Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

[colfax_m]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed? Mostly because he says FB allowed posts related to his son and Russia to be posted?

You are assuming only the right has issues with these “protections”.

Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230

The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know it

www.google.com

Section 230 Is the Internet’s First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away.

Imagine, for a moment, the following series of online exchanges. This isn't a real conversation. But it's the sort of…

www.google.com

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.

however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.

There are a number of places on the internet don’t engage in the kind of “censorship” that you’re complaining of.

And they’re just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.

Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.

Anyway even Mark Zuckerburg thinks Forums like FB and Twitter need more regulations because they actually fall in between a publisher and platform due to the scope of their reach ( they are international).

Section 230 was created when the internet was new...it needs to be reviewed again.

Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we don’t have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyone’s postings as a result.

This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.

They are already devolving. Which is why it needs to be addressed again. Example of violations...Twitter allows SJW mob’s harrassment of it’s other users which is clearly a violation of section 230.

They also allow harassment from Trump too. That’s not a “violation” of 230. You don’t have a right to have mean things taken off the internet.

I’m not talking about “ mean things” I’m talking about data mining,doxing,swatting,death threats etc...

Then you’re meandering quite far away from the topic.

No I’m not. Those are all forms of harrassment Twitter allows on its platform by certain members which are all against section 230.

Section 230 does not require removal of any content. The topic is not death threats. No one is defending having death threats on social media. It’s about whether conservatives have their social media accounts banned or content removed.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed? Mostly because he says FB allowed posts related to his son and Russia to be posted?

You are assuming only the right has issues with these “protections”.

Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230

The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know it

www.google.com

Section 230 Is the Internet’s First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away.

Imagine, for a moment, the following series of online exchanges. This isn't a real conversation. But it's the sort of…

www.google.com

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.

however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.

There are a number of places on the internet don’t engage in the kind of “censorship” that you’re complaining of.

And they’re just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.

Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.

Anyway even Mark Zuckerburg thinks Forums like FB and Twitter need more regulations because they actually fall in between a publisher and platform due to the scope of their reach ( they are international).

Section 230 was created when the internet was new...it needs to be reviewed again.

Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we don’t have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyone’s postings as a result.

This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.

Apps are not the same as websites. I would Like the SCOTUS to review. Why do you have an issue with that? I am Not saying change the law. I am saying review and opine.

You can want a pony if you want. It doesn’t mean you deserve one.

Never said deserve. Only that I want it. If it doesn't happen, so be it. I am not on Twitter anyway.

See? No commission or panel or whatever is needed.

I disagree. Am I not allowed to disagree?

Don’t be such a snowflake.

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I only concerned because my kids are on social media and I would like the laws to be up to date and protective while not limiting their rights. If that makes me a snowflake, guilty as charged.

You’re crawfishing.

Tell your kids to stay off social media. There. They’re protected.

That is not reality. They live in a world of social media. That is like saying if you want to avoid car accidents, have your kids not ride in cars. You're illogical.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Won't someone think of the snowflakes?

Chairman Xi approves of your message. Extra bat soup for you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed? Mostly because he says FB allowed posts related to his son and Russia to be posted?

You are assuming only the right has issues with these “protections”.

Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230

The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know it

www.google.com

Section 230 Is the Internet’s First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away.

Imagine, for a moment, the following series of online exchanges. This isn't a real conversation. But it's the sort of…

www.google.com

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.

however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.

There are a number of places on the internet don’t engage in the kind of “censorship” that you’re complaining of.

And they’re just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.

Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.

Anyway even Mark Zuckerburg thinks Forums like FB and Twitter need more regulations because they actually fall in between a publisher and platform due to the scope of their reach ( they are international).

Section 230 was created when the internet was new...it needs to be reviewed again.

Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we don’t have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyone’s postings as a result.

This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.

They are already devolving. Which is why it needs to be addressed again. Example of violations...Twitter allows SJW mob’s harrassment of it’s other users which is clearly a violation of section 230.

They also allow harassment from Trump too. That’s not a “violation” of 230. You don’t have a right to have mean things taken off the internet.

I’m not talking about “ mean things” I’m talking about data mining,doxing,swatting,death threats etc...

Then you’re meandering quite far away from the topic.

No I’m not. Those are all forms of harrassment Twitter allows on its platform by certain members which are all against section 230.

Section 230 does not require removal of any content. The topic is not death threats. No one is defending having death threats on social media. It’s about whether conservatives have their social media accounts banned or content removed.

Again, law written before Twitter and apps. Let's allow the courts to opine now that we have more data.

