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

[Kondor3]

...Do you want the "truth police" to come from big tech? This is the left for you, folks. There is no way to stop their horde.

Time for your Orange Baboon-God to put on his Big Girl Panties and take criticism and fact-checking like a Man for once, rather than a fragile-ego Princess.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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....

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

Why do you say that? If they engage in editorializing content, then they are a publisher. If they want to remain a platform for views and not become an editor, then they are fine to continue with the protection. The social media needs to decide who they want to be when they grow up and then they can be assigned appropriately.

They are not publishers. They are a platform and have every right to add context. They censored nothing.

They censor thousands of people very day. The terminate accounts. The delete posts. They shadow ban.

How ******* stupid are you?

You are definitely ******* stupid. They can do that just as a store can ban speech from their store and bar people from the store.

Except that WalMart doesn't present itself as an open-space platform for communication, now does it?

 

[iceberg]

“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.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.

but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.

social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.

No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.

Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.

Tough shit.

it has nothing to do with what trump likes or does not. to try and make it that simple is simply to feed your TDS and anti-trump "everything he does is" wrong limited mental capability.

you can't be both a platform and publisher. hell you're not supposed to own more than 3 "news" sites and that law has been pushed around also.

we need to separate these out. period.

and when you sell me space on your property, it's no longer private. they make money from my using their services, i am "paying" for that.

you can make this about trump if you like - but that's your own set limitation in what is really happening. this shit has been coming long before trump was in office. but hey - orange man bad n shit.

I have never been on the orange man bad bullshit train so try again.

you are saying trump is doing this and only he feels this way. he's acting out against those he doesn't like. that is "orange man bad" to me when trump is simply saying pick who you are so we can have you abide by those rules.

Of course it is Trump. We are discussing an EO. That means Trump. And no, he is not simply saying 'pick who you are' because Trump is being very selective when he addresses this type of thing. He only goes after those that go after him - one of the many things that IS bad about Trump.

what rules does social media need to follow now? who creates and enforces them? i don't see a whole lot. the wild west days of social media are over; ended by the push of the big boys in social media trying to make themselves more than they are.

The rules they fall under right now is more than sufficient. I actually am a small government guy so I do not not take government control over speech - which is EXACTLY what this is - lightly. I called the democrats out for the asinine bullshit authoritarian 'fairness doctrine' when they wanted to play content dictator. I will call Trump out on the exact same bullshit because that is all this is. Left wingers were incensed over the fact that the right virtually controls all political speech on the radio. Now right wingers are incensed that the left has a very out sized influence on social media platforms.

Here is the rub - this is how freedom works - people do and run their private property in ways that you may not like. That does not give the government the power to come in and ensure that they use it the way you may want them to.

they are politically motivated, use their platforms to dictate policy and cry foul when told to stop. now we are at a point where these companies, due to their own actions, can no longer enjoy the best of both and restrictions of neither.

they need to pick a side and go; or a new designation needs to come out for social media and rules of engagement set.

all there is to it and needs to happen with or without trump.

No, that certainly does not need to happen. I do not need nanny state government to come in and ensure that I have a space to operate on twitter or FB. When they editorialize (which labeling something as fact or fiction actually is so twitters action does not actually fall under 203) then sure they can be sued. Guess what - that is already the case. If they chose to censor then that is their own damn business - or at least it should be.

Interesting that the government who decided that twitter and FB cannot legally censor politicians as though poor powerless politicians need protection but now the government is also threatening to open them up to legal actions should they do anything else. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and demand that social media platforms act as free commercial outlets for politicians.

Government needs to get out of the business of regulating and controlling free association and speech and THAT is all there is to it.

Trump is taking the action yes.

The actions have been asked for before he took office.

People seem to refuse the big picture so they can ***** about the pieces.

To say the gov needs to get out of regulating speech is, only part of the problem. Social media needs to stop that shit also.

 

[berg80]

The actions have been asked for before he took office.

