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

[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?

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....

Yes. You stated what you want, and others commented on it. You didn't know that's how discussion boards work? You state something really dumb and people will tell you it's dumb.

 

[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.

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....

You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

I want a presidential commission to study and explain why I'm not rich and famous. As soon as they do that, I'll go on my merry way. Not asking for a lot here.

 

[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?

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

You're the one wanting new laws passed "for the kids"

 

[BlueGin]

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.

Exactly ...Twitter,FB,Google,YouTube have become social media monopolies which section 230 did not account for when it was created and now the utilization of technology they didn’t have back then Also comes into play as well. Now these corporations just abuse these protections. Not only by shadow banning and censorship, but also tracking users via cell phones,storing data mined information (and selling it )or using facial recognition imagery without consent. They are involved in several class action lawsuits about things like this...especially FB.

 

[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.

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.

I just don't believe sites should suspend people arbitrarily.

 

[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....

You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.

Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.

 

[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.

I want a presidential commission to study and explain why I'm not rich and famous. As soon as they do that, I'll go on my merry way. Not asking for a lot here.

You're not rich because you're bad with money. You're not famous because you have not achieved anything worthwhile to be famous for. Ted Bundy is famous. Fame isn't always a good thing.

 

[OnePercenter]

A lot of people make a living destroying Democrats on Twitter and Facebook to have all their stuff deleted, because their feelings are hurt. Something needs to be done to protect

Putin shipped your job to Nigeria. You were......commie outsourced!

 

[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.

You're the one wanting new laws passed "for the kids"

I never said pass laws. Find one post where I said "pass laws"....

 

[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.

Exactly ...Twitter,FB,Google,YouTube have become social media monopolies which section 230 did not account for when it was created and now the utilization of technology they didn’t have back then Also comes into play as well. Now these corporations just abuse these protections. Not only by shadow banning and censorship, but also tracking users via cell phones,storing data mined information (and selling it )or using facial recognition imagery without consent. They are involved in several class action lawsuits about things like this...especially FB.

I have never been on FB but my wife lives on it. To each their own.

 

[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.

I just don't believe sites should suspend people arbitrarily.

You just don't believe sites should suspend people that agree with you politically.

 

[Jitss617]

A lot of people make a living destroying Democrats on Twitter and Facebook to have all their stuff deleted, because their feelings are hurt. Something needs to be done to protect

Putin shipped your job to Nigeria. You were......commie outsourced!

Huh

 

[Crepitus]

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.

So, you don't know.

But you still wanna bitch about it.

Makes sense.


Not.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Facebook is a private company funded by private money. It owns the servers that the content is published on. It has every legal right to remove whatever it wants from it's property.

The last sentence is a tell. You see, you wouldn't want Congress to revoke privileges if you actually believed Zuckerberg didn't have legal basis to remove content. You're own post is self-contradictory.

Not at all. Whatever Congress granted to FB, which I don't pretend to know, should be revoked.
That is not at all a claim that I think FB has a legal basis on which to remove posts.
My dozens of other posts are testament to that.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

I want a presidential commission to study and explain why I'm not rich and famous. As soon as they do that, I'll go on my merry way. Not asking for a lot here.

You're not rich because you're bad with money. You're not famous because you have not achieved anything worthwhile to be famous for. Ted Bundy is famous. Fame isn't always a good thing.

And Al Bundy is famous for 4 touchdowns in one game. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my presidential commission.

 

[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.

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.

I just don't believe sites should suspend people arbitrarily.

You just don't believe sites should suspend people that agree with you politically.

They should not suspend anyone if they are like Verizon or Xfinity as they claim. If they aren't then they should do as they wish but should be regulated differently. If everyone on USMB agreed with me I would never be on this board. Debates are important. You keep putting words in my mouth that aren't true. You're an asshole. If I did that on Twitter, would I be suspended? IDK. I won't be here.

 

[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.

I want a presidential commission to study and explain why I'm not rich and famous. As soon as they do that, I'll go on my merry way. Not asking for a lot here.

You're not rich because you're bad with money. You're not famous because you have not achieved anything worthwhile to be famous for. Ted Bundy is famous. Fame isn't always a good thing.

And Al Bundy is famous for 4 touchdowns in one game. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my presidential commission.

Thats because you're an idiot. Honestly. Just plain stupid. Either that or you're wasting my time with your trolling.

 

[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?

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

You're the one wanting new laws passed "for the kids"

I never said pass laws. Find one post where I said "pass laws"....

Then what exactly are you wanting?

 

[Jitss617]

Let’s remember the parry that has fought against civil rights for over a hundred years is the democrat party.