 

[colfax_m]

Conservatives are now fans of the Fairness Doctrine. Imagine that.

I'm a fan of the Bill of Rights. And leftists as usual are fans of Chinese style authoritarianism because their message can be sent out and no one can mess with it.
Imagine that.

If you are for the 2nd Amendment or limits on abortion, boom...you are expelled.
If you think the Covid pandemic has been largely an exercise in authoritarin over reach.....boom, you are out!
If you believe our voting system must not be manipulated or breached boom....you will be silenced.

The Bill of Rights says you may say all these things. The Tech Giants at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter
say not so fast. Your "hate speech" must not be allowed to flourish.

Sounds Xi Jinping's China, doesn't it.

You don’t have a first amendment right to post anything on a private website.

But you do on the Internet that Verizon provides or Xfinity. So why does Twitter claim they are like Xfinity and Verizon when they aren't?

Where did Twitter claim that? I need more context.

 

[colfax_m]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed? Mostly because he says FB allowed posts related to his son and Russia to be posted?

You are assuming only the right has issues with these “protections”.

Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230

The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know it

www.google.com

Section 230 Is the Internet’s First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away.

Imagine, for a moment, the following series of online exchanges. This isn't a real conversation. But it's the sort of…

www.google.com

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.

however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.

There are a number of places on the internet don’t engage in the kind of “censorship” that you’re complaining of.

And they’re just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.

Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.

Anyway even Mark Zuckerburg thinks Forums like FB and Twitter need more regulations because they actually fall in between a publisher and platform due to the scope of their reach ( they are international).

Section 230 was created when the internet was new...it needs to be reviewed again.

Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we don’t have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyone’s postings as a result.

This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.

They are already devolving. Which is why it needs to be addressed again. Example of violations...Twitter allows SJW mob’s harrassment of it’s other users which is clearly a violation of section 230.

They also allow harassment from Trump too. That’s not a “violation” of 230. You don’t have a right to have mean things taken off the internet.

I’m not talking about “ mean things” I’m talking about data mining,doxing,swatting,death threats etc...

Then you’re meandering quite far away from the topic.

No I’m not. Those are all forms of harrassment Twitter allows on its platform by certain members which are all against section 230.

Section 230 does not require removal of any content. The topic is not death threats. No one is defending having death threats on social media. It’s about whether conservatives have their social media accounts banned or content removed.

Again, law written before Twitter and apps. Let's allow the courts to opine now that we have more data.

There is no fundamental difference.

 

[shockedcanadian]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

They can consider all they want. They can't do anything about private platforms.

You wouldn't want them to anyway. If they did you could kiss most of your "news" sources goodbye in fairly short order.

Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.

Publisher or not is debatable.

The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.

They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.

Are your political views based on lies and hate?

I've never expressed hate speech on twitter, nor swore or been overly aggressive. I was outspoken against Communist China and a supporter of America, capitalism and President Trump. I was deemed a bot.

Before they took that step, they had cut off my followers, shadow banned me and other cowardly, chicken shyte communist tactics. I once hit 7500 and then they flipped the switch. I'd gain 50 and then in a day lose 75. It was obvious and comical. I never hit above 7000 again for well over a year, but I didn't care, though I called out the Jack Dorsey for allowing it to happen, in a polite and sincere manner.

Twitter is one of many I'm sure. They will face their demise as all others do that silence citizens. Jack doesn't care, he is worth billions for producing nothing but increasingly oppression of true free speech. Social media is already on the decline in terms of popularity, though revenues for ads are up. I wonder why.

In the end, they will lose what made them so great because they refused to support free speech. It's cowardice at it's finest. They will be replaced with another format which will begin in support of free speech but then turn to support the alt-left agenda, and the merry-go round will continue. A function of a new society that seems to admire Communist China more than America.

If all you did was retweet what the fake accounts told you it's no wonder you were mistaken for one.

lol. I rarely retweeted and it was always legitimate sources. I provided my own discussion and content from mainstream sources and I do on this site.

It was just cowardly, communist appeasement (or appeasing Canadian police forces) and I, like so many, have to pay the price.

I hope there is a Bill of online speech Rights pushed. Then we can see what the Dbag do when they face serious legal issues for abusing citizens accounts and speech.

Of course you did!

Lol.

Do you see me post extreme arguments or positions on this site that are anything but the largest media outlets? All I ever do is post from Fox, CNN, CBC, newspapers and the odd one here or there out of left field. I'm not looking to post UFO or Bigfoot sightings, even if it does exist. I try to keep it fairly narrow. I did the same on twitter, except they don't like solid arguments that make their alt-left followers look foolish.

