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

[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.

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

Well then Trump's proposal and Biden wanting 230 protection gone means those guys simply don't know what they are, talking about.

 

[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?

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.

I’m not as convinced of Twitter prejudice as you are so don’t assume I am. For the sake of argument, I’m agreeing with you on this, but only for the sake of argument.

Why shouldn’t a company be able to use their influence? Isn’t that their right as Americans? Sorry you don’t like it but that’s freedom. You don’t always like how others exercise their freedom.

 

[White 6]

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.

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

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



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

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

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





.

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

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

Like the guy said in GhostBusters:
View attachment 342507

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

I have no idea what "it" YOU thought he was supposed to do.

His statement was kind of ambiguous. he did not mention anything related to what regulated trade practice he was talking about so it is unclear whether it has any effect or not and as I said the new regulations under the Communications Decency Act have not been rewritten or published yet, so I appreciate the nice commercial he gave of what his intent is, but it doesn't change much at this point, so I can thank him for the pronouncement but it is totally unclear what effect it will have or if the courts would go along with it. Didn't it take like 9 months of writing and rewriting his executive order for his travel ban against Muslim countries to have an effect because it had legal issues requiring re-writing multiple times by order of the courts?

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

How dumb are you when you get snarky about "the nice commercial he gave" as though it was supposed to be anything else? If you're unclear about the executive order and you haven't made any effort to get yourself clear on it, that's YOUR problem, not anyone else's.

How snarky? I thought is was pretty good snark. Thanks for noticing.
I just found it on White House .gov. Pretty much like in the commercial from the president. Don't look for any change soon, dud.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship


Infrastructure & Technology


Issued on: May 28, 2020

• 
  
• Share:
• 
  

All News

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






The White House

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. P

www.whitehouse.gov

I'm sure you did think it was "pretty good snark". You were wrong. You were also apparently wrong about what you thought executive orders were supposed to do.

Doesn't look like I am wrong about this one, after reading it. Doubt it will keep twitter from posting a fact checking link below his tweet if it contains lies.

If you think the executive order itself was supposed to keep Twitter from doing anything, then you are indeed wrong, and have no understanding whatsoever of what executive orders are or are for.

This one does not do much in the short term. I suspect twitter and facebook have lawyers that will deal with it if they thing it needs dealing with. I certainly do not think they deserve any protection from lawsuits that most businesses do not have. I did not know they had them until yesterday as I have never tweet and dropped facebook over a year ago.

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

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

So no, if you're a dumbass who was expecting an executive order was going to jerk a knot in Twitter's tail and make them toe the President's line - or who was expecting it to TRY to do those things, anyway - then you are so far off base that you're wandering around in a completely 'nother ballpark.

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

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

Dismissed.

View attachment 343895

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

Once you've conclusively proven to everyone that you're a third-rate bullshitter who never has anything substantial to say, THEN you'll be ignored entirely like all other blathering nutcases.

It is an opinion post so I gave opinion. Sorry your feeling were hurt. You love him. I don't. I simply pointed out how long it took to get a working travel ban as an example of his skill with Executive Orders. Surprised you are back. This was part of yesterday's post. You must be bored. Maybe you should go back and read the post from WhiteHouse.gov and re-evaluation how soon and to what extent what he said will really have the effect you desire. He is the one that said it. Maybe you really just don't trust him not to pull your chain, but feel you must defend, even if you don't believe. Sorry you are having a slow day. Maybe it will pick up. I thought you were through when you dismissed on the other earlier part of the thread.

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

But hey, if lying to yourself takes away the sting of being viewed with disdain . . . whatever keeps you going.

Well, It's mot like you disputed his proven difficulties with Executive Orders. You just did not like it that I said it out loud. What happened to all those alternative facts, your boy's girls talk about?

What the actual fuck are you blathering about at this point? You literally have switched over to some other conversation with no relation to anything in this one.

I just scrolled back up and looked. The subject was twitter and trumps executive order which will have little to no effect. Put down the pipe dude.

 

[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.

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.

You keep pretending that you haven't read a thing I have said. Either that, or you are incredibly stupid.

 

[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?

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.

I’m not as convinced of Twitter prejudice as you are so don’t assume I am. For the sake of argument, I’m agreeing with you on this, but only for the sake of argument.

Why shouldn’t a company be able to use their influence? Isn’t that their right as Americans? Sorry you don’t like it but that’s freedom. You don’t always like how others exercise their freedom.

They can use all the influence they want, so long as they don't mind being sued for millions of dollars.

