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

[Blues Man]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Wow you people can't make up your minds

Sometimes you call me a Trumpster and sometimes you say I have TDS.

IDGAF what Trump wrote on Twitter it is 100% irrelevant to me.

I am discussing the broader picture.

You should be able to understand that because you sure as fuck like using a broad brush

 

[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

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.

Even if that was true (which by precedent it's not)

They can change their ToS tomorrow and be in compliance and regain those protections

Although again there is no court in the country who is going to try to arbitrate this.

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

It's the same argument because y'all aren't listening. There is no legal distinction between a "platform" and "publisher" online. You're not one or the other.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Apparently you're admitting the Twitter is leftwing. That means it doesn't comply with section 230 of the communications decency act. That makes it subject to lawsuits.

When are you morons going to quit pretending you don't understand what the point of Trump's EO is?

 

[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

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.

You're strawmanning

They would never say "conservative" views are banned openly

They would say "objectionable"

 

[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.

Apparently you're admitting the Twitter is leftwing. That means it doesn't comply with section 230 of the communications decency act. That makes it subject to lawsuits.

When are you morons going to quit pretending you don't understand what the point of Trump's EO is?

Twitter is a capitalist institution, libertarian at heart. Just like most silicon valley firms.

The people they have hired to police twitter manually are clearly left wing

Huge difference

All legal

 

[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

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.

Even if that was true (which by precedent it's not)

They can change their ToS tomorrow and be in compliance and regain those protections

Although again there is no court in the country who is going to try to arbitrate this.

Only if their terms of service say they will not censor posts unless they contain profanity or call for illegal acts.

 

[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

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.

You're strawmanning

They would never say "conservative" views are banned openly

They would say "objectionable"

That would mean they aren't in compliance with section 230.

 

[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

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.

Even if that was true (which by precedent it's not)

They can change their ToS tomorrow and be in compliance and regain those protections

Although again there is no court in the country who is going to try to arbitrate this.

Only if their terms of service say they will not censor posts unless they contain profanity or call for illegal acts.

Ok so let's say what you're imagining is true. That remove protections according to the supreme court or some relevant district court

They would just change their ToS to regain their coverage.

Even if some convulated argument based on their ToS works as an argument legally.....They would just change them. Not that complex

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Apparently you're admitting the Twitter is leftwing. That means it doesn't comply with section 230 of the communications decency act. That makes it subject to lawsuits.

When are you morons going to quit pretending you don't understand what the point of Trump's EO is?

Twitter is a capitalist institution, libertarian at heart. Just like most silicon valley firms.

The people they have hired to police twitter manually are clearly left wing

Huge difference

All legal

In other words, Twitter is leftwing.

 

[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

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.

Even if that was true (which by precedent it's not)

They can change their ToS tomorrow and be in compliance and regain those protections

Although again there is no court in the country who is going to try to arbitrate this.

Only if their terms of service say they will not censor posts unless they contain profanity or call for illegal acts.

Ok so let's say what you're imagining is true. That remove protections according to the supreme court or some relevant district court

They would just change their ToS to regain their coverage.

Then they would have to allow Alex Jones and other right wingers to have their accounts back.

 

[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

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.

You're strawmanning

They would never say "conservative" views are banned openly

They would say "objectionable"

That would mean they aren't in compliance with section 230.

No it wouldn't, because their lawyers would say they banned them for reasons that conformed with 230

If any new legal interpretations came out their lawyers woudl react int he words they use to describe the bannings, at the moment i'm sure they're very confident nothing is going to happen.

This is all just a word game. Objectionable is so broad you can ban anyone legally with the right phrases. I'm telling you, if you want to change this you have to change the language of 230.

 

[iceberg]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

It's the same argument because y'all aren't listening. There is no legal distinction between a "platform" and "publisher" online. You're not one or the other.

the entire concept is dated to 1996 and 33.6 modems and needs to be addressed. that is the core as far as i'm concerned.

by being a "platform" according to 230 they are not responsible for what posters post. fine. but it was never meant to allow strong bias one way or the other either. that is simply how its being used / abused today.

it needs to be defined and enforced. til then twitter and social media needs to stop pretending they are the sole purveyors of truth in the world. damn sure wouldn't try that shit in china.

