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

[Thinker101]

Let the lawsuits begin!!!

 

[bripat9643]

“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.

You believe your entitled to be treated with respect? Why is that when you post such obvious swill on this board? When you post nothing but lies and propaganda, you have earned the title "douchebag."

 

[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 fucker?

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?

Fucking 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.

I don't but, again, Obama's actions are not relevant in changing this law or writing that EO. They are simply not pertinent and I will not justify current actions of this presidency because Obama acted like an authoritarian.

Obama CLEARLY and REGULARLY used the long arm of government to attack the free press. Because Obama 'got away' with those actions, would you excuse the Trump presidency if he were to tap the phones of reporters to arrest sources?

Can you actually claim that your statement 'But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police' is consistent with the answer you give to the question above?

 

[bripat9643]

“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 fucker?

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?

Fucking 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.

It has a bearing on whether anyone should waste their time reading your swill.

 

[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.

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

Mkay.

Sure, now go away while I engage with someone that actually possesses a brain.

 

[bripat9643]

“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 fucker?

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?

Fucking 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.

I don't but, again, Obama's actions are not relevant in changing this law or writing that EO. They are simply not pertinent and I will not justify current actions of this presidency because Obama acted like an authoritarian.

Obama CLEARLY and REGULARLY used the long arm of government to attack the free press. Because Obama 'got away' with those actions, would you excuse the Trump presidency if he were to tap the phones of reporters to arrest sources?

Can you actually claim that your statement 'But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police' is consistent with the answer you give to the question above?

Trump isn't breaking the law, but you attack him. Obama did break the law, but you have nothing to say about that. Why should anyone pay attention to your swill?

 

[WEATHER53]

Let’s see how a two way street of free expression works

 

[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 fucker?

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?

Fucking 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.

Actually it does....when you folks start accusing Trump of things Obama did and much worse. Trump isn't guilty of anything but triggering Snowflakes.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

We'll see how much of a "whine" it is when Twitter goes bankrupt from lawsuit.s

 

[bripat9643]

...Yes, hopefully, so your commie overloards who own and control these "platform" owners can continue to silence opposing voices and act like "truth" nazis. Lovely.

Nope. So that ignorant, arrogant, unthinking creatures such as your Orange Demigod cannot use such media to mislead their constituencies or to stoke violence.

In other words, exactly what he said.

 

[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

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.

How is enforcing the terms of Regulation 230 unconstitutional?

The Congress has to change the laws. The FCC and FTC have no regulatory power over the use of the internet.

No change in the laws is required. Trump is enforcing an existing regulation.

It is section 230. Section 230 does not provide for any regulation. It would have to be changed by law.

You don't know much about the US government, if you think there's ANY law that doesn't end up providing for regulation.

All cynicism aside, he's only directed the appropriate departments to look at the situation. If they come back and tell him there's nothing they can do, then he'll move on to the next plan. It's not like he's Obama, after all.

 

[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

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.

This is a big lie. Everyone is open to liable on what they post. It was Twitter that was shielded. My gawd you're stupid.

*wince* It's "libel", not "liable".

But you're right, she's pretty famous for her extensive stupidity.

 

[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

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.

You're right, they censored nothing. They editorialized. they added content. Thats the problem. Every post of yours is incorrect or a lie. Learn something please!

No, they have also censored, by way of banning people for speech they don't like.

 

[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

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.

This is a big lie. Everyone is open to liable on what they post. It was Twitter that was shielded. My gawd you're stupid.

You have to forgive her....she's Canadian.

Why does that require anyone to forgive her?

 

[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

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.

This is a big lie. Everyone is open to liable on what they post. It was Twitter that was shielded. My gawd you're stupid.

You have to forgive her....she's Canadian.

Then she should go post in the Canada Political section. Cuz, damn, she's always wrong and doesn't understand anything.

That's what I keep saying, but does she listen?

 

[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 fucker?

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?

Fucking 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.

I don't but, again, Obama's actions are not relevant in changing this law or writing that EO. They are simply not pertinent and I will not justify current actions of this presidency because Obama acted like an authoritarian.

Obama CLEARLY and REGULARLY used the long arm of government to attack the free press. Because Obama 'got away' with those actions, would you excuse the Trump presidency if he were to tap the phones of reporters to arrest sources?

Can you actually claim that your statement 'But if one party is not held in check you can't expect the, other party to self police' is consistent with the answer you give to the question above?

Imtalking big picture, not every move.

However, while Trump is at war with the media, as far as I know, he's, not spying on them. Outside that actions are very similar.

Now, if we are saying Trump's attacks on Twitter and Facebook are attacks on "the media" then are you saying these entities are in fact "media" and not "platforms"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Twitter should not be protected. They shadowban, stifle speech and even delete followers at their own discretion while allowing communists to do as they please, spread hatred against America and even some to threaten the lives of Trump supporters without any problem.

Precisely what special protections should they have for all of this? What makes twitter "special", from any other business?

Twitter is not the government. They can stifle speech and bar people because it is their platform.

So I can refuse to bake you a cake because of your sexuality? Of course not. So, why should someones speech be banned on their platform because of their political leaning?

One might argue they are helping the communists. For that reason alone, they are a National Security threat. At the very least, they are a threat to the current government which was duly elected. In the end, when are threats to a government representing a nation also threats to the nation itself?

My position and healthy debating is a big reason I'm sure my account was deemed a "bot". An account I confirmed two times prior (but now for some reason they go silent)! It's their safe, broad term to apply to anyone they wish to silence. How could I possibly represent bot activities?

If America isn't careful, every major institution will have little value other than to do the bidding of what the communist want done within your borders. Major institutions and enforcement agencies won't be looking after U.S interests anymore. Id argue many of them who are supposed to be intelligent, impressive people, don't even understand this. It's as if all the history books in the world have been burned

Just look at where Canada was headed and some other European countries, we have had a destroyed economy and lacked civil liberty for decades. Is this what you so desire in exchange for a little "Big Brother" to comfort you?

There is nothing wrong with communism, or socialism.
It is just that anything effecting us should be as local as possible, so that we have more control and input.
Communism and socialism only are a problem when centraized.

Communism and socialism are always problems. They don't work on a large scale, and they don't work on a small scale.

They don't work any time there are actual humans involved.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not sure I totally understand, but my take is this may be a good thing.

For example, I watched a great movie by Michael Moore on YouTube called "Planet of the Humans".
But now YouTube has pulled it.
That is illegal censorship.
They should not have been able to do that.
They should be sued or fined.
I think this new EO may allow that?
I hope so.

How do you know YouTube pulled it? Michael Moore could of asked for it to be removed. A private company can censor all they want. Government can't censor.

I believe the argument is that if they present themselves as an open-source platform, and then start picking and choosing who does and doesn't get to post there on the basis of political views, they are no longer an open-source platform, but a publisher like - for example - the NY Times, which certainly doesn't let just anyone write articles for their paper.

 

[Ken Mac]

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....

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.

You're right, they censored nothing. They editorialized. they added content. Thats the problem. Every post of yours is incorrect or a lie. Learn something please!

No, they have also censored, by way of banning people for speech they don't like.

I was speaking in reference to Trump's tweets. I know they have censored. Google is famous for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

“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 are quite correct about "bad comments", if what you're talking about is foul language, racist remarks, threats of violence, harassment and stalking . . . if what you mean by "bad comments" is "opinions I don't agree with", that's something else. And by picking and choosing who can and can't post and what they can and can't post, they are actually MAKING themselves liable, arguably, for the content.

Who is censoring according to political content on USMB? Cite an example.