their TOS.

Twitter/Dorsey gave in to political pressure from some whiny shits who were not able to muster the intestinal fortitude and intellect to COUNTER Jones' bullshit. This is the very essence of the pajama/soy boy mentality, that because you don't like the words of others, those words have no value and must be silenced (ironically in contradiction to the TOS). That is WRONG and completely, decidedly illiberal (which you clearly are).

The cure for rotten speech is MORE SPEECH, not silencing rotten speech. How can you expose rotten speech and rotten ideas if you shut them down and ban them?

And I am not making Twitter a party subject to First Amendment restrictions. That is reserved for government only. I am simply talking about this illiberal mentality that you and the entire left harbor.

.

 

[Juicin]

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'.


.

Yea that's how it works bud

Right wing sites can do the same thing

The communications decency act protects them no executive order is going to change the way the judges percieve this. It only affects prosecutors and regulators. As soon as the lawyers show up tho they just point to "objectionable" content

Welcome to the free market.

Wrong. The Communications Decency Act protects specific kinds of websites. If Twitter no longer meets that definition, then they can be prosecuted. No, the EO doesn't change how judges see things, but neither do laws enacted by Congress sometimes. The EO CAN change how the FCC and FTC see things, which CAN change how judges see things.

As soon as the lawyers show up to "point to objectionable content", they'd better be prepared to also point to where that content is listed in the TOS.

It does meet those conditions as determined by precedent

Objectionable clearly gives them the right to remove anything they want. Which is how the internet has functioned up to this point. Even if a poorly written ToS gave you some rights as a consumer. That's a lawyer away from being fixed privately and in hours.

To change this you'd have to get the relevant judicial precedent(s) changed. Or have Congress pass something that directly changes the relevancy or language of the communications act sec 230

Trump doesn't get to set precedent. He can only have the executive argue his side in court and see what the judicial branch says.