 

[BlueGin]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

They can consider all they want. They can't do anything about private platforms.

You wouldn't want them to anyway. If they did you could kiss most of your "news" sources goodbye in fairly short order.

Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.

Publisher or not is debatable.

The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.

They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.

Are your political views based on lies and hate?

It is debatable when they are taking a side politically and censoring based on that political stance. They feel they can skirt the law by deeming anything they don’t like as “ hateful” and “ misinformation”.

But according to section 230 they can not censor political speech no matter how extreme. And they clearly do engage in selective censorship.

Nothing in section 230 prevents them from removing any political speech. Especially extreme political speech. The platform is owner and operated by private individuals and there are no laws preventing them from deleting content on those platforms.

They can’t be both a platform and a publisher and continue to get government protections while skirting the rules. They need to pick one or the other. If they are a publisher fine...then they are liable for content on their forums. If they are a platform they need to stop censoring content that is against their political views. They can’t have it both ways.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Conservatives are now fans of the Fairness Doctrine. Imagine that.

I'm a fan of the Bill of Rights. And leftists as usual are fans of Chinese style authoritarianism because their message can be sent out and no one can mess with it.
Imagine that.

If you are for the 2nd Amendment or limits on abortion, boom...you are expelled.
If you think the Covid pandemic has been largely an exercise in authoritarin over reach.....boom, you are out!
If you believe our voting system must not be manipulated or breached boom....you will be silenced.

The Bill of Rights says you may say all these things. The Tech Giants at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter
say not so fast. Your "hate speech" must not be allowed to flourish.

Sounds Xi Jinping's China, doesn't it.

You don’t have a first amendment right to post anything on a private website.

But you do on the Internet that Verizon provides or Xfinity. So why does Twitter claim they are like Xfinity and Verizon when they aren't?

Where did Twitter claim that? I need more context.

When they claimed they are disseminator of content and immune to lawsuits. This is the crux of this whole thing.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed? Mostly because he says FB allowed posts related to his son and Russia to be posted?

You are assuming only the right has issues with these “protections”.

Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230

The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know it

www.google.com

Section 230 Is the Internet’s First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away.

Imagine, for a moment, the following series of online exchanges. This isn't a real conversation. But it's the sort of…

www.google.com

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.

however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.

There are a number of places on the internet don’t engage in the kind of “censorship” that you’re complaining of.

And they’re just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.

Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.

Anyway even Mark Zuckerburg thinks Forums like FB and Twitter need more regulations because they actually fall in between a publisher and platform due to the scope of their reach ( they are international).

Section 230 was created when the internet was new...it needs to be reviewed again.

Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we don’t have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyone’s postings as a result.

This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.

They are already devolving. Which is why it needs to be addressed again. Example of violations...Twitter allows SJW mob’s harrassment of it’s other users which is clearly a violation of section 230.

They also allow harassment from Trump too. That’s not a “violation” of 230. You don’t have a right to have mean things taken off the internet.

I’m not talking about “ mean things” I’m talking about data mining,doxing,swatting,death threats etc...

Then you’re meandering quite far away from the topic.

No I’m not. Those are all forms of harrassment Twitter allows on its platform by certain members which are all against section 230.

Section 230 does not require removal of any content. The topic is not death threats. No one is defending having death threats on social media. It’s about whether conservatives have their social media accounts banned or content removed.

Again, law written before Twitter and apps. Let's allow the courts to opine now that we have more data.

There is no fundamental difference.

I disagree. Neither you nor I are lawyers so let's let the lawyers opine and judges decide.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You don’t have a first amendment right to post anything on a private website.

In theory I do IF that website claims to be a publisher and not a content creator.
Why, say! Isn't that what Zuckerberg says Facebook is?

Where does he get the authority to remove posts that finds problematic (assuming such posts are not
violent, threatening, etc.)?

 

[colfax_m]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed? Mostly because he says FB allowed posts related to his son and Russia to be posted?

You are assuming only the right has issues with these “protections”.

Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230

The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know it

www.google.com

Section 230 Is the Internet’s First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away.

Imagine, for a moment, the following series of online exchanges. This isn't a real conversation. But it's the sort of…

www.google.com

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.

however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.

There are a number of places on the internet don’t engage in the kind of “censorship” that you’re complaining of.

And they’re just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.

Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.

Anyway even Mark Zuckerburg thinks Forums like FB and Twitter need more regulations because they actually fall in between a publisher and platform due to the scope of their reach ( they are international).

