trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[Fort Fun Indiana]

section 230?
BTW, when you see tweets that say the earth is flat, twitter has no ground to ban anyone based on opinions.

Of course that's also 100% wrong, if the stated opinions violate their TOS. And really, its even more wrong in light of the fact that Twitter can ban any account they like for any or no reason.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hahaha bripat9643 insisting people have a right to post on Twitter.

Normally, this is where the angry shitgibbon bripat9643 would swoop in and demand the poster show where the constitution says exactly that, word for word.

Something tells me that won't happen this time, though.

 

[dblack]

Hahaha bripat9643 insisting people have a right to post on Twitter.

It's cause Twitter is a monopoly see, and section 230, and common carrier and some shit. We don't have the luxury of protecting freedom. The partisans are pissing.

 

[Lakhota]

BREAKING — Twitter’s CFO says Trump's ban is PERMANENT, even if he runs for office again.

Twitter says Trump ban is permanent – even if he runs for office again​

 

[Lastamender]

BREAKING — Twitter’s CFO says Trump's ban is PERMANENT, even if he runs for office again.

View attachment 547884

Twitter says Trump ban is permanent – even if he runs for office again​

Translation= we are still scared shitless of the truth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Translation= we are still scared shitless of the truth.

Delusional cultist, soothing himself

 

[Lastamender]

Delusional cultist, soothing himself

Troll^ dying to say something.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Troll^ dying to say something.

What's that? Couldn't hear you from way over there in the corner with the astrologists and the fortune tellers. Nutbag city...

 

[bripat9643]

Of course that's also 100% wrong, if the stated opinions violate their TOS. And really, its even more wrong in light of the fact that Twitter can ban any account they like for any or no reason.

Their terms of service are fraudulent. They don't even follow them, so why do you keep bleating about them?

 

[bripat9643]

BREAKING — Twitter’s CFO says Trump's ban is PERMANENT, even if he runs for office again.

View attachment 547884

Twitter says Trump ban is permanent – even if he runs for office again​

You mean "especially if he runs for office again." Twitter knows what will happen to it if Trump gets reelected.

 

[bripat9643]

It's cause Twitter is a monopoly see, and section 230, and common carrier and some shit. We don't have the luxury of protecting freedom. The partisans are pissing.

So freedom means having the power of government protected monopoly to censor people you disagree with.

Who do you think you're fooling with this horseshit, NAZI?

 

[bripat9643]

Of course that's also 100% wrong, if the stated opinions violate their TOS. And really, its even more wrong in light of the fact that Twitter can ban any account they like for any or no reason.

Where does the Constitution mention queer marriage?

 

[dblack]

So freedom means having the power of government protected monopoly to censor people you disagree with.

Who do you think you're fooling with this horseshit, NAZI?

Nazis!!!

 

[Who_Me?]

Why is this bloated narcissistic, dolt still in the news? The more attention, bad or good, that you give this pathetic orange dufus the more he seeks attention.

 

[Rigby5]

Moron, the federal government does not own the Internet. And common carriers charge a fee for their services while tweeting is free. As always, you prove you have no idea what the **** you're talking about.

Sorry, that is incredibly ignorant.
The US federal government created, owns, and maintains the internet, and always has from the 1960s.
In 1991 the Internet was made available to the public, and private companies started investing in internet facilities, but the majority of the internet is entirely government.

And no, a common carrier does not have to charge a fee for services if they do not want to, such by using advertising.
Radio stations are common carriers, for example, and they rely on advertising for income.

 

[Rigby5]

Retard.

Why It's a Good Thing That Broadband Isn't a Common Carrier | NCTA — The Internet & Television Association

In a recent decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals vacated key elements of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) 2010 Open Internet order. In doing so, it has revived discourse around the open Internet (commonly referred to as net neutrality), what it really means for consumers and the...

www.ncta.com

​

Why Aren’t Broadband Providers Considered Common Carriers?​

​

In the 1996 Telecom Act, Congress made a distinction between two types of services: “telecommunications services” and “information services.” “Telecommunications services” transmit a user’s information from one designated point to another without changing the form or content of that information. For example, a phone call transmits the user’s voice from one point to another without changing the content of the voice message, similar to the way a shipping company would deliver a package that you hand to it. “Information services,” on the other hand, offer a user the capability to create, store, or process information. Once that information is created, it might be transmitted via telecommunications, but the creation of the message would be done via information service. Telecommunications services, such as traditional phone service, were subject to common carrier rules. Information services were not. Based on the definitions in the 1996 Telecom Act, the FCC classified cable broadband as an “information service” and as a result it is not treated as a common carrier service and is largely exempt from regulation.​

It is not at all clear you are right based on what you quoted.
I have never considered cable TV to be a Broadband Provider.
Cable TV just gives you one TV show at a time, so is not broadband in any sense of the word I am familiar with.
Broadband providers are the people who greatly increase your access, and include bidirectional file access, like Xfinity, Century Link, etc.
Look at your own quoted material.

It says, " For example, a phone call transmits the user’s voice from one point to another without changing the content of the voice message, similar to the way a shipping company would deliver a package that you hand to it. “Information services,” on the other hand, offer a user the capability to create, store, or process information. "

Cable TV just delivers content unchanged, so is a telecommunications service, not an information service.
An information service needs to be at least bidirectional. Which cable TV is not.
But it is a little confusing, because most people these days are getting their cable TV also from whomever they are getting their broadband internet from. But likely the FCC is still defined along the older terms?

 

[Rigby5]

Of course that's also 100% wrong, if the stated opinions violate their TOS. And really, its even more wrong in light of the fact that Twitter can ban any account they like for any or no reason.

No they can't.
No one open for business to the public is allowed to discriminate at all.
The only censorship or denial of service that is allowed is when it can be shown to illegally cause harm if not censored or denied.

 

[Rigby5]

Hahaha bripat9643 insisting people have a right to post on Twitter.

Normally, this is where the angry shitgibbon bripat9643 would swoop in and demand the poster show where the constitution says exactly that, word for word.

Something tells me that won't happen this time, though.

Just read the 14th amendment, Equal Protection clause.
Twitter is internet based, the internet is created and maintained by the government, so therefore Twitter has to comply with the 14th amendment, and not discriminate based on political beliefs.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, that is incredibly ignorant.
The US federal government created, owns, and maintains the internet, and always has from the 1960s.
In 1991 the Internet was made available to the public, and private companies started investing in internet facilities, but the majority of the internet is entirely government.

False. The government built ARPANET but the Internet is much more than that. They do not own the Internet.

And no, a common carrier does not have to charge a fee for services if they do not want to, such by using advertising.
Radio stations are common carriers, for example, and they rely on advertising for income.

False. Paying a fee for the service is a requirement to constitute a common carrier.

Common Carrier

A common carrier is a person or a commercial enterprise that transports passengers or goods for a fee and establishes that their service is open to the general public. Typical examples of common carriers include, a shipowner, railroad, airline, taxi service, etc. A private carrier, on the other hand, is a person or a commercial enterprise that only agrees in particular circumstances to transport passengers or goods. Private carriers differ from common carriers because they don’t establish that their service is open to the general public. In other words, private carriers enter into a contract with each customer without the assumption that a similar contract will be available to the next customer.​

 

[Faun]

Just read the 14th amendment, Equal Protection clause.
Twitter is internet based, the internet is created and maintained by the government, so therefore Twitter has to comply with the 14th amendment, and not discriminate based on political beliefs.

Aside from your ignorance that the government owns the Internet... Twitter doesn't even transport it's data across the Internet. ISP's do that. ISP's are common carriers, companies like Twitter are not.