 

[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.

You keep pretending that you haven't read a thing I have said. Either that, or you are incredibly stupid.

I’ve read as much as I can but the problem for you is that you have very few facts and therefore your posts are mostly rubbish

 

[bripat9643]

You're immune to logic, dumbfuck.

You’re devoid of logic.

How would you know?

 

[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.

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.

You keep pretending that you haven't read a thing I have said. Either that, or you are incredibly stupid.

I’ve read as much as I can but the problem for you is that you have very few facts and therefore your posts are mostly rubbish

Ironic!

 

[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.

You keep pretending that you haven't read a thing I have said. Either that, or you are incredibly stupid.

I’ve read as much as I can but the problem for you is that you have very few facts and therefore your posts are mostly rubbish

Ironic!

You’ve talked yourselves into circles. Here’s what you say. Twitter wins lawsuits. The law doesn’t change. Twitter loses lawsuits.

No logic.

 

[eddiew]

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.

they censored your pos trump?? How many tweets did the MF make

 

[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.

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.

You keep pretending that you haven't read a thing I have said. Either that, or you are incredibly stupid.

I’ve read as much as I can but the problem for you is that you have very few facts and therefore your posts are mostly rubbish

Ironic!

You’ve talked yourselves into circles. Here’s what you say. Twitter wins lawsuits. The law doesn’t change. Twitter loses lawsuits.

No logic.

You keep using the same brain dead arguments over and over. Spew, lose, repeat.

 

[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.

You keep pretending that you haven't read a thing I have said. Either that, or you are incredibly stupid.

I’ve read as much as I can but the problem for you is that you have very few facts and therefore your posts are mostly rubbish

Ironic!

You’ve talked yourselves into circles. Here’s what you say. Twitter wins lawsuits. The law doesn’t change. Twitter loses lawsuits.

No logic.

You keep using the same brain dead arguments over and over. Spew, lose, repeat.

Well, when they’re the correct argument, that tends to be repeated.

Like complaining that people keep arguing the world is round.

 

[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.

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.

You keep pretending that you haven't read a thing I have said. Either that, or you are incredibly stupid.

I’ve read as much as I can but the problem for you is that you have very few facts and therefore your posts are mostly rubbish

Ironic!

You’ve talked yourselves into circles. Here’s what you say. Twitter wins lawsuits. The law doesn’t change. Twitter loses lawsuits.

No logic.

You keep using the same brain dead arguments over and over. Spew, lose, repeat.

Well, when they’re the correct argument, that tends to be repeated.

Like complaining that people keep arguing the world is round.

How can an argument that ignores the facts be correct? You don't even know what the law says.

 

[jc456]

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

That’s why the EO. So you did notice

 

[jc456]

You’ve talked yourselves into circles. Here’s what you say. Twitter wins lawsuits. The law doesn’t change. Twitter loses lawsuits

Now they’ll lose with EO. Logic

 

[colfax_m]

You’ve talked yourselves into circles. Here’s what you say. Twitter wins lawsuits. The law doesn’t change. Twitter loses lawsuits

Now they’ll lose with EO. Logic

The EO doesn’t change law.

 

[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.

I’m not as convinced of Twitter prejudice as you are so don’t assume I am. For the sake of argument, I’m agreeing with you on this, but only for the sake of argument.

Why shouldn’t a company be able to use their influence? Isn’t that their right as Americans? Sorry you don’t like it but that’s freedom. You don’t always like how others exercise their freedom.

It doesn't matter what I think. This is the circle of life in action.

Things are going to change whether either one ulof us agree, or not.

I'm fully aware you don't give a shit what Twitter does. I do care. After that it really doesn't matter because our fundamental point of view, is different.

And I know you disagree with the example, but Microsoft wasn't allowed to use its market dominance in such a fashion.

We will see from here but both our president and the democratic nominee agree with my point of view.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Twitter has that right as spelled out in their terms of service.

Terrorist recruiting posts, posts about false COVID tests, harassing posts, posts showing violence and illegal acts etc are all deleted on a regular basis

Trumps post that he has his tits in a twist over was not edited whatsoever

 

[Blues Man]

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

How is not censoring anyone a "disaster?" that's how twitter used to operate.

Twitter censors all the time.

They even tell users what they will censor

 

[Blues Man]

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.

That's a poor comparison you pay the cell phone provider for the service and your conversations over that device are considered private.

Twitter does not charge users and anything posted on the public forum is not private.

You cell phone provider is more like your ISP in that sense.