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

[Crepitus]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

No. Hate speech has a legal definition.

Sorry about your luck.

Not in this country, fucko.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Sorry, but you apparently don't understand your own link.

No?

For something to have a "legal definition" it has to be recognized in a court of law. The highest court in the land has deemed there is no such thing as hate speech, therefore your claims of a legal definition for such are completely bunk.

Sit down, moron.

Again, you aren't understanding the thrust of that ruling.

It doesn't say what you think it does.

Maybe 3 years of supporting tRump has completely destroyed your ability to think for yourself.

Then prove me wrong, assclown. Show us a US court case where someone was convicted of hate speech. Should be super easy, since there's a "legal definition, dontcha know...

It's prosecuted under hate crimes.

Hate Crime Laws

www.justice.gov

Swing and a miss, bozo. Once again, show us a case of someone being convicted of hate speech.

Pssssst.

Still waiting....

Still waiting for what?

 

[satrebil]

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all! Every time Twitter or some big authoritarian tech giant shuts out conservative voices
and lets some leftist voice speak instead they are expressing a preference and their opinion.
Twitter depends entirely on the posts of others and that means they produce virtually no content of their
own and supposedly have a duty to express all points of view.

Tell your conservative voices not to lie or use hate speech. Then they won't get "shut down".

Hate speech defined by you is what you don’t want to become informed of or disagree with

No. Hate speech has a legal definition.

Sorry about your luck.

Not in this country, fucko.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Sorry, but you apparently don't understand your own link.

No?

For something to have a "legal definition" it has to be recognized in a court of law. The highest court in the land has deemed there is no such thing as hate speech, therefore your claims of a legal definition for such are completely bunk.

Sit down, moron.

Again, you aren't understanding the thrust of that ruling.

It doesn't say what you think it does.

Maybe 3 years of supporting tRump has completely destroyed your ability to think for yourself.

Then prove me wrong, assclown. Show us a US court case where someone was convicted of hate speech. Should be super easy, since there's a "legal definition, dontcha know...

It's prosecuted under hate crimes.

Hate Crime Laws

www.justice.gov

Swing and a miss, bozo. Once again, show us a case of someone being convicted of hate speech.

Pssssst.

Still waiting....

Still waiting for what?

Stop playing dumb. Prove your claim.

 

[BlueGin]

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.

Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.

I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.

It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.

Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.

Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.

If my friend isn't lying and he basically said Palestine never existed as a country, that should not be worth a ban. IMO. But its their platform. USMB is very fair IMO how they do it here. Twitter from what I hear and read is not.

Twitter is a private company. They have no obligation to be fair.

The ridiculous assertion once again that private companies can do whatever they want because they are a private company

Shucks. Individual rights and property rights don’t matter as much as they used to. Do they?

We know you hope do but we won’t let it happen.

I see a lot of supposed conservatives wanting government for force social media companies to serve them.

Incorrect. They can be publishers all they want and be as biased as they want...they just shouldn’t get federal protections while pretending they are platforms.

 

[Norman]

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.

Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.

I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.

It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.

Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.

Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.

If my friend isn't lying and he basically said Palestine never existed as a country, that should not be worth a ban. IMO. But its their platform. USMB is very fair IMO how they do it here. Twitter from what I hear and read is not.

Twitter is a private company. They have no obligation to be fair.

The ridiculous assertion once again that private companies can do whatever they want because they are a private company

Shucks. Individual rights and property rights don’t matter as much as they used to. Do they?

We know you hope do but we won’t let it happen.

I see a lot of supposed conservatives wanting government for force social media companies to serve them.

Incorrect. They can be publishers all they want and be as biased as they want...they just shouldn’t get federal protections while pretending they are platforms.

Bake that cake means bake that cake.

If they refuse to play fair, break them up.

As of right now they are colluding to give an election that belongs to the American people, to the anti-American candidate. It is time to break them up.