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

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


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

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


:)

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."
When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.
Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

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

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

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question
So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?
No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

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

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

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.
No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

More word-parsing. "I am right because QUIBBLE ABOUT THIS WORD CHOICE". Always a sign of someone who knows he's making a shit argument simply because he wants something whether it's right or not.

Words mean things.

If you say someone was punished you should be able to tell me who was punished and what that punishment was

Otherwise you're just making shit up
platform is a word.
is defines the role of a business and how they must operate.

yet you don't like it so you make up your own shit.

wheee.

And Twitter is not a platform nor is it a publisher.

I have posted several times now as to the actual nature of social media so read that post and I'll be more than happy to read your response

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

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

bluesman says IS NOT NEENER NEENER and off we go.

platform:

platform:

legal debate:

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

he's a fuckhead.

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.....


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

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


:)

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."
When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.
Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

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

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

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question
So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?
No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

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

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

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.
No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?
You have already decided in your head that you are right, everyone else is wrong, and you will continue to argue to that point for a thousand more 'pages' if you have to instead of engaging in conversation with an open mind.....which means any further arguing (not discussing) this with you is a pointless waste of time.

In the meantime the President just moved to strip Twitter of its govt-provided 302 Protections, which you agree they don't need anyway so the impact should be 'nil' and not worth arguing about.

Much like Barry's DACA edict, the courts have not ruled on Trump's '302 EO', so it remains 'law of the land' for now....and all your arguing against that fact doesn't change that it IS indeed a fact....for now.

'It is DONE' ... for now.
I'm not using words like "punished" or "censored"

Because they do not apply and I will keep telling you they do not apply just like the word "monopoly" does not apply.

As i said you people insist on making Twitter and Facebook etc more than what they are.

Social media sites are nothing but privately owned spaces where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements.

That is all they are , that is all they have ever been and that is all they will ever be.

"You are using these specific words, so if I just laser-focus on them and how they're the wrong words, that will make my argument correct!"

Social media sites are businesses, with customers, who have obligations to those customers defined by the type of business they are and by their own words making commitments to their customers. You can try to redefine what they are until the cows come home, and it will neither be true nor make a difference to that basic fact.

By the way, Grammar Nazi, there's a much shorter way to say "privately owned spaces where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements": PLATFORMS. You know, the thing you keep trying to claim they aren't in order to insist they deserve protection that exists only for platforms.
No I am using the words you used in your arguments

And as I have said Twitter is neither a platform nor a publisher.

Do I have to tell you again what social media sites are?

No, you are trying to make an argument by quibbling over individual words. "Bri says they censor. THIS isn't technically censorship, so my argument must be right!" "You say punishment, so I say that's not really a punishment because I don't think it would be a big deal, and that makes your argument vanish!" "Twitter isn't a platform or a publisher, nevermind what THEY say they are, because if I redefine them as some new thing besides that, I'm sure that will make them outside of your objections!"

Do I have to tell you again that your definition of social media sites is the definition of a platform? Go ahead, condescendingly offer to contradict your own argument like you're being brilliant instead of making a fool of yourself.

Like i said words mean things.

If you have your own definitions for the words you use please post a link to your personal dictionary.

Now do you want to respond to the post where I told you what social media sites actually are or not?

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

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

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


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

I do know, and I'm happy you recognize your need for education.


Social Media Platform means a mobile and/or internet-based platform used and controlled by a Seller or any of its Affiliates for the exclusive purpose of promoting the Business, including any profiles or accounts on Facebook, Google+, Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr, Twitter, Snapchat, and YouTube, in each case, to the extent exclusively related to the Business.

Social Media Platform means any social media-related service, application or platform, including any provided by Facebook, Inc., Twitter Inc., Google Inc., LinkedIn Corporation or any of their respective affiliates.


Twitter clearly lays out its rules, and since you just keep stating that over and over without taking me up on my request that you cite where their rules state that they have to agree with or approve of your opinions, I'll assume that you know perfectly well that they don't, and you're too dishonest to admit it.
 
The communications decency act protects them from removing any "objectionable" content.

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

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


.

