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

[colfax_m]

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.

They aren't censoring for political views.

They are removing hate speech and false information.

That is all.

Even if they were censoring for political views, it's still legal. The law does not require them to be neutral arbiters in order to maintain protection from legal liability for the content of their user's posts.

We really don't want the government deciding these issues.

Obviously they cant seeing as in the article above Twitter banned a reporter on NBC’s behalf and then had to reinstate him and have their lawyer issue a statement.

They only reinstated him because of public backlash. There was no legal requirement to do so.

 

[BlueGin]

This is interesting as well...


“Twitter employees have been caught on camera boasting about keeping conservatives and Trump supporters off the platform.

One employee even discussed shadowbanning political accounts, which Twitter denies doing. Another said user accounts that supported "God, guns, and America" were flagged as "bots."

from the above article also.

Show me some twitter employees boasting about it.

If you want to watch it go find it. I’m not wasting my time posting something you won’t even look at.

it is a video of multiple employees talking about shadow banning. Searching for Posters using a bunch of “ redneck buzz words” like “ America” and “ guns” and getting rid of them....and about other various ways they data mine personal DM’s and information.

 

[colfax_m]

Twitter may not claim to be a free speech platform and then ban members for political opinions. So says a judge

No Free Speech: Judge Rules Twitter Bans Users 'At Any Time, for Any Reason'

A California judge has ruled that Twitter can be sued for falsely advertising free speech.

www1.cbn.com

Oops. Didn’t end well for the plaintiff.

Appeals Court Halts White Nationalist's Suit Against Twitter

Siding with Twitter, an appellate court has stayed white nationalist Jared Taylor's lawsuit alleging that he was wrongly banned from the service.

www.mediapost.com

Decision overturned by appellate and lawsuit dismissed.

 

[Crepitus]

This is interesting as well...


“Twitter employees have been caught on camera boasting about keeping conservatives and Trump supporters off the platform.

One employee even discussed shadowbanning political accounts, which Twitter denies doing. Another said user accounts that supported "God, guns, and America" were flagged as "bots."

from the above article also.

Show me some twitter employees boasting about it.

If you want to watch it go find it. I’m not wasting my time posting something you won’t even look at.

it is a video of multiple employees talking about shadow banning. Searching for Posters using a bunch of “ redneck buzz words” like “ America” and “ guns” and getting rid of them....and about other various ways they data mine personal DM’s and information.

You made the claim.

Back it up or retract it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

Let me explain it this way. Since for some reason you cannot comprehend simple English.

Twitter is currently defined as a “distributors” or carriers of information — much like a phone company — and the idea is that a carrier can’t possibly read or listen to every message and check it for potentially offensive or illegal content.

If the company is filtering and selecting messages, however, and possibly letting certain parties know when a legally questionable one shows up, that is much more like what publishers do — and in many jurisdictions, publishers like newspapers are held to a different standard.

I understand your argument really well. I don't think you're listening or reading up on the issue.

There used to be a distinction between "distributors" and publishers in online forums like Twitter. But that turned out to be a bad situation which is what Section 230 of CDA was put in to rectify.

Section 230: Legislative History

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) was Congress' response to two court cases decided in New York in the early 1990's that had conflicting results.Cubby and Stratton OakmontThe first case involved CompuServe, which in the early days of the Internet hosted "an on-line general information service"...

www.eff.org

This explains the history.

In brief, there were two lawsuits in the 90s, both suing the companies that hosted forums for defamatory material that was put on those forums by users. In the first case, CompuServe did not moderate their forum so they were considered a distributor. In the second case, Prodigy lost because they did moderate their forum.

This created a perverse incentive for websites to avoid moderation. Any moderation at all made them liable for all content posted on the website. Not a lot of people wanted that. So they passed a law that said you aren't held liable for content posted on your website by users even if you moderate the website and delete content that you don't want.

It's incredibly simple. From the article: "The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability."

Websites, apps or whatever you want to call them are not newspapers. They shouldn't be regulated like them.

And I think we should have a 2nd look. I am not sure why you are not OK with that? Law was passed 10 yrs before Twitter was even founded. What is wrong with a 2nd look?

I'd say the law has worked great. Twitter wouldn't exist at all if not for that law. So what's your goal?

I have already explained that Twitter has changed and my goal is to make sure it is a fair platform and is monitored correctly.

