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

[Moonglow]

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

It is when they are calling you a liar.

Then sue for libel and see what the courts think

And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them

You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.

Oops. Der it is.

I have done no such thing.

They are not a platform and never have been.

The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.

Platforms Are Not Publishers

The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.

www.theatlantic.com

The world is wrong. Just like you are.

If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.

So what's your problem then? Other than total ignorance of the topic.

Wow you are too thick to realize I don't have a problem with what Twitter did.

I just happen to actually know the definition of censorship and fact checking is not censorship.

Definition of CENSORSHIP

the institution, system, or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively; the office, power, or term of a Roman censor… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of CENSOR

a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as; an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter; an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

now what part of Trump post was suppressed. deleted, redacted or omitted?

Wow you are too thick to understand we are way beyond Trump and well into defining rules of engagement for social media.

News publishers have rules to follow and avenues of recourse for grievences.

Platforms not so much.

NOW IF YOU MUST "TRUMP" THIS UP all Trump did was remove 230 protection.

Platform protections.

Now you claim Twitter is NOT a platform, ergo what Trump did has zero impact.

So Beavis what the fuck you bitching about? Trump didn't change a thing to you.

Back to big picture... No social media has no "category" today so 1990s rules have been used. It is time we write, rules of play for social media.

I never claimed Twitter is not a platform nor have I claimed Twitter is a publisher

I have always claimed that Twitter can do whatever it wants in regards to commenting on the posts of its users, banning users, deleting posts etc because they are a private company and can make any rules they want for those who they allow to use their service.

Twitter isn’t legally a platform or a publisher. They’re both and neither. These terms are meaningless and have no legal utility in this situation. People are tossing them around because they sound right and think they know what they’re talking about.

If you want to use the terminology the law actually uses, Twitter is a provider of an interactive computer service which means it bears no liability for user submitted posts. Period. No qualifications.

And to protect their reputation and liability they may edit any material being posted.

 

[easyt65]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

 

[Blues Man]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.

Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users.

So what do they need protection from?

 

[easyt65]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

and twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them.

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Nice diatribe......It's still been done. Their 302 Protection is going...going...gone.

 

[easyt65]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.

Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users.

So what do they need protection from?

I agree they don't need it...so why are snowflakes wetting themselves about the President voiding giving them selective 302 Protection?

 

[colfax_m]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

You’re so well informed on the issue you can’t even name the section right.

Go home grandpa. Leave the internet to the next generation.

 

[Blues Man]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

and twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them.

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Nice diatribe......It's still been done. Their 302 Protection is going...going...gone.

Diatribe really?

3 short sentences, 2 of them being questions, is a diatribe?

Look up the word and while you're at it look up the words censor and censorship

And you say their protection is gone as if you are giving me a gotcha. I never said Twitter should have government protection but rather that it is completely unnecessary because Twitter cannot violate anyone's First amendment rights.

Libel laws probably apply but Twitter is not responsible for the posts of its users and can only be sued for libel for what the owners or employees of the company post

 

[jc456]

The world is wrong. Just like you are.

now everyone but you is wrong? hahahahahaha

 

[Blues Man]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.

Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users.

So what do they need protection from?

I agree they don't need it...so why are snowflakes wetting themselves about the President voiding giving them selective 302 Protection?

How the fuck should I know.

The EO is completely meaningless.

If Trump knew anything about the Constitution he would know that

 

[Blues Man]

The world is wrong. Just like you are.

now everyone but you is wrong? hahahahahaha

So you think the Atlantic Monthly speaks for the entire world too?

 

[easyt65]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

and twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them.

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Nice diatribe......It's still been done. Their 302 Protection is going...going...gone.

Diatribe really?

3 short sentences, 2 of them being questions, is a diatribe?

Look up the word and while you're at it look up the words censor and censorship

And you say their protection is gone as if you are giving me a gotcha. I never said Twitter should have government protection but rather that it is completely unnecessary because Twitter cannot violate anyone's First amendment rights.

Libel laws probably apply but Twitter is not responsible for the posts of its users and can only be sued for libel for what the owners or employees of the company post

Wow....that was a long response to my saying I agree with you and that Twitter has no need and thus should have no 302 Protection. No 'gottcha'....you paranoid? I agreed with you.

 

[colfax_m]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.

Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users.

So what do they need protection from?