I think we can all agree any tweet from Trump, or anyone else, containing a lie should be flagged. The idea that doing so constrains free speech is ludicrous.

"First Amendment scholars said Friday morning that Mr. Trump and his allies had it backward and that he was the one trying to stifle speech that clashes with his own views.
“Fundamentally this dispute is about whether Twitter has the right to disagree with, criticize, and respond to the president,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “Obviously, it does. It is remarkable and truly chilling that the president and his advisers seem to believe otherwise.”
Revoking Section 230 protections would expose Twitter and other online platforms to such expansive potential legal vulnerability that it would undermine the fundamentals of their businesses and perhaps make it untenable to continue in anything resembling the current system in which they provide online marketplaces of ideas where almost anything goes.
Paradoxically, it would also remove the very legal standard that has allowed Mr. Trump to use Twitter so effectively to communicate with his 80 million followers no matter how incendiary, false and even defamatory his messages may be."

Twitter Places Warning on a Trump Tweet, Saying It Glorified Violence
The president’s tweet, which implied that protesters in Minneapolis could be shot, could not be viewed without reading a brief notice, and users were blocked from liking or replying to it.

www.nytimes.com
...................................................................................................
IOW, he is meddling with the platform he most uses to tell lies on.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

...Do you want the "truth police" to come from big tech? This is the left for you, folks. There is no way to stop their horde.

Time for your Orange Baboon-God to put on his Big Girl Panties and take criticism and fact-checking like a Man for once, rather than a fragile-ego Princess.

IT'S NOT ABOUT HIM!!!

MUCH MORE HAS HAPPENED TO ANYBODY WHO DOES NOT TOW THE COMMIE LINE WHILE THESE BIG TECH MOTHERFUCKERS GET TO HIDE BEHIND FEDERAL LIABILITY PROTECTION, AND YOU ******* KNOW IT!!!

.

 

[L.K.Eder]

this EO is basically just another whine by the child in the white house. shit like this happens when you let an internet troll impersonate a president.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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....

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

Why do you say that? If they engage in editorializing content, then they are a publisher. If they want to remain a platform for views and not become an editor, then they are fine to continue with the protection. The social media needs to decide who they want to be when they grow up and then they can be assigned appropriately.

Yippee. If Trumpy Bear gets his way, the floodgates are open for everyone he has every attacked or slandered on Twitter, to sue him. The Bidens, the Rich Family, Ambassador Stevens Family, and all of the women he called "liars" when they accused him of sexual assault, can now sue him, as can Joe Scarborough, Hillary Clinton, and Comey, Brennan, and everyone else he disparaged via twitter while firing.

TRUMP WILL BE BANKRUPTED BY THE SLANDER SUITS.

YOU do realize you dumb broad, that all those lies and slander from the left that was used to attack the President and his family can also be sued now? Is that what the ends have come to?

Nobody lied or slandered Trump and his criminal family. Here's the thing. It's not slander if it's true. That's why Trump never sued any of those women for slander, but Summer Zervos' slander suit against Trump is humming along quite nicely.

Here's the thing. Maybe you could get back to being ignorant about the actual topic, instead of just being freeform ignorant about random shit.

 

[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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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....

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

Why do you say that? If they engage in editorializing content, then they are a publisher. If they want to remain a platform for views and not become an editor, then they are fine to continue with the protection. The social media needs to decide who they want to be when they grow up and then they can be assigned appropriately.

They are not publishers. They are a platform and have every right to add context. They censored nothing.

They censor thousands of people very day. The terminate accounts. The delete posts. They shadow ban.

How ******* stupid are you?

You are definitely ******* stupid. They can do that just as a store can ban speech from their store and bar people from the store.

Except that WalMart doesn't present itself as an open-space platform for communication, now does it?

Actually, bakeries can't tell homosexuals that they don't want to bake them a cake of their design.

 

[mudwhistle]

“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.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.

but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.

social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.

No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.

Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.