Fair to whom? Monitored by whom?

This sounds a little opressive.

Same agencies that monitor it now. Question is are they a publisher. Yes or no. If so, they should be treated as one. Oppressive is telling me I am a snowflake and not to worry about....

 

[colfax_m]

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

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

Let me explain it this way. Since for some reason you cannot comprehend simple English.

Twitter is currently defined as a “distributors” or carriers of information — much like a phone company — and the idea is that a carrier can’t possibly read or listen to every message and check it for potentially offensive or illegal content.

If the company is filtering and selecting messages, however, and possibly letting certain parties know when a legally questionable one shows up, that is much more like what publishers do — and in many jurisdictions, publishers like newspapers are held to a different standard.

I understand your argument really well. I don't think you're listening or reading up on the issue.

There used to be a distinction between "distributors" and publishers in online forums like Twitter. But that turned out to be a bad situation which is what Section 230 of CDA was put in to rectify.

Section 230: Legislative History

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) was Congress' response to two court cases decided in New York in the early 1990's that had conflicting results.Cubby and Stratton OakmontThe first case involved CompuServe, which in the early days of the Internet hosted "an on-line general information service"...

www.eff.org

This explains the history.

In brief, there were two lawsuits in the 90s, both suing the companies that hosted forums for defamatory material that was put on those forums by users. In the first case, CompuServe did not moderate their forum so they were considered a distributor. In the second case, Prodigy lost because they did moderate their forum.

This created a perverse incentive for websites to avoid moderation. Any moderation at all made them liable for all content posted on the website. Not a lot of people wanted that. So they passed a law that said you aren't held liable for content posted on your website by users even if you moderate the website and delete content that you don't want.

It's incredibly simple. From the article: "The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability."

Websites, apps or whatever you want to call them are not newspapers. They shouldn't be regulated like them.

And I think we should have a 2nd look. I am not sure why you are not OK with that? Law was passed 10 yrs before Twitter was even founded. What is wrong with a 2nd look?

I'd say the law has worked great. Twitter wouldn't exist at all if not for that law. So what's your goal?

I have already explained that Twitter has changed and my goal is to make sure it is a fair platform and is monitored correctly.

Fair to whom? Monitored by whom?

This sounds a little opressive.

Same agencies that monitor it now. Question is are they a publisher. Yes or no. If so, they should be treated as one. Oppressive is telling me I am a snowflake and not to worry about....

Ha! Such a snowflake thing to say. My opinion does not oppress you.

Agencies don’t monitor it now. Twitter wouldn’t exist without these regulations that you want to change.

 

[BULLDOG]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.

No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.

And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.

Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.

This is common sense to me.

I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?

Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.

Stop bothering everyone else.

No committee needed!

You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.

No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.

 

[BULLDOG]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.

Even if it’s not doesn’t mean you ban the person. I have No idea what he posted. Is Twitter not an opinion forum?

You have no idea what he posted, yet you say it was unfair to ban him. You don't think that is just a little bit nuts?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

Let me explain it this way. Since for some reason you cannot comprehend simple English.

Twitter is currently defined as a “distributors” or carriers of information — much like a phone company — and the idea is that a carrier can’t possibly read or listen to every message and check it for potentially offensive or illegal content.

If the company is filtering and selecting messages, however, and possibly letting certain parties know when a legally questionable one shows up, that is much more like what publishers do — and in many jurisdictions, publishers like newspapers are held to a different standard.

I understand your argument really well. I don't think you're listening or reading up on the issue.

There used to be a distinction between "distributors" and publishers in online forums like Twitter. But that turned out to be a bad situation which is what Section 230 of CDA was put in to rectify.

Section 230: Legislative History

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) was Congress' response to two court cases decided in New York in the early 1990's that had conflicting results.Cubby and Stratton OakmontThe first case involved CompuServe, which in the early days of the Internet hosted "an on-line general information service"...

www.eff.org

This explains the history.

In brief, there were two lawsuits in the 90s, both suing the companies that hosted forums for defamatory material that was put on those forums by users. In the first case, CompuServe did not moderate their forum so they were considered a distributor. In the second case, Prodigy lost because they did moderate their forum.

This created a perverse incentive for websites to avoid moderation. Any moderation at all made them liable for all content posted on the website. Not a lot of people wanted that. So they passed a law that said you aren't held liable for content posted on your website by users even if you moderate the website and delete content that you don't want.

