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.

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

who was "punished"?

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

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

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

Words mean things.

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

Otherwise you're just making shit up

platform is a word.
is defines the role of a business and how they must operate.

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

wheee.

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

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

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

You tell us "You have posted several times" as though the fact that you posted it settles the matter and makes what you posted fact, completely ignoring the fact that every time you have, you've been disputed.

he's just being fucking stupid at this point because the rest of the free world says platform.

bluesman says IS NOT NEENER NEENER and off we go.

platform:

Why Twitter is the Ideal Platform for Engagement

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

www.convinceandconvert.com

platform:

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

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

metro.co.uk

legal debate:

Platform, or Publisher?

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

www.city-journal.org

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

he's a fuckhead.

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

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

You must know it right?

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

who was "punished"?

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

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

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

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

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

help.twitter.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Media Platform | legal definition of Social Media Platform by Law Insider

Define 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...

www.lawinsider.com

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.

And where does it say that they have no control over the content posted on their websites or even that they have to allow everyone to post there?

I can call your cell phone as platform because it runs on software that can connect to other cell phones. So you better not be deleting any text messages

 

[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.

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?

You'd open up just about every site on the planet to litigation

Bye Bye clean debate zone and removal of spam

You'd break the internet. You fucking dolt

Any moderation opens you up to a good faith lawsuit.

 

[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.

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.

because that's where it is headed.

when their head "fact checker" has the authority to brand someone a liar yet is allowed to lie himself, that is a blatant misuse of his position.

at this point i really don't want to dig into the minute aspects of what you wish to call it but the protections in question were meant to keep people from being sued at the drop of a hat. now they're being morphed into twitter being able to "fact check" what others say and in that light, make themselves the purveyor of truth.

we know either side has no issue misrepresenting things to get their way. they will do something then say "no we didn't" or "well they had it coming" and off we go into more stupidity.

and no his EO can't change things like that. no EO should regardless of who is president and i really hate how our last 2 presidents used it to get around checks and balances. if our government is too hard for politicians to deal with, then how do *we the people* stand a chance?

as it stands twitter and facebook have over-reached their authority in many cases and rules of play need to be setup to commensurate their current state of influence.

 

[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?

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.

Again, moron, not if they want to be exempt from lawsuits. Your theory that the can censor to their hearts content and not be legally responsible for what they publish isn't supported by any legal expert.

 

[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.

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?

You'd open up just about every site on the planet to litigation

Bye Bye clean debate zone and removal of spam

You'd break the internet. You fucking dolt

All they have to do is refrain from censoring based purely on arbitrary biases, you fucking moron. Of course, that's exactly what you want them to do, which is the only reason you object.

Bye bye twitter!

Any moderation opens you up to a good faith lawsuit.

Wrong. You can still censor spam, profanity and calls for illegal action.

 

[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.

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.

Again, moron, not if they want to be exempt from lawsuits. Your theory that the can censor to their hearts content and not be legally responsible for what they publish isn't supported by any legal expert.

Trump didn't sue twitter and made an executive order tells the whoel fuckign story

if there was any legal backing to that view, twitter woudln't have fucking done it to begin with you dumb bastard

have you never met a lawyer in your life?

lol

what the fuck? Why doesn't alex jones sue?

Why don't the sandy hook victim parents sue?

Oh yea that's right section 230 protects them .

 

[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.

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?

You'd open up just about every site on the planet to litigation

Bye Bye clean debate zone and removal of spam

You'd break the internet. You fucking dolt

All they have to do is refrain from censoring based purely on arbitrary biases, you fucking moron. Of course, that's exactly what you want them to do, which is the only reason you object.

Bye bye twitter!

Any moderation opens you up to a good faith lawsuit.

Wrong. You can still censor spam, profanity and calls for illegal action.

all moderation as soon as you let a human element enter is biased

they gotta pick some one to lead their moderation at twitter

they're going to have biases

you are such a child, lol

Any human moderation has bias.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

And, regardless of the reason, it will have the same outcome.

Of course, "lies and misinformation" will be highly fact-intensive, and depending on the "finder of fact" could be a crap-shoot, at best. That would ultimately be the end of social media.


.

 

[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.