Tough shit.

it has nothing to do with what trump likes or does not. to try and make it that simple is simply to feed your TDS and anti-trump "everything he does is" wrong limited mental capability.

you can't be both a platform and publisher. hell you're not supposed to own more than 3 "news" sites and that law has been pushed around also.

we need to separate these out. period.

and when you sell me space on your property, it's no longer private. they make money from my using their services, i am "paying" for that.

you can make this about trump if you like - but that's your own set limitation in what is really happening. this shit has been coming long before trump was in office. but hey - orange man bad n shit.

I have never been on the orange man bad bullshit train so try again.

you are saying trump is doing this and only he feels this way. he's acting out against those he doesn't like. that is "orange man bad" to me when trump is simply saying pick who you are so we can have you abide by those rules.

Of course it is Trump. We are discussing an EO. That means Trump. And no, he is not simply saying 'pick who you are' because Trump is being very selective when he addresses this type of thing. He only goes after those that go after him - one of the many things that IS bad about Trump.

what rules does social media need to follow now? who creates and enforces them? i don't see a whole lot. the wild west days of social media are over; ended by the push of the big boys in social media trying to make themselves more than they are.

The rules they fall under right now is more than sufficient. I actually am a small government guy so I do not not take government control over speech - which is EXACTLY what this is - lightly. I called the democrats out for the asinine bullshit authoritarian 'fairness doctrine' when they wanted to play content dictator. I will call Trump out on the exact same bullshit because that is all this is. Left wingers were incensed over the fact that the right virtually controls all political speech on the radio. Now right wingers are incensed that the left has a very out sized influence on social media platforms.

Here is the rub - this is how freedom works - people do and run their private property in ways that you may not like. That does not give the government the power to come in and ensure that they use it the way you may want them to.

they are politically motivated, use their platforms to dictate policy and cry foul when told to stop. now we are at a point where these companies, due to their own actions, can no longer enjoy the best of both and restrictions of neither.

they need to pick a side and go; or a new designation needs to come out for social media and rules of engagement set.

all there is to it and needs to happen with or without trump.

No, that certainly does not need to happen. I do not need nanny state government to come in and ensure that I have a space to operate on twitter or FB. When they editorialize (which labeling something as fact or fiction actually is so twitters action does not actually fall under 203) then sure they can be sued. Guess what - that is already the case. If they chose to censor then that is their own damn business - or at least it should be.

Interesting that the government who decided that twitter and FB cannot legally censor politicians as though poor powerless politicians need protection but now the government is also threatening to open them up to legal actions should they do anything else. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and demand that social media platforms act as free commercial outlets for politicians.

Government needs to get out of the business of regulating and controlling free association and speech and THAT is all there is to it.

You lying ******?

Trump has never done that.

Obama has. He sent the IRS after everyone.
He spied on everyone that was a threat to him.
He sent armies of lawyers after critics and ruined people's lives.
Ever hear of Roger Stone or Michael Flynn?

******* dumbass.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think we can all agree any tweet from Trump, or anyone else, containing a lie should be flagged.

And, WHO GETS TO DECIDE IF IT IS A LIE????

THE TRUTH POLICE????

You have no clear understand of free speech and the marketplace of ideas, do you???

The remedy for speech that is false IS COUNTER-SPEECH not EDITING or outright SILENCING the opposing voice.

You know why you want to silence the opposition?? Because your side can't win the debate.

GUTLESS!!!

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for social media companies to

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....

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

Why do you say that? If they engage in editorializing content, then they are a publisher. If they want to remain a platform for views and not become an editor, then they are fine to continue with the protection. The social media needs to decide who they want to be when they grow up and then they can be assigned appropriately.

Yippee. If Trumpy Bear gets his way, the floodgates are open for everyone he has every attacked or slandered on Twitter, to sue him. The Bidens, the Rich Family, Ambassador Stevens Family, and all of the women he called "liars" when they accused him of sexual assault, can now sue him, as can Joe Scarborough, Hillary Clinton, and Comey, Brennan, and everyone else he disparaged via twitter while firing.

