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

[eddiew]

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

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

Previously the government hasn't been enforcing the law, moron. Now it will.

This is civil litigation, not criminal. Trump's administration has no role in it.

ROFL! God, the stuff you post gets dumber by the minute.

Again, this is civil litigation. So let's say hypothetically bripat9643 sues Twitter for hurting his feelings and kicking him off the platform. The parties to this lawsuit are you and Twitter. Trump's administration is not party to the lawsuit. Twitter will win the lawsuit because they have no obligation to keep you on their platform.

Previously I couldn't even sue Twitter. After Trump's EO, I can. Twitter does have to keep me on their platform if they don't want to be subject to lawsuits.

How many times does that have to be pounded through your thick skull?

So good to see you Bri Thought you were out looting

 

[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.

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.

You're crossing over into a very different realm here. Anti-trust laws have been severely weakened ever since Reagan and conservative judges are more likely than not to keep it that way. Microsoft was targeted for very specific behavior by tying browsers to operating systems. You don't get to break up a company just because they're too "big". Not anymore at least.

Furthermore, how do you even break up Twitter? There aren't constituent parts. It's just Twitter. It's just one website, one product.

That's not to say Twitter or any other company can't engage in anticompetitive behavior. If there's a story out there I'm willing to listen to it. But that has to be founded on actual behavior.

The section 230 reforms that conservatives have been pushing for are a far different story.

yet in the day, netscape was going to make the OS a "bios" and become the OS. that part made zero sense. having to make an OS without a media player made no sense and hey - it didn't have shit to do with a browser either, did it?

i started my 20 year Microsoft career in 1992. but please feel free to tell me what i experienced.

I'm sure you're quite knowledgable, but again this doesn't have much relevance to the current discussion.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

Previously the government hasn't been enforcing the law, moron. Now it will.

This is civil litigation, not criminal. Trump's administration has no role in it.

ROFL! God, the stuff you post gets dumber by the minute.

Again, this is civil litigation. So let's say hypothetically bripat9643 sues Twitter for hurting his feelings and kicking him off the platform. The parties to this lawsuit are you and Twitter. Trump's administration is not party to the lawsuit. Twitter will win the lawsuit because they have no obligation to keep you on their platform.

Previously I couldn't even sue Twitter. After Trump's EO, I can. Twitter does have to keep me on their platform if they don't want to be subject to lawsuits.

How many times does that have to be pounded through your thick skull?

So good to see you Bri Thought you were out looting

That's for Antifa and other leftwing scum.

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

Previously the government hasn't been enforcing the law, moron. Now it will.

This is civil litigation, not criminal. Trump's administration has no role in it.

ROFL! God, the stuff you post gets dumber by the minute.

Again, this is civil litigation. So let's say hypothetically bripat9643 sues Twitter for hurting his feelings and kicking him off the platform. The parties to this lawsuit are you and Twitter. Trump's administration is not party to the lawsuit. Twitter will win the lawsuit because they have no obligation to keep you on their platform.

Previously I couldn't even sue Twitter. After Trump's EO, I can. Twitter does have to keep me on their platform if they don't want to be subject to lawsuits.

How many times does that have to be pounded through your thick skull?

You could always sue Twitter. Lots of people have tried. They've always failed because the law is on their side. The EO doesn't change anything about your ability to sue Twitter.

 

[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.

You're crossing over into a very different realm here. Anti-trust laws have been severely weakened ever since Reagan and conservative judges are more likely than not to keep it that way. Microsoft was targeted for very specific behavior by tying browsers to operating systems. You don't get to break up a company just because they're too "big". Not anymore at least.

Furthermore, how do you even break up Twitter? There aren't constituent parts. It's just Twitter. It's just one website, one product.

That's not to say Twitter or any other company can't engage in anticompetitive behavior. If there's a story out there I'm willing to listen to it. But that has to be founded on actual behavior.

The section 230 reforms that conservatives have been pushing for are a far different story.

yet in the day, netscape was going to make the OS a "bios" and become the OS. that part made zero sense. having to make an OS without a media player made no sense and hey - it didn't have shit to do with a browser either, did it?

i started my 20 year Microsoft career in 1992. but please feel free to tell me what i experienced.

