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

[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.

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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Straw man.

No that is all that happened here

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

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

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

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

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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

If they censor based on their political biases, they will be sued. That's the bottom line.

 

[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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

so you see no problem with an executive at twitter with an open bias against conservatives using their platform to tag conservatives a liars while he goes out and lies about them unchecked an issue.

got it.

 

[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.

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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

If they censor based on their political biases, they will be sued. That's the bottom line.

Twitter has been sued many times by people claiming bias and Twitter has always won because the law is on their side. They have no legal obligation to be fair.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Straw man.

No that is all that happened here

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

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

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

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

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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

so you see no problem with an executive at twitter with an open bias against conservatives using their platform to tag conservatives a liars while he goes out and lies about them unchecked an issue.

got it.

We know these knuckleheads are perfectly OK with Twitter consoring right wingers. They believe leftwingers have a natural right to censor conservatives.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Straw man.

No that is all that happened here

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

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

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

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

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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

If they censor based on their political biases, they will be sued. That's the bottom line.

Twitter has been sued many times by people claiming bias and Twitter has always won because the law is on their side. They have no legal obligation to be fair.

Yes, they do have a legal obligation to be fair. The whole point of Trump's EO is that Twitter will no longer have immunity from lawsuits.

Don't you get it, dumbfuck?

 

[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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

If they censor based on their political biases, they will be sued. That's the bottom line.

Twitter has been sued many times by people claiming bias and Twitter has always won because the law is on their side. They have no legal obligation to be fair.

and that needs to change.

 

[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.

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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

so you see no problem with an executive at twitter with an open bias against conservatives using their platform to tag conservatives a liars while he goes out and lies about them unchecked an issue.

got it.

It's fascinating how you've gone back to the playbook with this one. This is basically Peter Strzok redux. You're turning this nobody anyone ever heard of into some overarching villain masterminding this whole thing. Yoel Roth is not an executive. He's not even a VP. He did not unilaterally make the decision about labeling Trump's tweets in any manner. This was made by Dorsey. As for Roth, no, I don't think we need a fact check on someone calling McConnell a bag of farts. I don't think that anyone thought that was a factual statement. People aren't idiots.

Misinformation in the internet is a huge problem as demonstrated by your willingness to be mislead by misinformation about a particular individual (I'm sure he'll be happy to know he's been promoted to executive). Are you outraged that Fox News decides they're the arbiter of truth?

 

[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.

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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

If they censor based on their political biases, they will be sued. That's the bottom line.

Twitter has been sued many times by people claiming bias and Twitter has always won because the law is on their side. They have no legal obligation to be fair.

Yes, they do have a legal obligation to be fair. The whole point of Trump's EO is that Twitter will no longer have immunity from lawsuits.

Don't you get it, dumbfuck?

Executive orders don't change the law. The law is on Twitter's side which is why they keep winning their lawsuits.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Straw man.

No that is all that happened here

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

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

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

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

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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

so you see no problem with an executive at twitter with an open bias against conservatives using their platform to tag conservatives a liars while he goes out and lies about them unchecked an issue.

got it.

It's fascinating how you've gone back to the playbook with this one. This is basically Peter Strzok redux. You're turning this nobody anyone ever heard of into some overarching villain masterminding this whole thing. Yoel Roth is not an executive. He's not even a VP. He did not unilaterally make the decision about labeling Trump's tweets in any manner. This was made by Dorsey. As for Roth, no, I don't think we need a fact check on someone calling McConnell a bag of farts. I don't think that anyone thought that was a factual statement. People aren't idiots.

Misinformation in the internet is a huge problem as demonstrated by your willingness to be mislead by misinformation about a particular individual (I'm sure he'll be happy to know he's been promoted to executive). Are you outraged that Fox News decides they're the arbiter of truth?

Twitter management is the prime source of disinformation on the internet. Trump is doing something about it.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

pjmedia.com

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

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

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

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

"Congress shall make no laws...."