TRUMP WILL BE BANKRUPTED BY THE SLANDER SUITS.

YOU do realize you dumb broad, that all those lies and slander from the left that was used to attack the President and his family can also be sued now? Is that what the ends have come to?

Do we get to sue Trump everytime he lies and thus tie up the courts until his death?

Depends. Can you learn to tell the difference between "lies" and "says things I don't like"?

and stop pretending facts only things you want to be. some people get very bad about that shit too. an expert is anyone who agrees with me.

Excuse me?

adding to what you said - not saying you are doing it. apologies for the mis-read.

Thought that might be the case. Carry on.

 

[FA_Q2]

“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.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.

but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.

social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.

No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.

Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.

Tough shit.

Sorry, douchebag, but reg 230 does not give sites like twitter the right to censor based on their arbitrary biases, and that is exactly what it is doing. No one is fooled by your moronic interpretation of that law. The law protects "common carriers," not propaganda sites like twitter.

...

Clearly you are unable to articulate a single coherent thought from that empty head of yours or you would not feel the need to pad your posts with meaningless personal attacks in every single one of them. What makes you think I am going to actually bother with a genuine coherent response in return? You are not worth any more time than what it took to type this out so why bother giving it to you?

Since being an idiot troll seems to be what you want to do, carry on.

 

[iceberg]

“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.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.

but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.

social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.

No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.

Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.

Tough shit.

it has nothing to do with what trump likes or does not. to try and make it that simple is simply to feed your TDS and anti-trump "everything he does is" wrong limited mental capability.

you can't be both a platform and publisher. hell you're not supposed to own more than 3 "news" sites and that law has been pushed around also.

we need to separate these out. period.

and when you sell me space on your property, it's no longer private. they make money from my using their services, i am "paying" for that.

you can make this about trump if you like - but that's your own set limitation in what is really happening. this shit has been coming long before trump was in office. but hey - orange man bad n shit.

I have never been on the orange man bad bullshit train so try again.

you are saying trump is doing this and only he feels this way. he's acting out against those he doesn't like. that is "orange man bad" to me when trump is simply saying pick who you are so we can have you abide by those rules.

Of course it is Trump. We are discussing an EO. That means Trump. And no, he is not simply saying 'pick who you are' because Trump is being very selective when he addresses this type of thing. He only goes after those that go after him - one of the many things that IS bad about Trump.

what rules does social media need to follow now? who creates and enforces them? i don't see a whole lot. the wild west days of social media are over; ended by the push of the big boys in social media trying to make themselves more than they are.

The rules they fall under right now is more than sufficient. I actually am a small government guy so I do not not take government control over speech - which is EXACTLY what this is - lightly. I called the democrats out for the asinine bullshit authoritarian 'fairness doctrine' when they wanted to play content dictator. I will call Trump out on the exact same bullshit because that is all this is. Left wingers were incensed over the fact that the right virtually controls all political speech on the radio. Now right wingers are incensed that the left has a very out sized influence on social media platforms.

Here is the rub - this is how freedom works - people do and run their private property in ways that you may not like. That does not give the government the power to come in and ensure that they use it the way you may want them to.

they are politically motivated, use their platforms to dictate policy and cry foul when told to stop. now we are at a point where these companies, due to their own actions, can no longer enjoy the best of both and restrictions of neither.

they need to pick a side and go; or a new designation needs to come out for social media and rules of engagement set.

all there is to it and needs to happen with or without trump.

No, that certainly does not need to happen. I do not need nanny state government to come in and ensure that I have a space to operate on twitter or FB. When they editorialize (which labeling something as fact or fiction actually is so twitters action does not actually fall under 203) then sure they can be sued. Guess what - that is already the case. If they chose to censor then that is their own damn business - or at least it should be.

Interesting that the government who decided that twitter and FB cannot legally censor politicians as though poor powerless politicians need protection but now the government is also threatening to open them up to legal actions should they do anything else. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and demand that social media platforms act as free commercial outlets for politicians.