It's incredibly simple. From the article: "The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability."

Websites, apps or whatever you want to call them are not newspapers. They shouldn't be regulated like them.

And I think we should have a 2nd look. I am not sure why you are not OK with that? Law was passed 10 yrs before Twitter was even founded. What is wrong with a 2nd look?

I'd say the law has worked great. Twitter wouldn't exist at all if not for that law. So what's your goal?

I have already explained that Twitter has changed and my goal is to make sure it is a fair platform and is monitored correctly.

Fair to whom? Monitored by whom?

This sounds a little opressive.

Same agencies that monitor it now. Question is are they a publisher. Yes or no. If so, they should be treated as one. Oppressive is telling me I am a snowflake and not to worry about....

Ha! Such a snowflake thing to say. My opinion does not oppress you.

Agencies don’t monitor it now. Twitter wouldn’t exist without these regulations that you want to change.

Mine doesn't oppress you either...so there is that. Twitter has changed.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.

No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.

And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.

Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.

This is common sense to me.

I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?

Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.

Stop bothering everyone else.

No committee needed!

You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.

No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.

Nothing to do with Trump. Everything to do with my kids getting on social media as they are that age now and I want to make sure it is regulated properly.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.

Even if it’s not doesn’t mean you ban the person. I have No idea what he posted. Is Twitter not an opinion forum?

You have no idea what he posted, yet you say it was unfair to ban him. You don't think that is just a little bit nuts?

He said it wasn't vulgarity. It was him taking a pro Israel stance. I didn't delve deeply into it as I think Twitter is stupid. Only social media I use is LinkedIn.

 

[colfax_m]

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

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

Let me explain it this way. Since for some reason you cannot comprehend simple English.

Twitter is currently defined as a “distributors” or carriers of information — much like a phone company — and the idea is that a carrier can’t possibly read or listen to every message and check it for potentially offensive or illegal content.

If the company is filtering and selecting messages, however, and possibly letting certain parties know when a legally questionable one shows up, that is much more like what publishers do — and in many jurisdictions, publishers like newspapers are held to a different standard.

I understand your argument really well. I don't think you're listening or reading up on the issue.

There used to be a distinction between "distributors" and publishers in online forums like Twitter. But that turned out to be a bad situation which is what Section 230 of CDA was put in to rectify.

Section 230: Legislative History

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) was Congress' response to two court cases decided in New York in the early 1990's that had conflicting results.Cubby and Stratton OakmontThe first case involved CompuServe, which in the early days of the Internet hosted "an on-line general information service"...

www.eff.org

This explains the history.

In brief, there were two lawsuits in the 90s, both suing the companies that hosted forums for defamatory material that was put on those forums by users. In the first case, CompuServe did not moderate their forum so they were considered a distributor. In the second case, Prodigy lost because they did moderate their forum.

This created a perverse incentive for websites to avoid moderation. Any moderation at all made them liable for all content posted on the website. Not a lot of people wanted that. So they passed a law that said you aren't held liable for content posted on your website by users even if you moderate the website and delete content that you don't want.

It's incredibly simple. From the article: "The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability."

Websites, apps or whatever you want to call them are not newspapers. They shouldn't be regulated like them.

And I think we should have a 2nd look. I am not sure why you are not OK with that? Law was passed 10 yrs before Twitter was even founded. What is wrong with a 2nd look?

I'd say the law has worked great. Twitter wouldn't exist at all if not for that law. So what's your goal?

I have already explained that Twitter has changed and my goal is to make sure it is a fair platform and is monitored correctly.

Fair to whom? Monitored by whom?

This sounds a little opressive.

Same agencies that monitor it now. Question is are they a publisher. Yes or no. If so, they should be treated as one. Oppressive is telling me I am a snowflake and not to worry about....

Ha! Such a snowflake thing to say. My opinion does not oppress you.

Agencies don’t monitor it now. Twitter wouldn’t exist without these regulations that you want to change.

Mine doesn't oppress you either...so there is that. Twitter has changed.

I never claimed to be oppressed.

But you want the government to go around monitoring speech on twitter and I consider that way over the top.

 

[BULLDOG]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.

No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.

And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.

Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.

This is common sense to me.

I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?

Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.

Stop bothering everyone else.

No committee needed!

You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.

No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.