I'm sure you're quite knowledgable, but again this doesn't have much relevance to the current discussion.

it does when a company simply gets too big to control.

they look for ways to control it and re-establish competition.

now - the core issue in at least *our* conversation seems to more be - what to do moving forward. you think twitter is fine unchecked. i disagree esp when they use the "platform" designation to be biased OF WHICH sect 230 was not intended to promote nor allow.

that needs to be corrected.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

Previously the government hasn't been enforcing the law, moron. Now it will.

This is civil litigation, not criminal. Trump's administration has no role in it.

ROFL! God, the stuff you post gets dumber by the minute.

Again, this is civil litigation. So let's say hypothetically bripat9643 sues Twitter for hurting his feelings and kicking him off the platform. The parties to this lawsuit are you and Twitter. Trump's administration is not party to the lawsuit. Twitter will win the lawsuit because they have no obligation to keep you on their platform.

Previously I couldn't even sue Twitter. After Trump's EO, I can. Twitter does have to keep me on their platform if they don't want to be subject to lawsuits.

How many times does that have to be pounded through your thick skull?

You could always sue Twitter. Lots of people have tried. They've always failed because the law is on their side. The EO doesn't change anything about your ability to sue Twitter.

Section 230 protected them from lawsuits, dumbfuck.

Do you know the slightest thing about the subject we're discussing?

 

[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.

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.

You're crossing over into a very different realm here. Anti-trust laws have been severely weakened ever since Reagan and conservative judges are more likely than not to keep it that way. Microsoft was targeted for very specific behavior by tying browsers to operating systems. You don't get to break up a company just because they're too "big". Not anymore at least.

Furthermore, how do you even break up Twitter? There aren't constituent parts. It's just Twitter. It's just one website, one product.

That's not to say Twitter or any other company can't engage in anticompetitive behavior. If there's a story out there I'm willing to listen to it. But that has to be founded on actual behavior.

The section 230 reforms that conservatives have been pushing for are a far different story.

yet in the day, netscape was going to make the OS a "bios" and become the OS. that part made zero sense. having to make an OS without a media player made no sense and hey - it didn't have shit to do with a browser either, did it?

i started my 20 year Microsoft career in 1992. but please feel free to tell me what i experienced.

I'm sure you're quite knowledgable, but again this doesn't have much relevance to the current discussion.

it does when a company simply gets too big to control.

they look for ways to control it and re-establish competition.

now - the core issue in at least *our* conversation seems to more be - what to do moving forward. you think twitter is fine unchecked. i disagree esp when they use the "platform" designation to be biased OF WHICH sect 230 was not intended to promote nor allow.

that needs to be corrected.

Too big to control? What is this Russia? The government doesn't control companies.

I've got big problems with the government trying to force people to be "unbiased". Where else does government try to do that? They don't even do that with public resources like airwaves like they did with the fairness doctrine. That was abandoned because it's a disaster and completely unworkable.

I mean, what's the real point here? You say it's not about Trump, and if it's not that's great, but who is it about then?

 

[bripat9643]

Too big to control? What is this Russia? The government doesn't control companies.

I've got big problems with the government trying to force people to be "unbiased". Where else does government try to do that? They don't even do that with public resources like airwaves like they did with the fairness doctrine. That was abandoned because it's a disaster and completely unworkable.

I mean, what's the real point here? You say it's not about Trump, and if it's not that's great, but who is it about then?

Do wireless providers censor what people say on the telephone?

Your actual problem is that Twitter is no longer going to get away with censoring right wingers.

You're only fooling the gullible.

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

Previously the government hasn't been enforcing the law, moron. Now it will.

This is civil litigation, not criminal. Trump's administration has no role in it.

ROFL! God, the stuff you post gets dumber by the minute.

Again, this is civil litigation. So let's say hypothetically bripat9643 sues Twitter for hurting his feelings and kicking him off the platform. The parties to this lawsuit are you and Twitter. Trump's administration is not party to the lawsuit. Twitter will win the lawsuit because they have no obligation to keep you on their platform.

Previously I couldn't even sue Twitter. After Trump's EO, I can. Twitter does have to keep me on their platform if they don't want to be subject to lawsuits.

How many times does that have to be pounded through your thick skull?

You could always sue Twitter. Lots of people have tried. They've always failed because the law is on their side. The EO doesn't change anything about your ability to sue Twitter.