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
Sorry, turd, but the managment of a corporation isn't right wing solely because they want to make money. That would make every corporation in America right wing. Only TDS morons like you swallow that "logic." We all know that the management of Twitter and all the other tech giants are leftwing.
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.”

Twitter lawyers would just come up with a clever way to phrase how they banned you, that's all.

No one is giong to in any communications approved by their lawyers say "fuck republicans they have reduced rights on our site". And even if they did section 230 gives them the right to define objectionable very broadly in current interpretation. Soooo that would probably be legal even with this executive order. Now you may open yourself up to a higher likelihood of hte executive charging you. But there is no reason to think courts are going to give a fuck what trump thinks.

I doubt most judges want to get into the business of litigating twitter bans
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

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

No, I'm sorry, they don't get to hide behind the Communications Decency Act to term "anything they want" as "objectionable". Certainly they CAN define whatever they want that way, but NOT under the protection of the CDA. When they start curating their content past a certain point, they stop being the type of company protected by the CDA.
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.

No they can have whatever ToS they want

They just have to live with the legal ramifications, their laywers will suggest remaining in compliance with section 230. Which hasn't changed at all since the executive order.

Why are you trying to talk down to me? I clearly am a bit brighter than you bud

If you and i are conflicted it's probably time to get teh fuck out of the way.
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."
When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.
Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

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

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

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question
So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?
No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

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

The concept isn't any different regardless of the bandwidth used to convey it. Its about who should and shouldn't be held responsible for the content of information provided online.

Section 230 does not define platform. There is no legal definition of platform. I keep tell you guys this, section 230 does not differentiate these two. Anyone who has an "interactive computer service" is not to be considered the publisher of information. Now, if you want to change that, you're going to have to pass a law revising that section. Trump is supposedly going to introduce legislation, but his executive order cannot do so and current law protects Twitter as it is.

I don't know where you got this concept that Twitter sees themselves as the "sole purveyors" of truth. That sounds like an outlandish accusation to me. They say what they think, as any American is guaranteed the right to do. I see this as an attempt to deprive them of their perspective.
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.”

Twitter lawyers would just come up with a clever way to phrase how they banned you, that's all.

No one is giong to in any communications approved by their lawyers say "fuck republicans they have reduced rights on our site". And even if they did section 230 gives them the right to define objectionable very broadly in current interpretation. Soooo that would probably be legal even with this executive order. Now you may open yourself up to a higher likelihood of hte executive charging you. But there is no reason to think courts are going to give a fuck what trump thinks.

I doubt most judges want to get into the business of litigating twitter bans
You can't be this stupid. Courts definitely care what the FTC and the FCC think.
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

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

No, I'm sorry, they don't get to hide behind the Communications Decency Act to term "anything they want" as "objectionable". Certainly they CAN define whatever they want that way, but NOT under the protection of the CDA. When they start curating their content past a certain point, they stop being the type of company protected by the CDA.

Yes they do as does every other internet platform in teh states

You're talking about breaking the way the internet functions. And bringing in possibly millions upon millions of legal problems choking up our court system
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."
When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.
Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

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

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

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question
So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.
No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?
No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.
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.
Nope. Doesn't exist. You can read the relevant section here:
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

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

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

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

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


Who exactly decides which are "abusing" their power?

That would be the FCC and the FTC. Did you actually not know which agencies are tasked with this sort of thing?
 
....btw....'It's STILL 'DONE' despite the 25 PAGES of whining, arguing, and claims to the opposite by the Left.

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


:p

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

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

Oh, do explain how you think THAT ass-backward bit of illogic is going to happen.
 
“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

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

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




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

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

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


:clap:


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

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

Like the guy said in GhostBusters:
View attachment 342507

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

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

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

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


Infrastructure & Technology


Issued on: May 28, 2020








  • Share:




menuAll News

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




White House Logo

The White House

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dismissed.
View attachment 343895

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

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

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

But hey, if lying to yourself takes away the sting of being viewed with disdain . . . whatever keeps you going.
Well, It's mot like you disputed his proven difficulties with Executive Orders. You just did not like it that I said it out loud. What happened to all those alternative facts, your boy's girls talk about?

What the actual fuck are you blathering about at this point? You literally have switched over to some other conversation with no relation to anything in this one.
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.