I agree they don't need it...so why are snowflakes wetting themselves about the President voiding giving them selective 302 Protection?

How the fuck should I know.

The EO is completely meaningless.

If Trump knew anything about the Constitution he would know that

Section 230 of the CDA makes Twitter not responsible for the postings of their users. If someone posts something defamatory, Twitter cannot be sued. Without it, Twitter wouldn't exist.

Trump is trying to take that away which will ruin Twitter. It's the political equivalent of throwing the frisbee on the roof and going home because no one wants to play with you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

It is when they are calling you a liar.

Then sue for libel and see what the courts think

And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them

You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.

Oops. Der it is.

I have done no such thing.

They are not a platform and never have been.

The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.

Platforms Are Not Publishers

The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.

www.theatlantic.com

The world is wrong. Just like you are.

If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.

So what's your problem then? Other than total ignorance of the topic.

Wow you are too thick to realize I don't have a problem with what Twitter did.

I just happen to actually know the definition of censorship and fact checking is not censorship.

Definition of CENSORSHIP

the institution, system, or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively; the office, power, or term of a Roman censor… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of CENSOR

a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as; an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter; an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

now what part of Trump post was suppressed. deleted, redacted or omitted?

Wow you are too thick to understand we are way beyond Trump and well into defining rules of engagement for social media.

News publishers have rules to follow and avenues of recourse for grievences.

Platforms not so much.

NOW IF YOU MUST "TRUMP" THIS UP all Trump did was remove 230 protection.

Platform protections.

Now you claim Twitter is NOT a platform, ergo what Trump did has zero impact.

So Beavis what the fuck you bitching about? Trump didn't change a thing to you.

Back to big picture... No social media has no "category" today so 1990s rules have been used. It is time we write, rules of play for social media.

I never claimed Twitter is not a platform nor have I claimed Twitter is a publisher

I have always claimed that Twitter can do whatever it wants in regards to commenting on the posts of its users, banning users, deleting posts etc because they are a private company and can make any rules they want for those who they allow to use their service.

Twitter isn’t legally a platform or a publisher. They’re both and neither. These terms are meaningless and have no legal utility in this situation. People are tossing them around because they sound right and think they know what they’re talking about.

If you want to use the terminology the law actually uses, Twitter is a provider of an interactive computer service which means it bears no liability for user submitted posts. Period. No qualifications.

Right, Twitter is an information content provider, like you said. Twitter is no longer an interactive computer service.

You seem to have completely ignored (or don't understand) what brought this statute about, why it became necessary, and its context.



From 230:

(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, oraccess software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to theInternet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.


Here is where Twitter gets in trouble:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.


Twitter has become the information content provider when Twitter edits the content of other information content providers for material that is not "offensive."


Here is where the statue gives protection from civil liability:

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]


This statute must be read in conjunction with the previous case law that made it necessary.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co.

The Stratton court held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content created by its users because it exercised editorial control over the messages on their bulletin boards in three ways: 1) by posting Content Guidelines for users, 2) by enforcing those guidelines with "Board Leaders", and 3) by utilizing screening software designed to remove offensive language.[1]
Now, go back to the "civil liability" and "good Samaritan" sections

As long as you don't act like an information content provider (see Prodigy - editing posts), you will have no civil liability. But you will not be deemed an information content provider if you if you only remove content that is obscene (subsection to good Samaritan)

Have you read The Prodigy case?

It has become grotesquely obvious that if you have, you don't understand what the court did. It also appears that you don't understand how prodigy relates to 230.


.

 

[colfax_m]

Twitter has become the information content provider when Twitter edits the content of other information content providers for material that is not "offensive."

They're not editing other people's content. If they were to start deleting phrases to alter meaning or otherwise having a substantive effect on the content, they would be liable for that content;

But they're not doing that.

Yes, I've read about a dozen cases. You don't know what you're talking about.

The Prodigy case is why section 230 exists in the first place, to correct a problem with the legal framework for libel.

 

[Faun]

Want this law to go away then message boards like this one will cease to exist. That is just a fact.

1. It is not a 'fact' - it is your subjective opinion.

2. Is this site covered by 302 protection?

If USMB is not have 302 protection and yet still exists that would definitely prove #1 is true.

WTF is "302 protection?"

 

[iceberg]

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

It is when they are calling you a liar.

Then sue for libel and see what the courts think

And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them

You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.