Section 230 protected them from lawsuits, dumbfuck.

Do you know the slightest thing about the subject we're discussing?

Yes, section 230 protected them from losing lawsuits. People still tried to sue them and continually lost because section 230 protects Twitter. Section 230 is the law. Trump's EO does not change the law. So Twitter will continue to sued after the EO and they will continue to win because the law hasn't changed.

 

[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.

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.

You're crossing over into a very different realm here. Anti-trust laws have been severely weakened ever since Reagan and conservative judges are more likely than not to keep it that way. Microsoft was targeted for very specific behavior by tying browsers to operating systems. You don't get to break up a company just because they're too "big". Not anymore at least.

Furthermore, how do you even break up Twitter? There aren't constituent parts. It's just Twitter. It's just one website, one product.

That's not to say Twitter or any other company can't engage in anticompetitive behavior. If there's a story out there I'm willing to listen to it. But that has to be founded on actual behavior.

The section 230 reforms that conservatives have been pushing for are a far different story.

yet in the day, netscape was going to make the OS a "bios" and become the OS. that part made zero sense. having to make an OS without a media player made no sense and hey - it didn't have shit to do with a browser either, did it?

i started my 20 year Microsoft career in 1992. but please feel free to tell me what i experienced.

I'm sure you're quite knowledgable, but again this doesn't have much relevance to the current discussion.

it does when a company simply gets too big to control.

they look for ways to control it and re-establish competition.

now - the core issue in at least *our* conversation seems to more be - what to do moving forward. you think twitter is fine unchecked. i disagree esp when they use the "platform" designation to be biased OF WHICH sect 230 was not intended to promote nor allow.

that needs to be corrected.

Too big to control? What is this Russia? The government doesn't control companies.

I've got big problems with the government trying to force people to be "unbiased". Where else does government try to do that? They don't even do that with public resources like airwaves like they did with the fairness doctrine. That was abandoned because it's a disaster and completely unworkable.

I mean, what's the real point here? You say it's not about Trump, and if it's not that's great, but who is it about then?

Do wireless providers censor what people say on the telephone?

Of course not. But that's not a public platform. That's a private phone call.

 

[Juicin]

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.

I very much doubt that lol

being removed from some of the biggest platforms on the internet isn't ever going to be good for you.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

Previously the government hasn't been enforcing the law, moron. Now it will.

This is civil litigation, not criminal. Trump's administration has no role in it.

ROFL! God, the stuff you post gets dumber by the minute.

Again, this is civil litigation. So let's say hypothetically bripat9643 sues Twitter for hurting his feelings and kicking him off the platform. The parties to this lawsuit are you and Twitter. Trump's administration is not party to the lawsuit. Twitter will win the lawsuit because they have no obligation to keep you on their platform.

Previously I couldn't even sue Twitter. After Trump's EO, I can. Twitter does have to keep me on their platform if they don't want to be subject to lawsuits.

How many times does that have to be pounded through your thick skull?

You could always sue Twitter. Lots of people have tried. They've always failed because the law is on their side. The EO doesn't change anything about your ability to sue Twitter.

Section 230 protected them from lawsuits, dumbfuck.

Do you know the slightest thing about the subject we're discussing?

Yes, section 230 protected them from losing lawsuits. People still tried to sue them and continually lost because section 230 protects Twitter. Section 230 is the law. Trump's EO does not change the law. So Twitter will continue to sued after the EO and they will continue to win because the law hasn't changed.

It protected them from being sued, period, moron. When you say they "lost" you mean a judge threw the case out. You're right the Trump's EO does not change the law. It will make sure the law is enforced. as a result Twitter will now lose time after time after time.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I very much doubt that lol

being removed from some of the biggest platforms on the internet isn't ever going to be good for you.

That's why he would have a very good case against Twitter and Google.

 

[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.

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.

You're crossing over into a very different realm here. Anti-trust laws have been severely weakened ever since Reagan and conservative judges are more likely than not to keep it that way. Microsoft was targeted for very specific behavior by tying browsers to operating systems. You don't get to break up a company just because they're too "big". Not anymore at least.

Furthermore, how do you even break up Twitter? There aren't constituent parts. It's just Twitter. It's just one website, one product.

