colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
- 1,465
It doesn't matter what I think. This is the circle of life in action.It's not about a who, it's about a what.Too big to control? What is this Russia? The government doesn't control companies.it does when a company simply gets too big to control.I'm sure you're quite knowledgable, but again this doesn't have much relevance to the current discussion.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?how is it any different than simply leveling the playing field as they've done so often in the past?The government forcing their own version of fairness on private citizens is a disaster waiting to happen.and that needs to change.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.If they censor based on their political biases, they will be sued. That's the bottom line.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.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 that's where it is headed.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.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.Sue for what? exactly?and twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them.No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorshipNo, 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?So a ToS invalidates law.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?Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.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.It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....
'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'
Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....
It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.
I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.
"Congress shall make no laws...."
Twitter is not responsible for what people post
You can't have it both ways.
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
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.
You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
i started my 20 year Microsoft career in 1992. but please feel free to tell me what i experienced.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Trying to be polite so not as to offend you, but you're dodging the question. I understand you care what Twitter does. That's not in question.
I'm questioning what gives you the right to force your concerns onto Twitter. The case against Microsoft was based a on principle that was entirely different set of market practices that suppressed competition. That's not what we're talking about here. If you want to make a case about Twitter's uncompetitive practices, of which I doubt either of us has much if any knowledge on, go for it. But that's not the subject of this thread, the executive order or section 230 of the CDA.
So does Twitter have rights and freedoms and are you deciding that you want to impinge on those rights and freedoms and if so for what purpose?
Twitter has influence, to be sure. But you know what, they worked their butts off to get that influence. Should we deprive them of their rights to use what they've created?