Nothing to do with Trump. Everything to do with my kids getting on social media as they are that age now and I want to make sure it is regulated properly.

So now you want the government to raise your kids for you?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

Let me explain it this way. Since for some reason you cannot comprehend simple English.

Twitter is currently defined as a “distributors” or carriers of information — much like a phone company — and the idea is that a carrier can’t possibly read or listen to every message and check it for potentially offensive or illegal content.

If the company is filtering and selecting messages, however, and possibly letting certain parties know when a legally questionable one shows up, that is much more like what publishers do — and in many jurisdictions, publishers like newspapers are held to a different standard.

I understand your argument really well. I don't think you're listening or reading up on the issue.

There used to be a distinction between "distributors" and publishers in online forums like Twitter. But that turned out to be a bad situation which is what Section 230 of CDA was put in to rectify.

Section 230: Legislative History

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) was Congress' response to two court cases decided in New York in the early 1990's that had conflicting results.Cubby and Stratton OakmontThe first case involved CompuServe, which in the early days of the Internet hosted "an on-line general information service"...

www.eff.org

This explains the history.

In brief, there were two lawsuits in the 90s, both suing the companies that hosted forums for defamatory material that was put on those forums by users. In the first case, CompuServe did not moderate their forum so they were considered a distributor. In the second case, Prodigy lost because they did moderate their forum.

This created a perverse incentive for websites to avoid moderation. Any moderation at all made them liable for all content posted on the website. Not a lot of people wanted that. So they passed a law that said you aren't held liable for content posted on your website by users even if you moderate the website and delete content that you don't want.

It's incredibly simple. From the article: "The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability."

Websites, apps or whatever you want to call them are not newspapers. They shouldn't be regulated like them.

And I think we should have a 2nd look. I am not sure why you are not OK with that? Law was passed 10 yrs before Twitter was even founded. What is wrong with a 2nd look?

I'd say the law has worked great. Twitter wouldn't exist at all if not for that law. So what's your goal?

I have already explained that Twitter has changed and my goal is to make sure it is a fair platform and is monitored correctly.

Fair to whom? Monitored by whom?

This sounds a little opressive.

Same agencies that monitor it now. Question is are they a publisher. Yes or no. If so, they should be treated as one. Oppressive is telling me I am a snowflake and not to worry about....

Ha! Such a snowflake thing to say. My opinion does not oppress you.

Agencies don’t monitor it now. Twitter wouldn’t exist without these regulations that you want to change.

Mine doesn't oppress you either...so there is that. Twitter has changed.

I never claimed to be oppressed.

But you want the government to go around monitoring speech on twitter and I consider that way over the top.

Nope. I just want them to take a look if they are like AT&T or like NYT. That is all. To me if they start deleting accounts based on political bias (pro Israel for instance) then they are more like NYT than AT&T and should be regulated as such. If not I want a legal expert to explain why and then I'll go on my merry way. Not asking for a lot here.

 

[colfax_m]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.

No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.

And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.

Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.

This is common sense to me.

I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?

Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.

Stop bothering everyone else.

No committee needed!

You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.

No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.

Nothing to do with Trump. Everything to do with my kids getting on social media as they are that age now and I want to make sure it is regulated properly.

So now you want the government to raise your kids for you?

I don’t think he actually knows what he wants. Or at least seems afraid to admit it if he does.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.

No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.

And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.

Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.

This is common sense to me.

I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?

Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.

Stop bothering everyone else.

No committee needed!

You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.

No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.

Nothing to do with Trump. Everything to do with my kids getting on social media as they are that age now and I want to make sure it is regulated properly.

So now you want the government to raise your kids for you?

Never said that. Typical Leftist, getting angry and putting words in my mouth.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.

No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.

And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.

Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.

This is common sense to me.

I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?

Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.

Stop bothering everyone else.

No committee needed!

You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.

No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.

Nothing to do with Trump. Everything to do with my kids getting on social media as they are that age now and I want to make sure it is regulated properly.

So now you want the government to raise your kids for you?

I don’t think he actually knows what he wants. Or at least seems afraid to admit it if he does.

I stated what I want several times. You're the one trolling here and then when I fire back you get offended and place me on ignore....

 

[BlueGin]

This is interesting as well...


“Twitter employees have been caught on camera boasting about keeping conservatives and Trump supporters off the platform.