Government needs to get out of the business of regulating and controlling free association and speech and THAT is all there is to it.

You lying ******?

Trump has never done that.

Obama has. He sent the IRS after everyone.
He spied on everyone that was a threat to him.
He sent armies of lawyers after critics and ruined people's lives.
Ever hear of Roger Stone or Michael Flynn?

******* dumbass.

Hell Obama sure limited the press and spied on them.

Trump is going through the system to enforce laws. Obama went around them.

 

[FA_Q2]

“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.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.

but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.

social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.

No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.

Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.

Tough shit.

it has nothing to do with what trump likes or does not. to try and make it that simple is simply to feed your TDS and anti-trump "everything he does is" wrong limited mental capability.

you can't be both a platform and publisher. hell you're not supposed to own more than 3 "news" sites and that law has been pushed around also.

we need to separate these out. period.

and when you sell me space on your property, it's no longer private. they make money from my using their services, i am "paying" for that.

you can make this about trump if you like - but that's your own set limitation in what is really happening. this shit has been coming long before trump was in office. but hey - orange man bad n shit.

I have never been on the orange man bad bullshit train so try again.

you are saying trump is doing this and only he feels this way. he's acting out against those he doesn't like. that is "orange man bad" to me when trump is simply saying pick who you are so we can have you abide by those rules.

Of course it is Trump. We are discussing an EO. That means Trump. And no, he is not simply saying 'pick who you are' because Trump is being very selective when he addresses this type of thing. He only goes after those that go after him - one of the many things that IS bad about Trump.

what rules does social media need to follow now? who creates and enforces them? i don't see a whole lot. the wild west days of social media are over; ended by the push of the big boys in social media trying to make themselves more than they are.

The rules they fall under right now is more than sufficient. I actually am a small government guy so I do not not take government control over speech - which is EXACTLY what this is - lightly. I called the democrats out for the asinine bullshit authoritarian 'fairness doctrine' when they wanted to play content dictator. I will call Trump out on the exact same bullshit because that is all this is. Left wingers were incensed over the fact that the right virtually controls all political speech on the radio. Now right wingers are incensed that the left has a very out sized influence on social media platforms.

Here is the rub - this is how freedom works - people do and run their private property in ways that you may not like. That does not give the government the power to come in and ensure that they use it the way you may want them to.

they are politically motivated, use their platforms to dictate policy and cry foul when told to stop. now we are at a point where these companies, due to their own actions, can no longer enjoy the best of both and restrictions of neither.

they need to pick a side and go; or a new designation needs to come out for social media and rules of engagement set.

all there is to it and needs to happen with or without trump.

No, that certainly does not need to happen. I do not need nanny state government to come in and ensure that I have a space to operate on twitter or FB. When they editorialize (which labeling something as fact or fiction actually is so twitters action does not actually fall under 203) then sure they can be sued. Guess what - that is already the case. If they chose to censor then that is their own damn business - or at least it should be.

Interesting that the government who decided that twitter and FB cannot legally censor politicians as though poor powerless politicians need protection but now the government is also threatening to open them up to legal actions should they do anything else. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and demand that social media platforms act as free commercial outlets for politicians.

Government needs to get out of the business of regulating and controlling free association and speech and THAT is all there is to it.

You lying ******?

Trump has never done that.

Obama has. He sent the IRS after everyone.
He spied on everyone that was a threat to him.
He sent armies of lawyers after critics and ruined people's lives.
Ever hear of Roger Stone or Michael Flynn?

******* dumbass.

Uh huh.

 

[FA_Q2]

“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.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.

but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.

social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.

No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.

Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.