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.

because that's where it is headed.

when their head "fact checker" has the authority to brand someone a liar yet is allowed to lie himself, that is a blatant misuse of his position.

at this point i really don't want to dig into the minute aspects of what you wish to call it but the protections in question were meant to keep people from being sued at the drop of a hat. now they're being morphed into twitter being able to "fact check" what others say and in that light, make themselves the purveyor of truth.

we know either side has no issue misrepresenting things to get their way. they will do something then say "no we didn't" or "well they had it coming" and off we go into more stupidity.

and no his EO can't change things like that. no EO should regardless of who is president and i really hate how our last 2 presidents used it to get around checks and balances. if our government is too hard for politicians to deal with, then how do *we the people* stand a chance?

as it stands twitter and facebook have over-reached their authority in many cases and rules of play need to be setup to commensurate their current state of influence.

I still don't see why you get upset about Twitter putting their own opinion online. Who cares? Why get so upset? They aren't the arbiters of truth any more than you or I are when we give our two cents. You can take it or leave it. That's their right. It has nothing to do with protecting them from liability from everyone on their website.

 

[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.

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

who was "punished"?

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

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

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

Words mean things.

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

Otherwise you're just making shit up

platform is a word.
is defines the role of a business and how they must operate.

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

wheee.

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

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

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

You tell us "You have posted several times" as though the fact that you posted it settles the matter and makes what you posted fact, completely ignoring the fact that every time you have, you've been disputed.

he's just being fucking stupid at this point because the rest of the free world says platform.

bluesman says IS NOT NEENER NEENER and off we go.

platform:

Why Twitter is the Ideal Platform for Engagement

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

www.convinceandconvert.com

platform:

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

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

metro.co.uk

legal debate:

Platform, or Publisher?

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

www.city-journal.org

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

he's a fuckhead.

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

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

You must know it right?

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

who was "punished"?

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

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

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

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

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

help.twitter.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Media Platform | legal definition of Social Media Platform by Law Insider

Define 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...

www.lawinsider.com

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.

And where does it say that they have no control over the content posted on their websites or even that they have to allow everyone to post there?

I can call your cell phone as platform because it runs on software that can connect to other cell phones. So you better not be deleting any text messages

Because if they don't, then they don't meet the definition of "common carrier," you fucking moron.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

And that's the thing. They can run it as a private space and edit what they want.

Why should they get special immunity?

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

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

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

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

So what do they need protection from?

WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS?! What the fuck is it with you and straw men today?

I get that you'd really like to make up the argument you're debating against instead of having to do the messy work of dealing with the real one, but you can go sit in front of a mirror if you're going to debate the voices in your head.

"Twitter doesn't need 230 protections . . . and it also has 230 protections. So if it has 230 protections, what does it need protection from?" That is literally what you just said.

See if you can muster up some vestige of BluesMan buried under this "I want my own way, so anything that gives me that is suddenly good and right" left-thinker who has appeared, and try to focus on the actual debate here.

Twitter defines itself as a platform; you, Grammar Nazi that you have tried to be, have also defined them as a platform, while trying to fraudulently pretend that if you don't use that specific word, you're describing something different.

Twitter is only not legally responsible for the content posted on its site under the protection of Section 230, as a platform. There is not some natural, intrinsic, organic "right" to non-responsibility; that can only be conveyed by law, as in Section 230.

If Twitter is not a platform, no matter what else it is, then it doesn't fall under the protection of Section 230 and it IS legally responsible for what is posted on its site. That's it, that's all, there is no third choice, no matter how much you try to invent one.

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

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

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

You may think you're not saying that they need the protection of Section 230, but that's just because you're being willfully obtuse. You said, "Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users", you're ignoring the fact that the only reason Twitter is not currently responsible is because of Section 230, which was written into law precisely for the purpose of making them not-responsible.

 

[Juicin]

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

And that's the thing. They can run it as a private space and edit what they want.

Why should they get special immunity?

.

It's not special immunity

It's afforded to anyone running anything online

 

[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.

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?

You'd open up just about every site on the planet to litigation

Bye Bye clean debate zone and removal of spam

You'd break the internet. You fucking dolt

All they have to do is refrain from censoring based purely on arbitrary biases, you fucking moron. Of course, that's exactly what you want them to do, which is the only reason you object.

Bye bye twitter!

Any moderation opens you up to a good faith lawsuit.

Wrong. You can still censor spam, profanity and calls for illegal action.

all moderation as soon as you let a human element enter is biased

they gotta pick some one to lead their moderation at twitter

they're going to have biases

you are such a child, lol

Any human moderation has bias.

Wrong. You can moderate for profanity, spam and calls for illegal action in an unbiased fashion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

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

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

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

So what do they need protection from?

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

How the fuck should I know.

The EO is completely meaningless.