Section 230 was created when the internet was new...it needs to be reviewed again.

Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we don’t have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyone’s postings as a result.

This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.

Apps are not the same as websites. I would Like the SCOTUS to review. Why do you have an issue with that? I am Not saying change the law. I am saying review and opine.

You can want a pony if you want. It doesn’t mean you deserve one.

Never said deserve. Only that I want it. If it doesn't happen, so be it. I am not on Twitter anyway.

See? No commission or panel or whatever is needed.

I disagree. Am I not allowed to disagree?

Don’t be such a snowflake.

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I only concerned because my kids are on social media and I would like the laws to be up to date and protective while not limiting their rights. If that makes me a snowflake, guilty as charged.

You’re crawfishing.

Tell your kids to stay off social media. There. They’re protected.

That is not reality. They live in a world of social media. That is like saying if you want to avoid car accidents, have your kids not ride in cars. You're illogical.

It’s quite logical. You want to protect them from social media, don’t use it.

What are you trying to protect them from?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

When they claimed they are disseminator of content and immune to lawsuits. This is the crux of this whole thing.

This is a point you will have to make a hundred times before it's realized that Colfax just doesn't give a shit.
He will repeat a lie over and over and over again.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed? Mostly because he says FB allowed posts related to his son and Russia to be posted?

You are assuming only the right has issues with these “protections”.

Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230

The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know it

www.google.com

Section 230 Is the Internet’s First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away.

Imagine, for a moment, the following series of online exchanges. This isn't a real conversation. But it's the sort of…

www.google.com

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.

however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.

There are a number of places on the internet don’t engage in the kind of “censorship” that you’re complaining of.

And they’re just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.

Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.

Anyway even Mark Zuckerburg thinks Forums like FB and Twitter need more regulations because they actually fall in between a publisher and platform due to the scope of their reach ( they are international).

Section 230 was created when the internet was new...it needs to be reviewed again.

Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we don’t have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyone’s postings as a result.

This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.

Apps are not the same as websites. I would Like the SCOTUS to review. Why do you have an issue with that? I am Not saying change the law. I am saying review and opine.

You can want a pony if you want. It doesn’t mean you deserve one.

Never said deserve. Only that I want it. If it doesn't happen, so be it. I am not on Twitter anyway.

See? No commission or panel or whatever is needed.

I disagree. Am I not allowed to disagree?

Don’t be such a snowflake.

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I only concerned because my kids are on social media and I would like the laws to be up to date and protective while not limiting their rights. If that makes me a snowflake, guilty as charged.

You’re crawfishing.

Tell your kids to stay off social media. There. They’re protected.

That is not reality. They live in a world of social media. That is like saying if you want to avoid car accidents, have your kids not ride in cars. You're illogical.

It’s quite logical. You want to protect them from social media, don’t use it.

What are you trying to protect them from?

That doesn't make any sense. When I teach them to drive, I will teach them to be safe drivers, not to avoid cars. What do you think I am trying to protect them from? Give me some educated guesses.

 

[colfax_m]

You don’t have a first amendment right to post anything on a private website.

In theory I do IF that website claims to be a publisher and not a content creator.
Why, say! Isn't that Zuckerberg say Facebook is?

Where does he get the authority to remove posts that finds problematic (assuming such posts are not
violent, threatening, etc.)?

Nope! The first amendment does not apply to private companies.

Zuckerberg gets the authority to remove posts when he pays the money to maintain the servers that the post is hosted on.

His server. His rules.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

When they claimed they are disseminator of content and immune to lawsuits. This is the crux of this whole thing.

This is a point you will have to make a hundred times before it's realized that Colfax just doesn't give a shit.
He will repeat a lie over and over and over again.

I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.

 

[BlueGin]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

Social media censorship is a difficult one for me. I find censorship abhorrent but I also value the rights of a private business - so where do you draw the line?

I would propose a law that any publicly traded company who's primary purpose is to operate as a social media platform be held to 1st Amendment standards. If you want to censor people you don't like then get off the stock market and self-fund.

They don't remove folks for their political views, they remove the for hate speech and/or false information (lies).

According to Joe Biden they do not and their protections needs to be repealed.

Sure, sure.

I'm sure that's exactly what Joe said.

Lol

“Biden appears to have his sights set on Section 230 because of an October 2018 scuffle with Facebook. The Biden campaign wrote a letter to Facebook asking it to remove an ad, posted by an independent Political Action Committee (PAC), claiming that Biden was blackmailing a Ukrainian official to keep them from prosecuting his son, Hunter Biden. Facebook declined to remove the ad, answering that it will not monitor political ads based on whether the information they present is true or false. “

Lol, you realize you just undercut your whole position, right?