Tough shit.

it has nothing to do with what trump likes or does not. to try and make it that simple is simply to feed your TDS and anti-trump "everything he does is" wrong limited mental capability.

you can't be both a platform and publisher. hell you're not supposed to own more than 3 "news" sites and that law has been pushed around also.

we need to separate these out. period.

and when you sell me space on your property, it's no longer private. they make money from my using their services, i am "paying" for that.

you can make this about trump if you like - but that's your own set limitation in what is really happening. this shit has been coming long before trump was in office. but hey - orange man bad n shit.

I have never been on the orange man bad bullshit train so try again.

you are saying trump is doing this and only he feels this way. he's acting out against those he doesn't like. that is "orange man bad" to me when trump is simply saying pick who you are so we can have you abide by those rules.

Of course it is Trump. We are discussing an EO. That means Trump. And no, he is not simply saying 'pick who you are' because Trump is being very selective when he addresses this type of thing. He only goes after those that go after him - one of the many things that IS bad about Trump.

what rules does social media need to follow now? who creates and enforces them? i don't see a whole lot. the wild west days of social media are over; ended by the push of the big boys in social media trying to make themselves more than they are.

The rules they fall under right now is more than sufficient. I actually am a small government guy so I do not not take government control over speech - which is EXACTLY what this is - lightly. I called the democrats out for the asinine bullshit authoritarian 'fairness doctrine' when they wanted to play content dictator. I will call Trump out on the exact same bullshit because that is all this is. Left wingers were incensed over the fact that the right virtually controls all political speech on the radio. Now right wingers are incensed that the left has a very out sized influence on social media platforms.

Here is the rub - this is how freedom works - people do and run their private property in ways that you may not like. That does not give the government the power to come in and ensure that they use it the way you may want them to.

they are politically motivated, use their platforms to dictate policy and cry foul when told to stop. now we are at a point where these companies, due to their own actions, can no longer enjoy the best of both and restrictions of neither.

they need to pick a side and go; or a new designation needs to come out for social media and rules of engagement set.

all there is to it and needs to happen with or without trump.

No, that certainly does not need to happen. I do not need nanny state government to come in and ensure that I have a space to operate on twitter or FB. When they editorialize (which labeling something as fact or fiction actually is so twitters action does not actually fall under 203) then sure they can be sued. Guess what - that is already the case. If they chose to censor then that is their own damn business - or at least it should be.

Interesting that the government who decided that twitter and FB cannot legally censor politicians as though poor powerless politicians need protection but now the government is also threatening to open them up to legal actions should they do anything else. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and demand that social media platforms act as free commercial outlets for politicians.

Government needs to get out of the business of regulating and controlling free association and speech and THAT is all there is to it.

You lying ******?

Trump has never done that.

Obama has. He sent the IRS after everyone.
He spied on everyone that was a threat to him.
He sent armies of lawyers after critics and ruined people's lives.
Ever hear of Roger Stone or Michael Flynn?

******* dumbass.

Hell Obama sure limited the press and spied on them.

Trump is going through the system to enforce laws. Obama went around them.

Obama's failure to follow the law does not have any bearing on Trumps actions being correct or incorrect.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He didn't which is why he was sued and it was negated...I believe it was the law he tried to enact about the children of illegals in the US.

THANKS FOR PROVING YOU ARE EITHER A BAD LIAR OR JUST IGNORANT.

Barry did impose DACA through EO, and it was NOT 'negated'....until President Trump put an end to the Un-Constitutional EO.

Trump corrected Obama's huge intentional assault on the US Constitution., pone of many scandalous, corrupt abuses of power Barry and his administration were engaged in.

Unlike Barry's, President Trump's EO is perfectly legal, Constitutional. It is also the right thing to do, snowflake.

Barry's EO has been upheld and supported by the Supreme Court. This EO is beyond the scope of Trumpy Bear's power and authority, and will not be upheld.

According to your extensive "knowledge" of American law provided by the Canadian tabloids? You'll excuse me if your remarks make me laugh only slightly less than your absolute confidence that you have something to say of value.

 

[mudwhistle]

“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.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.

but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.

social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.

No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.

Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.

Tough shit.