No they can have whatever ToS they want

No they can't, moron. Not if they want to be protected from lawsuits under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

They just have to live with the legal ramifications

Why are you trying to talk down to me? I clearly am a bit brighter than you bud

If you and i are conflicted it's probably time to get teh fuck out of the way.

The legal ramification is that they will get sued for millions of dollars for doing precisely what they do now.

You're smarter then me? Allow me to clue you in to something: if you have to tell people how smart you are, then you aren't smart.
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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?

Twitter or anyone else doesn't have to provide any reason to kick anyone off their website. There is no need to define anything as objectionable. It is well within their rights.

Twitter has been sued many times by people they've kicked off. So has pretty much every other social media website. They always win and they always cite Section 230.
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.”

Twitter lawyers would just come up with a clever way to phrase how they banned you, that's all.

No one is giong to in any communications approved by their lawyers say "fuck republicans they have reduced rights on our site". And even if they did section 230 gives them the right to define objectionable very broadly in current interpretation. Soooo that would probably be legal even with this executive order. Now you may open yourself up to a higher likelihood of hte executive charging you. But there is no reason to think courts are going to give a fuck what trump thinks.

I doubt most judges want to get into the business of litigating twitter bans
You can't be this stupid. Courts definitely care what the FTC and the FCC think.

All that shit is litigated unless you take their ruling at face value and accept it.

It all goes through the court

I don't like an FCC or FTC ruling? I litigate, and twitter has plenty of lawyers
 
This one will likely get stuck in the courts...
Until then....it's 'DONE'.

Have a nice day.... :p

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

I don't actually care if they delete THAT post, because that actually does violate their TOS.

Too bad you can't make your argument about the tweet actually being discussed. It's almost like you know your point is shit.
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

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

No, I'm sorry, they don't get to hide behind the Communications Decency Act to term "anything they want" as "objectionable". Certainly they CAN define whatever they want that way, but NOT under the protection of the CDA. When they start curating their content past a certain point, they stop being the type of company protected by the CDA.

Yes they do as does every other internet platform in teh states

You're talking about breaking the way the internet functions. And bringing in possibly millions upon millions of legal problems choking up our court system
Breaking the way the internet functions, meaning the leftwing tech giants, is precisely the intent of Trump's executive order. Why do you image we have a problem with that?
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

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

No, I'm sorry, they don't get to hide behind the Communications Decency Act to term "anything they want" as "objectionable". Certainly they CAN define whatever they want that way, but NOT under the protection of the CDA. When they start curating their content past a certain point, they stop being the type of company protected by the CDA.

Yes they do as does every other internet platform in teh states

You're talking about breaking the way the internet functions. And bringing in possibly millions upon millions of legal problems choking up our court system
then a compromise will need to be made.

no company nor it's affiliates in any form can do their "fact" checking. they must stay out of politics.

safeguards to ensure that they do not use the "platform" for their own company bias.
 
It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....


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

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


:)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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?

Twitter or anyone else doesn't have to provide any reason to kick anyone off their website. There is no need to define anything as objectionable. It is well within their rights.

Twitter has been sued many times by people they've kicked off. So has pretty much every other social media website. They always win and they always cite Section 230.

Well in practice we don't because it says "objectionable"

Without that word in 230 the views being expressed here would be much more rational.

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


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

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


:)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.”

Twitter lawyers would just come up with a clever way to phrase how they banned you, that's all.

No one is giong to in any communications approved by their lawyers say "fuck republicans they have reduced rights on our site". And even if they did section 230 gives them the right to define objectionable very broadly in current interpretation. Soooo that would probably be legal even with this executive order. Now you may open yourself up to a higher likelihood of hte executive charging you. But there is no reason to think courts are going to give a fuck what trump thinks.

I doubt most judges want to get into the business of litigating twitter bans
You can't be this stupid. Courts definitely care what the FTC and the FCC think.

All that shit is litigated unless you take their ruling at face value and accept it.

It all goes through the court

I don't like an FCC or FTC ruling? I litigate, and twitter has plenty of lawyers
How does that prove they are going to win? Normally the government wins in disputes of this kind.
 

Forum List

Back
Top