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

Social media censorship is a difficult one for me. I find censorship abhorrent but I also value the rights of a private business - so where do you draw the line?

I would propose a law that any publicly traded company who's primary purpose is to operate as a social media platform be held to 1st Amendment standards. If you want to censor people you don't like then get off the stock market and self-fund.

They don't remove folks for their political views, they remove the for hate speech and/or false information (lies).

According to Joe Biden they do not and their protections needs to be repealed.

Sure, sure.

I'm sure that's exactly what Joe said.

Lol

“Biden appears to have his sights set on Section 230 because of an October 2018 scuffle with Facebook. The Biden campaign wrote a letter to Facebook asking it to remove an ad, posted by an independent Political Action Committee (PAC), claiming that Biden was blackmailing a Ukrainian official to keep them from prosecuting his son, Hunter Biden. Facebook declined to remove the ad, answering that it will not monitor political ads based on whether the information they present is true or false. “

You do realize you just undercut your whole argument, right?

Did I say I agreed with him? No. I asked someone else what they thought about his stance on this issue.

 

[colfax_m]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed? Mostly because he says FB allowed posts related to his son and Russia to be posted?

You are assuming only the right has issues with these “protections”.

Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230

The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know it

www.google.com

Section 230 Is the Internet’s First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away.

Imagine, for a moment, the following series of online exchanges. This isn't a real conversation. But it's the sort of…

www.google.com

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.

however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.

There are a number of places on the internet don’t engage in the kind of “censorship” that you’re complaining of.

And they’re just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.

Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.

Anyway even Mark Zuckerburg thinks Forums like FB and Twitter need more regulations because they actually fall in between a publisher and platform due to the scope of their reach ( they are international).

Section 230 was created when the internet was new...it needs to be reviewed again.

Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we don’t have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyone’s postings as a result.

This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.

Apps are not the same as websites. I would Like the SCOTUS to review. Why do you have an issue with that? I am Not saying change the law. I am saying review and opine.

You can want a pony if you want. It doesn’t mean you deserve one.

Never said deserve. Only that I want it. If it doesn't happen, so be it. I am not on Twitter anyway.

See? No commission or panel or whatever is needed.

I disagree. Am I not allowed to disagree?

Don’t be such a snowflake.

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I only concerned because my kids are on social media and I would like the laws to be up to date and protective while not limiting their rights. If that makes me a snowflake, guilty as charged.

You’re crawfishing.

Tell your kids to stay off social media. There. They’re protected.

That is not reality. They live in a world of social media. That is like saying if you want to avoid car accidents, have your kids not ride in cars. You're illogical.

It’s quite logical. You want to protect them from social media, don’t use it.

What are you trying to protect them from?

That doesn't make any sense. When I teach them to drive, I will teach them to be safe drivers, not to avoid cars. What do you think I am trying to protect them from? Give me some educated guesses.

My best guess is that conservatives (in general) want free speech for themselves and restricted speech for what they don’t like.

You want to be able to post whatever you want on social media? Then so does everyone else. If you want social media to take down content that is objectionable, don’t whine when they take down your content.

 

[WEATHER53]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed? Mostly because he says FB allowed posts related to his son and Russia to be posted?

You are assuming only the right has issues with these “protections”.

Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230

The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know it

www.google.com

Section 230 Is the Internet’s First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away.

Imagine, for a moment, the following series of online exchanges. This isn't a real conversation. But it's the sort of…

www.google.com

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.

however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.

There are a number of places on the internet don’t engage in the kind of “censorship” that you’re complaining of.

And they’re just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.

Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.

Anyway even Mark Zuckerburg thinks Forums like FB and Twitter need more regulations because they actually fall in between a publisher and platform due to the scope of their reach ( they are international).

Section 230 was created when the internet was new...it needs to be reviewed again.

Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we don’t have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyone’s postings as a result.

This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.

Hate speech is very much in the eye of the beholder generally because the speech is bluntly factual and they hate to hear it. Therein lies the problem, subjective and not objective.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Nope. He’s a social media website. He’s regulated as a social media website.

You don’t have a right to post on Facebook.

Facebook’s Officially a Media Company. Time To Act Like One

Facebook has long pushed that it is merely a means for others to distribute content they’ve created. But now Facebook is effectively killing its own argument.

www.wired.com

The lie doesn't fool many people. But you are a good obedient little dog.