Sorry, douchebag, but reg 230 does not give sites like twitter the right to censor based on their arbitrary biases, and that is exactly what it is doing. No one is fooled by your moronic interpretation of that law. The law protects "common carriers," not propaganda sites like twitter.

...

Clearly you are unable to articulate a single coherent thought from that empty head of yours or you would not feel the need to pad your posts with meaningless personal attacks in every single one of them. What makes you think I am going to actually bother with a genuine coherent response in return? You are not worth any more time than what it took to type this out so why bother giving it to you?

Since being an idiot troll seems to be what you want to do, carry on.

So he kicked your ass and you want to leave with your tail tucked between you legs?

Mkay.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They are not publishers.

As usual, you are wrong...and stupid.

Evidence? Or is this just another case of "It takes someone who TRULY is wrong and stupid, to know one".

He provided just as much evidence for his assertion as you have for yours. More, in fact, because he has your assertions available as evidence.

 

[iceberg]

“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.





.

This is the appropriate remedy.

He had no right to shut them down, and his threats to do so were quite troubling.

But, this is every bit appropriate if they are going to continue to use Section 230 as both a sword and a shield. Either be a publication or be a provider.


.

No, its not.

They are not editorializing, they are censoring content on their own damn property. There is no reason that they should be liable for the bad comments of others on their site.

They sensor here (and they do so in a manner that can be construed to be political). Should I be able to sue usmessageboards because you libel me? This is a sick case of Trump using the government to control the public message.

you miss the entire point of Sec 230, don't you? it really applies TO boards like this. it shields them from being libel for the things we say on here. it should be there because they shouldn't be libel for what i say.

but if i post something illegal or against the rules of the forum, it can be deleted and i can be booted.

social media is so far beyond a bbs system it's idiotic to have people continue to compare the 2 as the same thing.

No, I do not miss the point and yes comment sections are quite similar to boards like this. Twitter and FB are quite different but the law applies to them in a similar manner quite well. Trump wants to target and remove 230 protections from specific companies that he does not like because they censor his content. That is not tenable. Nor are the 230 protections misplaced in how they are currently enforced. It does not protect statements from twitter and FB but does protect them from content that others place on their website exactly as the law was intended.

Certainly, the pervasiveness of social media platforms was not foreseen by lawmakers when creating the legislation but it certainly is serving its purpose as intended. The only reason outrage exists now in the political sphere is because some lawmakers and people do not like the decisions that private entities are making with their private property.

Tough shit.

it has nothing to do with what trump likes or does not. to try and make it that simple is simply to feed your TDS and anti-trump "everything he does is" wrong limited mental capability.

you can't be both a platform and publisher. hell you're not supposed to own more than 3 "news" sites and that law has been pushed around also.

we need to separate these out. period.

and when you sell me space on your property, it's no longer private. they make money from my using their services, i am "paying" for that.

you can make this about trump if you like - but that's your own set limitation in what is really happening. this shit has been coming long before trump was in office. but hey - orange man bad n shit.

I have never been on the orange man bad bullshit train so try again.

you are saying trump is doing this and only he feels this way. he's acting out against those he doesn't like. that is "orange man bad" to me when trump is simply saying pick who you are so we can have you abide by those rules.

Of course it is Trump. We are discussing an EO. That means Trump. And no, he is not simply saying 'pick who you are' because Trump is being very selective when he addresses this type of thing. He only goes after those that go after him - one of the many things that IS bad about Trump.

what rules does social media need to follow now? who creates and enforces them? i don't see a whole lot. the wild west days of social media are over; ended by the push of the big boys in social media trying to make themselves more than they are.

The rules they fall under right now is more than sufficient. I actually am a small government guy so I do not not take government control over speech - which is EXACTLY what this is - lightly. I called the democrats out for the asinine bullshit authoritarian 'fairness doctrine' when they wanted to play content dictator. I will call Trump out on the exact same bullshit because that is all this is. Left wingers were incensed over the fact that the right virtually controls all political speech on the radio. Now right wingers are incensed that the left has a very out sized influence on social media platforms.