If Trump knew anything about the Constitution he would know that

Section 230 of the CDA makes Twitter not responsible for the postings of their users. If someone posts something defamatory, Twitter cannot be sued. Without it, Twitter wouldn't exist.

Trump is trying to take that away which will ruin Twitter. It's the political equivalent of throwing the frisbee on the roof and going home because no one wants to play with you.

Sure it could exist because Twitter has the right to edit, redact or refuse to post anything written by its users. Just like the way this site does

Twitter does NOT have the right to edit, redact, or refuse without becoming a publisher and taking on the legal responsibilities thereof . . . just like the way the site is finding out. And no, Twitter could never survive being a publisher.

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

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

And if you just keep blindly repeating, "Twitter is not a platform, it's just the definition of a platform without the word", that might eventually mean something other than the fact that you know you're wrong, but you don't care if it gets you what you want.

I think you've ignored my posts while repeating yourself pointlessly enough for me to consider this your cravenly surrender.

Come back when you man up enough to discuss a topic with people, instead of yourself.

 

[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.

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?

You'd open up just about every site on the planet to litigation

Bye Bye clean debate zone and removal of spam

You'd break the internet. You fucking dolt

All they have to do is refrain from censoring based purely on arbitrary biases, you fucking moron. Of course, that's exactly what you want them to do, which is the only reason you object.

Bye bye twitter!

Any moderation opens you up to a good faith lawsuit.

Wrong. You can still censor spam, profanity and calls for illegal action.

all moderation as soon as you let a human element enter is biased

they gotta pick some one to lead their moderation at twitter

they're going to have biases

you are such a child, lol

Any human moderation has bias.

Wrong. You can moderate for profanity, spam and calls for illegal action in an unbiased fashion.

What?

lol

Profanity is obviously not agreed upon, has bias

spam has bias. Some spam doesn't mean that all spam doesn't.

illegal action requires you to be a lawyer and most law is contextual and subjective so again biased.

You're delusional

Shut the fuck up pleb. You'd break the internet

Like in this thread you're spamming. I'd drop the ban hammer on you for being a fucking retard. Easily covering up my bias (although obviously correct)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

And that's the thing. They can run it as a private space and edit what they want.

Why should they get special immunity?

.

It's not special immunity

It's afforded to anyone running anything online

When the legislature has to carve out a special statute that eliminates liability for which other publishers of information would be liable, that is what I would call special immunity.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From the National Review, as conservative publication

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

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

www.nationalreview.com

I just heard, "It's conservative, so that means I'm right, because you HAVE to believe them!" Do we look like leftists to you, because you sure as shit look like one to me right now?

 

[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.

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.

because that's where it is headed.

when their head "fact checker" has the authority to brand someone a liar yet is allowed to lie himself, that is a blatant misuse of his position.

at this point i really don't want to dig into the minute aspects of what you wish to call it but the protections in question were meant to keep people from being sued at the drop of a hat. now they're being morphed into twitter being able to "fact check" what others say and in that light, make themselves the purveyor of truth.

we know either side has no issue misrepresenting things to get their way. they will do something then say "no we didn't" or "well they had it coming" and off we go into more stupidity.

and no his EO can't change things like that. no EO should regardless of who is president and i really hate how our last 2 presidents used it to get around checks and balances. if our government is too hard for politicians to deal with, then how do *we the people* stand a chance?

as it stands twitter and facebook have over-reached their authority in many cases and rules of play need to be setup to commensurate their current state of influence.

I still don't see why you get upset about Twitter putting their own opinion online. Who cares? Why get so upset? They aren't the arbiters of truth any more than you or I are when we give our two cents. You can take it or leave it. That's their right. It has nothing to do with protecting them from liability from everyone on their website.

because people don't just go "hey, that's twitters opinion" - they go HA! and use it as the truth. twitter knows this. no not all will do that but a vast majority if fact checking stays, will take it they are the "fact". if that "power" is unchecked then they can do whatever the hell they want.

do you not see a problem with someone at twitter "fact checking" the president and calling him a liar or instigating violence then he turns around and does it "to the right" and no one is there to check him?

that *is* happening. is that ok?

 

[Juicin]

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

And that's the thing. They can run it as a private space and edit what they want.

Why should they get special immunity?

.

It's not special immunity

It's afforded to anyone running anything online

When the legislature has to carve out a special statute that eliminates liability for which other publishers of information would be liable, that is what I would call special immunity.

.

In a society that is all online i'd say that's just immunity

was a bit more special when they passed it than in 2020.