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

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

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Straw man.

No that is all that happened here

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

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

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

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

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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

If they censor based on their political biases, they will be sued. That's the bottom line.

Twitter has been sued many times by people claiming bias and Twitter has always won because the law is on their side. They have no legal obligation to be fair.

Yes, they do have a legal obligation to be fair. The whole point of Trump's EO is that Twitter will no longer have immunity from lawsuits.

Don't you get it, dumbfuck?

Executive orders don't change the law. The law is on Twitter's side which is why they keep winning their lawsuits.

No, the law is not on Twitter's side, moron. Trump's EO doesn't change the law. But under it the law be enforced.

 

[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.

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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

If they censor based on their political biases, they will be sued. That's the bottom line.

Twitter has been sued many times by people claiming bias and Twitter has always won because the law is on their side. They have no legal obligation to be fair.

and that needs to change.

The government forcing their own version of fairness on private citizens is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[jc456]

They're not editing other people's content. If they were to start deleting phrases to alter meaning or otherwise having a substantive effect on the content, they would be liable for that content;

deleting posts is editing.

 

[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.

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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

If they censor based on their political biases, they will be sued. That's the bottom line.

Twitter has been sued many times by people claiming bias and Twitter has always won because the law is on their side. They have no legal obligation to be fair.

Yes, they do have a legal obligation to be fair. The whole point of Trump's EO is that Twitter will no longer have immunity from lawsuits.

Don't you get it, dumbfuck?

Executive orders don't change the law. The law is on Twitter's side which is why they keep winning their lawsuits.

No, the law is not on Twitter's side, moron. Trump's EO doesn't change the law. But under it the law be enforced.

If the law isn't on Twitter's side, why do they keep winning their lawsuits?

 

[jc456]

Quite a lot. I don't really want people to be afraid to rid their own platforms of the goofballs, fringe kooks and trolls. The internet is toxic enough the way it is.

as long as the posters stay within the rules of the tool, twitter has no right touching anyone's posts. no one. either party.

 

[jc456]

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

Trump's tweet was flagged for violating their TOS rules on glorifying violence.

well removing him made him more popular. and banning him was useless.

 

[colfax_m]

Quite a lot. I don't really want people to be afraid to rid their own platforms of the goofballs, fringe kooks and trolls. The internet is toxic enough the way it is.

as long as the posters stay within the rules of the tool, twitter has no right touching anyone's posts. no one. either party.

Of course they have the right. They own the entire infrastructure that the post appears on. You can't take away their personal property rights. That's what commies do.

 

[jc456]

This executive order, like so many Trump pronouncements, has absolutely no teeth and will probably be struck down by the courts.

for?

 

[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?

Still looking for where the problem is. Twitter isn't forcing anyone to believe anything they write. They're engaging in their protected first amendment speech. Twitter isn't ever going to be able to police every tweet equally. That's literally impossible. There's 500 million tweets every single day.

If they censor based on their political biases, they will be sued. That's the bottom line.

Twitter has been sued many times by people claiming bias and Twitter has always won because the law is on their side. They have no legal obligation to be fair.

and that needs to change.

The government forcing their own version of fairness on private citizens is a disaster waiting to happen.

how is it any different than simply leveling the playing field as they've done so often in the past?

ie - microsoft in the early 90s. they got big enough to keep competition down and dictate terms a lot of people found unfair. so the DOJ comes in and "fixes" it.

breakup of the bells. too big.

what they are doing is no different than what they've always done - set the rules to try and ensure fair play. if you say or think this is a new concept, well yea; i got nothing.

it's not new. you be against the move in general, but it's nothing new and something that has a long history of happening to companies that go too far one direction.

 

[jc456]

You do know what an Executive Order is, right....?!

It is an idea to enhance a current law.

What 'current law' did Obama 'enhance' when he created his own immigration law through EO AFTER admitting he had no Constitutional authority to do so?

exactly