Here is the rub - this is how freedom works - people do and run their private property in ways that you may not like. That does not give the government the power to come in and ensure that they use it the way you may want them to.

they are politically motivated, use their platforms to dictate policy and cry foul when told to stop. now we are at a point where these companies, due to their own actions, can no longer enjoy the best of both and restrictions of neither.

they need to pick a side and go; or a new designation needs to come out for social media and rules of engagement set.

all there is to it and needs to happen with or without trump.

No, that certainly does not need to happen. I do not need nanny state government to come in and ensure that I have a space to operate on twitter or FB. When they editorialize (which labeling something as fact or fiction actually is so twitters action does not actually fall under 203) then sure they can be sued. Guess what - that is already the case. If they chose to censor then that is their own damn business - or at least it should be.

Interesting that the government who decided that twitter and FB cannot legally censor politicians as though poor powerless politicians need protection but now the government is also threatening to open them up to legal actions should they do anything else. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and demand that social media platforms act as free commercial outlets for politicians.

Government needs to get out of the business of regulating and controlling free association and speech and THAT is all there is to it.

You lying ******?

Trump has never done that.

Obama has. He sent the IRS after everyone.
He spied on everyone that was a threat to him.
He sent armies of lawyers after critics and ruined people's lives.
Ever hear of Roger Stone or Michael Flynn?

******* dumbass.

Hell Obama sure limited the press and spied on them.

Trump is going through the system to enforce laws. Obama went around them.

Obama's failure to follow the law does not have any bearing on Trumps actions being correct or incorrect.

But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police.

Excusing one and attacking the other gets you said other.

 

[bripat9643]

The actions have been asked for before he took office.

I think we can all agree any tweet from Trump, or anyone else, containing a lie should be flagged. The idea that doing so constrains free speech is ludicrous.

"First Amendment scholars said Friday morning that Mr. Trump and his allies had it backward and that he was the one trying to stifle speech that clashes with his own views.
“Fundamentally this dispute is about whether Twitter has the right to disagree with, criticize, and respond to the president,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “Obviously, it does. It is remarkable and truly chilling that the president and his advisers seem to believe otherwise.”
Revoking Section 230 protections would expose Twitter and other online platforms to such expansive potential legal vulnerability that it would undermine the fundamentals of their businesses and perhaps make it untenable to continue in anything resembling the current system in which they provide online marketplaces of ideas where almost anything goes.
Paradoxically, it would also remove the very legal standard that has allowed Mr. Trump to use Twitter so effectively to communicate with his 80 million followers no matter how incendiary, false and even defamatory his messages may be."

Twitter Places Warning on a Trump Tweet, Saying It Glorified Violence
The president’s tweet, which implied that protesters in Minneapolis could be shot, could not be viewed without reading a brief notice, and users were blocked from liking or replying to it.

www.nytimes.com
...................................................................................................
IOW, he is meddling with the platform he most uses to tell lies on.

"First Amendment scholars said Friday morning that Mr. Trump and his allies had it backward and that he was the one trying to stifle speech that clashes with his own views."​

Utter horseshit, of course. If Twitter wants to be treated like an open carrier, than it's not free to correct members it disagrees with. That's what it means to be an open carrier: you don't take sides. Twitter obviously isn't an open carrier. Therefore it's going to lose its protection from lawsuits under reg 230.

Revoking Section 230 protections would expose Twitter and other online platforms to such expansive potential legal vulnerability that it would undermine the fundamentals of their businesses and perhaps make it untenable to continue in anything resembling the current system in which they provide online marketplaces of ideas where almost anything goes. ​

They should have considered that before they decided to get in the business of editing content. They don't serve as a marketplaces of ideas where almost anything goes. They only allow leftwing ideas. If losing 230 status means they swirl down the toilet, so much the better. Twitter has become nothing more than another leftwing propaganda organ.