That's not to say Twitter or any other company can't engage in anticompetitive behavior. If there's a story out there I'm willing to listen to it. But that has to be founded on actual behavior.

The section 230 reforms that conservatives have been pushing for are a far different story.

yet in the day, netscape was going to make the OS a "bios" and become the OS. that part made zero sense. having to make an OS without a media player made no sense and hey - it didn't have shit to do with a browser either, did it?

i started my 20 year Microsoft career in 1992. but please feel free to tell me what i experienced.

I'm sure you're quite knowledgable, but again this doesn't have much relevance to the current discussion.

it does when a company simply gets too big to control.

they look for ways to control it and re-establish competition.

now - the core issue in at least *our* conversation seems to more be - what to do moving forward. you think twitter is fine unchecked. i disagree esp when they use the "platform" designation to be biased OF WHICH sect 230 was not intended to promote nor allow.

that needs to be corrected.

Too big to control? What is this Russia? The government doesn't control companies.

I've got big problems with the government trying to force people to be "unbiased". Where else does government try to do that? They don't even do that with public resources like airwaves like they did with the fairness doctrine. That was abandoned because it's a disaster and completely unworkable.

I mean, what's the real point here? You say it's not about Trump, and if it's not that's great, but who is it about then?

Do wireless providers censor what people say on the telephone?

Of course not. But that's not a public platform. That's a private phone call.

You're immune to logic, dumbfuck.

 

[FA_Q2]

And those screaming at Trump for destroying the internet...

Trump and Biden both want to revoke Section 230, but for different reasons

The section of a 1996 law is often heralded as the "most important law" regarding the internet.

www.businessinsider.com

Get mad at Biden too.

My point remains a 1990s law no longer applies to today's, technology. Would seem BOTH candidates agree.

This should splode some heads.

Not really.

Both parties agree on one thing VERY consistently - the expansion of state power.

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

Of course. As I said, not really surprising that both parties want to control the social media platforms.

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

Previously the government hasn't been enforcing the law, moron. Now it will.

This is civil litigation, not criminal. Trump's administration has no role in it.

ROFL! God, the stuff you post gets dumber by the minute.

Again, this is civil litigation. So let's say hypothetically bripat9643 sues Twitter for hurting his feelings and kicking him off the platform. The parties to this lawsuit are you and Twitter. Trump's administration is not party to the lawsuit. Twitter will win the lawsuit because they have no obligation to keep you on their platform.

Previously I couldn't even sue Twitter. After Trump's EO, I can. Twitter does have to keep me on their platform if they don't want to be subject to lawsuits.

How many times does that have to be pounded through your thick skull?

You could always sue Twitter. Lots of people have tried. They've always failed because the law is on their side. The EO doesn't change anything about your ability to sue Twitter.

Section 230 protected them from lawsuits, dumbfuck.

Do you know the slightest thing about the subject we're discussing?

Yes, section 230 protected them from losing lawsuits. People still tried to sue them and continually lost because section 230 protects Twitter. Section 230 is the law. Trump's EO does not change the law. So Twitter will continue to sued after the EO and they will continue to win because the law hasn't changed.

It protected them from being sued, period, moron. When you say they "lost" you mean a judge threw the case out. You're right the Trump's EO does not change the law. It will make sure the law is enforced. as a result Twitter will now lose time after time after time.

Half right. Twitter could always be sued and the cases would be tossed because the law is on Twitter’s side. The judges were following the law which has not changed so the cases will continue to be tossed by judges.

 

[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.

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.

You're crossing over into a very different realm here. Anti-trust laws have been severely weakened ever since Reagan and conservative judges are more likely than not to keep it that way. Microsoft was targeted for very specific behavior by tying browsers to operating systems. You don't get to break up a company just because they're too "big". Not anymore at least.

Furthermore, how do you even break up Twitter? There aren't constituent parts. It's just Twitter. It's just one website, one product.

That's not to say Twitter or any other company can't engage in anticompetitive behavior. If there's a story out there I'm willing to listen to it. But that has to be founded on actual behavior.

The section 230 reforms that conservatives have been pushing for are a far different story.

yet in the day, netscape was going to make the OS a "bios" and become the OS. that part made zero sense. having to make an OS without a media player made no sense and hey - it didn't have shit to do with a browser either, did it?

i started my 20 year Microsoft career in 1992. but please feel free to tell me what i experienced.