 

[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

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.

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.

It's the same argument because y'all aren't listening. There is no legal distinction between a "platform" and "publisher" online. You're not one or the other.

Yes there is, turd. However, we know Twitter and all it's TDS defenders like to pretend their isn't.

 

[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

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.

Even if that was true (which by precedent it's not)

They can change their ToS tomorrow and be in compliance and regain those protections

Although again there is no court in the country who is going to try to arbitrate this.

Only if their terms of service say they will not censor posts unless they contain profanity or call for illegal acts.

Ok so let's say what you're imagining is true. That remove protections according to the supreme court or some relevant district court

They would just change their ToS to regain their coverage.

Then they would have to allow Alex Jones and other right wingers to have their accounts back.

No they'd just change the ToS and continue to tell them to fuck off and regain their 230 protections

Why woudl they ghave to give Jones an accoutn back ? lol

"objectionable" can mean just about anything they want. That's how we've always done this. Or you'd get reddit users litigating bans

 

[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

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.

You're strawmanning

They would never say "conservative" views are banned openly

They would say "objectionable"

That would mean they aren't in compliance with section 230.

No it wouldn't, because their lawyers would say they banned them for reasons that conformed with 230

If any new legal interpretations came out their lawyers woudl react int he words they use to describe the bannings, at the moment i'm sure they're very confident nothing is going to happen.

This is all just a word game. Objectionable is so broad you can ban anyone legally with the right phrases. I'm telling you, if you want to change this you have to change the language of 230.

Their lawyers can say whatever they like. That doesn't mean they are going to win.

You're right about the term "objectionable," which is why using it wouldn't get Twitter off the hook.

If you're so confident nothing is going to happen, then why are you whining about it?

 

[eddiew]

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.

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.

It's the same argument because y'all aren't listening. There is no legal distinction between a "platform" and "publisher" online. You're not one or the other.

Yes there is, turd. However, we know Twitter and all it's TDS defenders like to pretend their isn't.

And Face Book soars today

 

[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.

Apparently you're admitting the Twitter is leftwing. That means it doesn't comply with section 230 of the communications decency act. That makes it subject to lawsuits.

When are you morons going to quit pretending you don't understand what the point of Trump's EO is?

Twitter is a capitalist institution, libertarian at heart. Just like most silicon valley firms.

The people they have hired to police twitter manually are clearly left wing

Huge difference

All legal

In other words, Twitter is leftwing.

No it's a corporation maximizing it's profits

That ain't left wing

Socially left wing - economically very "right wing"

So it's a centrist organization

 

[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

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.

You're strawmanning

They would never say "conservative" views are banned openly

They would say "objectionable"

why not? they say there are NAZIS in the whitehouse and no one flagged them for lying.
-----
However, it has been discovered that the head of Twitter’s “posting police” has made some rather politically charged tweets himself, according to the New York Post.

Yoel Roth, who has the important sounding title of “Head of Site Integrity,” in charge of the team responsible for developing and enforcing Twitter’s site rules, was called out for some of those tweets, including one in 2017 when he referred to the president’s White House staff as “ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE,” and called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “personality-free bag of farts.”

 

[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

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.

Even if that was true (which by precedent it's not)

They can change their ToS tomorrow and be in compliance and regain those protections

Although again there is no court in the country who is going to try to arbitrate this.

Only if their terms of service say they will not censor posts unless they contain profanity or call for illegal acts.

Ok so let's say what you're imagining is true. That remove protections according to the supreme court or some relevant district court

They would just change their ToS to regain their coverage.

Then they would have to allow Alex Jones and other right wingers to have their accounts back.

No they'd just change the ToS and continue to tell them to fuck off and regain their 230 protections

Why woudl they ghave to give Jones an accoutn back ? lol

"objectionable" can mean just about anything they want. That's how we've always done this. Or you'd get reddit users litigating bans

You're saying they can have whatever terms of service they want.

Wrong.

They have to have terms of service that are in compliance with section 230.