Oops. Der it is.

I have done no such thing.

They are not a platform and never have been.

The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.

Platforms Are Not Publishers

The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.

www.theatlantic.com

The world is wrong. Just like you are.

If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.

So what's your problem then? Other than total ignorance of the topic.

Wow you are too thick to realize I don't have a problem with what Twitter did.

I just happen to actually know the definition of censorship and fact checking is not censorship.

Definition of CENSORSHIP

the institution, system, or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively; the office, power, or term of a Roman censor… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of CENSOR

a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as; an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter; an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

now what part of Trump post was suppressed. deleted, redacted or omitted?

Wow you are too thick to understand we are way beyond Trump and well into defining rules of engagement for social media.

News publishers have rules to follow and avenues of recourse for grievences.

Platforms not so much.

NOW IF YOU MUST "TRUMP" THIS UP all Trump did was remove 230 protection.

Platform protections.

Now you claim Twitter is NOT a platform, ergo what Trump did has zero impact.

So Beavis what the fuck you bitching about? Trump didn't change a thing to you.

Back to big picture... No social media has no "category" today so 1990s rules have been used. It is time we write, rules of play for social media.

I never claimed Twitter is not a platform nor have I claimed Twitter is a publisher

I have always claimed that Twitter can do whatever it wants in regards to commenting on the posts of its users, banning users, deleting posts etc because they are a private company and can make any rules they want for those who they allow to use their service.

well now you're just a liar.

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

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[iceberg]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

you clearly are devoid of any and all anti-trust history in the owrld.

 

[bripat9643]

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

It is when they are calling you a liar.

Then sue for libel and see what the courts think

And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them

You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.

Oops. Der it is.

I have done no such thing.

They are not a platform and never have been.

The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.

Platforms Are Not Publishers

The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.

www.theatlantic.com

The world is wrong. Just like you are.

If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.

So what's your problem then? Other than total ignorance of the topic.

Wow you are too thick to realize I don't have a problem with what Twitter did.

I just happen to actually know the definition of censorship and fact checking is not censorship.

Definition of CENSORSHIP

the institution, system, or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively; the office, power, or term of a Roman censor… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of CENSOR

a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as; an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter; an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

now what part of Trump post was suppressed. deleted, redacted or omitted?

Wow you are too thick to understand we are way beyond Trump and well into defining rules of engagement for social media.

News publishers have rules to follow and avenues of recourse for grievences.

Platforms not so much.

NOW IF YOU MUST "TRUMP" THIS UP all Trump did was remove 230 protection.

Platform protections.

Now you claim Twitter is NOT a platform, ergo what Trump did has zero impact.

So Beavis what the fuck you bitching about? Trump didn't change a thing to you.

Back to big picture... No social media has no "category" today so 1990s rules have been used. It is time we write, rules of play for social media.

I never claimed Twitter is not a platform nor have I claimed Twitter is a publisher

I have always claimed that Twitter can do whatever it wants in regards to commenting on the posts of its users, banning users, deleting posts etc because they are a private company and can make any rules they want for those who they allow to use their service.

And they can be sued if they do, moron. What part of that don't you get?

 

[Blues Man]

And what consequences are those other than libel? And if Twitter user commits libel then that is the person from whom to seek redress.

Twitter cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

Thank you for making the argument that Twitter has no need for 302 Protection. I could not agree with you more.

They don't need it because Twitter is not capable of violating anyone's First Amendment rights.

Twitter is also not responsible for the statements made by its users.

So what do they need protection from?

I agree they don't need it...so why are snowflakes wetting themselves about the President voiding giving them selective 302 Protection?

How the fuck should I know.

The EO is completely meaningless.

If Trump knew anything about the Constitution he would know that

Section 230 of the CDA makes Twitter not responsible for the postings of their users. If someone posts something defamatory, Twitter cannot be sued. Without it, Twitter wouldn't exist.

Trump is trying to take that away which will ruin Twitter. It's the political equivalent of throwing the frisbee on the roof and going home because no one wants to play with you.

Sure it could exist because Twitter has the right to edit, redact or refuse to post anything written by its users. Just like the way this site does

 

[colfax_m]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

you clearly are devoid of any and all anti-trust history in the owrld.

Anti-trust isn't in play here. There may be anti-trust violations with regard to various media platforms and other internet companies, but that is a far different and more technical than what is being made right now.