I'm sure you're quite knowledgable, but again this doesn't have much relevance to the current discussion.

it does when a company simply gets too big to control.

they look for ways to control it and re-establish competition.

now - the core issue in at least *our* conversation seems to more be - what to do moving forward. you think twitter is fine unchecked. i disagree esp when they use the "platform" designation to be biased OF WHICH sect 230 was not intended to promote nor allow.

that needs to be corrected.

Too big to control? What is this Russia? The government doesn't control companies.

I've got big problems with the government trying to force people to be "unbiased". Where else does government try to do that? They don't even do that with public resources like airwaves like they did with the fairness doctrine. That was abandoned because it's a disaster and completely unworkable.

I mean, what's the real point here? You say it's not about Trump, and if it's not that's great, but who is it about then?

Do wireless providers censor what people say on the telephone?

Of course not. But that's not a public platform. That's a private phone call.

You're immune to logic, dumbfuck.

You’re devoid of logic.

 

[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.

You're crossing over into a very different realm here. Anti-trust laws have been severely weakened ever since Reagan and conservative judges are more likely than not to keep it that way. Microsoft was targeted for very specific behavior by tying browsers to operating systems. You don't get to break up a company just because they're too "big". Not anymore at least.

Furthermore, how do you even break up Twitter? There aren't constituent parts. It's just Twitter. It's just one website, one product.

That's not to say Twitter or any other company can't engage in anticompetitive behavior. If there's a story out there I'm willing to listen to it. But that has to be founded on actual behavior.

The section 230 reforms that conservatives have been pushing for are a far different story.

yet in the day, netscape was going to make the OS a "bios" and become the OS. that part made zero sense. having to make an OS without a media player made no sense and hey - it didn't have shit to do with a browser either, did it?

i started my 20 year Microsoft career in 1992. but please feel free to tell me what i experienced.

I'm sure you're quite knowledgable, but again this doesn't have much relevance to the current discussion.

it does when a company simply gets too big to control.

they look for ways to control it and re-establish competition.

now - the core issue in at least *our* conversation seems to more be - what to do moving forward. you think twitter is fine unchecked. i disagree esp when they use the "platform" designation to be biased OF WHICH sect 230 was not intended to promote nor allow.

that needs to be corrected.

Too big to control? What is this Russia? The government doesn't control companies.

I've got big problems with the government trying to force people to be "unbiased". Where else does government try to do that? They don't even do that with public resources like airwaves like they did with the fairness doctrine. That was abandoned because it's a disaster and completely unworkable.

I mean, what's the real point here? You say it's not about Trump, and if it's not that's great, but who is it about then?

It's not about a who, it's about a what.

Should a company be abpe to use their influence against their enemies?

I don't care who's doing what. I care we, have a foundation all can use evenly. We disagree this should be corrected then that is fine. At least we talked long enough to establish where our point of difference was focused.

 

[iceberg]

And those screaming at Trump for destroying the internet...

Trump and Biden both want to revoke Section 230, but for different reasons

The section of a 1996 law is often heralded as the "most important law" regarding the internet.

www.businessinsider.com

Get mad at Biden too.

My point remains a 1990s law no longer applies to today's, technology. Would seem BOTH candidates agree.

This should splode some heads.

Not really.

Both parties agree on one thing VERY consistently - the expansion of state power.

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

Of course. As I said, not really surprising that both parties want to control the social media platforms.

I don't want either to control it. But if they are going to cross over and start verifying information, that's more cnn, fox News and so forth. They should have to play by the rules others must.

 

[FA_Q2]

And those screaming at Trump for destroying the internet...

Trump and Biden both want to revoke Section 230, but for different reasons

The section of a 1996 law is often heralded as the "most important law" regarding the internet.

www.businessinsider.com

Get mad at Biden too.

My point remains a 1990s law no longer applies to today's, technology. Would seem BOTH candidates agree.

This should splode some heads.

Not really.

Both parties agree on one thing VERY consistently - the expansion of state power.

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

Of course. As I said, not really surprising that both parties want to control the social media platforms.

I don't want either to control it. But if they are going to cross over and start verifying information, that's more cnn, fox News and so forth. They should have to play by the rules others must.

One of my points is that they DO follow the exact same rules those other businesses must follow.