One employee even discussed shadowbanning political accounts, which Twitter denies doing. Another said user accounts that supported "God, guns, and America" were flagged as "bots."

from the above article also.

Show me some twitter employees boasting about it.

If you want to watch it go find it. I’m not wasting my time posting something you won’t even look at.

it is a video of multiple employees talking about shadow banning. Searching for Posters using a bunch of “ redneck buzz words” like “ America” and “ guns” and getting rid of them....and about other various ways they data mine personal DM’s and information.

You made the claim.

Back it up or retract it.

I’m not your secretary.

I said it was interesting...I watched it....and it was. If you don’t want to research it. Dont.

 

[BULLDOG]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.

Even if it’s not doesn’t mean you ban the person. I have No idea what he posted. Is Twitter not an opinion forum?

You have no idea what he posted, yet you say it was unfair to ban him. You don't think that is just a little bit nuts?

He said it wasn't vulgarity. It was him taking a pro Israel stance. I didn't delve deeply into it as I think Twitter is stupid. Only social media I use is LinkedIn.

You only hear his side of the story, and don't bother to delve into it to see what Twitter had to say about it. That same type reasoning would have you believing every person in prison is totally innocent as well.

 

[colfax_m]

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

Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lie
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.

And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.

Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.

How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?

Because precedent is set when people are taken to court and there are decisions. Twitter has been sued a lot. It wins a lot.

Let me explain it this way. Since for some reason you cannot comprehend simple English.

Twitter is currently defined as a “distributors” or carriers of information — much like a phone company — and the idea is that a carrier can’t possibly read or listen to every message and check it for potentially offensive or illegal content.

If the company is filtering and selecting messages, however, and possibly letting certain parties know when a legally questionable one shows up, that is much more like what publishers do — and in many jurisdictions, publishers like newspapers are held to a different standard.

I understand your argument really well. I don't think you're listening or reading up on the issue.

There used to be a distinction between "distributors" and publishers in online forums like Twitter. But that turned out to be a bad situation which is what Section 230 of CDA was put in to rectify.

Section 230: Legislative History

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) was Congress' response to two court cases decided in New York in the early 1990's that had conflicting results.Cubby and Stratton OakmontThe first case involved CompuServe, which in the early days of the Internet hosted "an on-line general information service"...

www.eff.org

This explains the history.

In brief, there were two lawsuits in the 90s, both suing the companies that hosted forums for defamatory material that was put on those forums by users. In the first case, CompuServe did not moderate their forum so they were considered a distributor. In the second case, Prodigy lost because they did moderate their forum.

This created a perverse incentive for websites to avoid moderation. Any moderation at all made them liable for all content posted on the website. Not a lot of people wanted that. So they passed a law that said you aren't held liable for content posted on your website by users even if you moderate the website and delete content that you don't want.

It's incredibly simple. From the article: "The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability."

Websites, apps or whatever you want to call them are not newspapers. They shouldn't be regulated like them.

And I think we should have a 2nd look. I am not sure why you are not OK with that? Law was passed 10 yrs before Twitter was even founded. What is wrong with a 2nd look?

I'd say the law has worked great. Twitter wouldn't exist at all if not for that law. So what's your goal?

I have already explained that Twitter has changed and my goal is to make sure it is a fair platform and is monitored correctly.

Fair to whom? Monitored by whom?

This sounds a little opressive.

Same agencies that monitor it now. Question is are they a publisher. Yes or no. If so, they should be treated as one. Oppressive is telling me I am a snowflake and not to worry about....

Ha! Such a snowflake thing to say. My opinion does not oppress you.

Agencies don’t monitor it now. Twitter wouldn’t exist without these regulations that you want to change.

Mine doesn't oppress you either...so there is that. Twitter has changed.

I never claimed to be oppressed.

But you want the government to go around monitoring speech on twitter and I consider that way over the top.

Nope. I just want them to take a look if they are like AT&T or like NYT. That is all. To me if they start deleting accounts based on political bias (pro Israel for instance) then they are more like NYT than AT&T and should be regulated as such. If not I want a legal expert to explain why and then I'll go on my merry way. Not asking for a lot here.

The NY Times can properly evaluate everything they publish. It’s a newspaper with a limited number of articles published each day.

No way can Twitter ever do that for the millions upon millions of tweets that are published every day. It’s impossible. Regulating Twitter like the New York Times is not feasible. It’s not logical.