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

[OldLady]

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

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

 

[colfax_m]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

No they can’t. Not while hiding behind government protections related to platform status.

Yes, they can. Read the TOS of this website:
“We may remove or modify any Content submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We may terminate your access to all or any part of the Service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice.”

No they can’t. See section 230

“Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.”

Lots of people have sued Twitter and others for ending their accounts.

None have succeeded.

One example.

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2968&=&context=historical&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252Fsearch%253Fq%253Dmurphy%252520v%252520twitter%2526ie%253Dutf-8%2526oe%253Dutf-8%2526client%253Dfirefox-b-1-m#search=%22murphy%20v%20twitter%22

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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

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

Sorry. You are on another level of misunderstanding that is profound.
Everything has been double and triple explained.
Why should I add to your confusion? It's not as though anyone can get
through to you anyway.

 

[colfax_m]

Yes, they can. Read the TOS of this website:
“We may remove or modify any Content submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We may terminate your access to all or any part of the Service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice.”

This website doesn't pretend it's not what it clearly is. Stop using this website to excuse what Facebook does.
That's fucking dishonest and stupid!

Facebook is not a content provider. It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.
We have a Bill of Rights that makes our inalienable rights very clear.
Why don't you stop clogging up the thread with brainless drivel?

Zuckerberg is an anti civil libertarian piece of shit! Come to terms with reality.

Don’t get so potty mouthed. You are really mixed up and using terms loosely and incorrectly.

Let’s start with the simple principle that Facebook is a private company. Their website is hosted on servers they pay for. What gives you or anyone else the right to make demands about how they use their own property?

 

[OldLady]

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

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

Sorry. You are on another level of misunderstanding that is profound.
Everything has been double and triple explained.
Why should I add to your confusion? It's not as though anyone can get
through to you anyway.

You're probably right. I tried, but I cannot figure out how content on Twitter is the same as talking to someone on the phone.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

If thats the case then they are a content provider not a disseminator. Verizon and AT&T cannot and do not do that. YouTube does not either.

Not sure what you mean about Verizon and ATT but YouTube definitely does that.

Twitter and Youtube are in this to make money. Not propagate you’re message for you.

Why hasn’t Twitter made money? Why are you opposed to allowing experts decide this? Neither you nor I are experts on this.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data.

That's not why he was banned. Let's hear what he really said.

How do you explain this?

Redirect Notice

His account had been suspended accidentally, Twitter told Oren and the Post.

“This account was mistakenly caught in a spam filter,” a company spokesperson said. “The suspension was reversed and we have notified the account holder. Please note that an account’s followers take time to fully replenish after it is reinstated.”

They use that excuse multiple times. Google it. They did it to Candace Owens too. To me Twitter is a content provider and should be regulated as such. But I am not an expert so what’s wrong with having experts decide? Why are you opposed to that?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

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

Sorry. You are on another level of misunderstanding that is profound.
Everything has been double and triple explained.
Why should I add to your confusion? It's not as though anyone can get
through to you anyway.

You're probably right. I tried, but I cannot figure out how content on Twitter is the same as talking to someone on the phone.

Don’t be so old. AT&T is also an internet service provider.

 

[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.

Sorry, but it’s you who don’t understand how they’re regulated. You’re inventing rules that simply don’t exist. No website is required to “not discriminate”. It’s their website. They can do as they please. That does not mean that they become liable for the content on their website.

That’s not my argument. If they discriminate then they are a content provider and need to be regulated as such. That is all I am saying. They may block or discriminate against anyone they wish but should be regulated as such then.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

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

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

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Don’t get so potty mouthed. You are really mixed up and using terms loosely and incorrectly.

Let’s start with the simple principle that Facebook is a private company. Their website is hosted on servers they pay for. What gives you or anyone else the right to make demands about how they use their own property?

The fact that Facebook is a private company is irrelevant. Their ownership of their business doesn't give them the right to invalidate the Unites States Constitution anymore than the owner of a movie theater can remove
people when they cheer when Stalin dies in a movie because it offends him (though that may be too convoluted and obtuse for you to follow).

I suggest you read what I already provide in post # 80. It couldn't be more clear.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

That’s not my argument. If they discriminate then they are a content provider and need to be regulated as such. That is all I am saying. They may block or discriminate against anyone they wish but should be regulated as such then.

Yes! How can it be made more clear?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

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

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

A Newspaper is not a platform. It operates under different laws

 

[colfax_m]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

If thats the case then they are a content provider not a disseminator. Verizon and AT&T cannot and do not do that. YouTube does not either.

Not sure what you mean about Verizon and ATT but YouTube definitely does that.

Twitter and Youtube are in this to make money. Not propagate you’re message for you.

Why hasn’t Twitter made money? Why are you opposed to allowing experts decide this? Neither you nor I are experts on this.

Twitter became profitable a few years ago.

What’s that got to do with anything?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

If thats the case then they are a content provider not a disseminator. Verizon and AT&T cannot and do not do that. YouTube does not either.

Not sure what you mean about Verizon and ATT but YouTube definitely does that.

Twitter and Youtube are in this to make money. Not propagate you’re message for you.

Why hasn’t Twitter made money? Why are you opposed to allowing experts decide this? Neither you nor I are experts on this.

Twitter became profitable a few years ago.

What’s that got to do with anything?

It means they may be sued if they provide inaccurate content. How are you not following this? If they are just a disseminator then they aren’t liable but if they pick and choose they are. This is my understanding of the law. Now if I am wrong the committee or panel will tell me I am if I am right then they will be regulated as such.

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

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

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

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

They use that excuse multiple times. Google it. They did it to Candace Owens too. To me Twitter is a content provider and should be regulated as such. But I am not an expert so what’s wrong with having experts decide? Why are you opposed to that?

Twitter is no more than electronic graffiti or writing on a gas station bathroom wall.
It is clearly the content of others that Twitter deals in but if they claim to be just a publisher only passing along what others provide to them then they have no right to censor the thoughts and opinions of others.

Does Twitter claim to be merely a publisher of the thoughts of others? If they have made that claim to gain
certain advantages from Congress then they have no right to remove someone like Candace Owens because her opinions offend them.

 

[colfax_m]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

If thats the case then they are a content provider not a disseminator. Verizon and AT&T cannot and do not do that. YouTube does not either.

Not sure what you mean about Verizon and ATT but YouTube definitely does that.

Twitter and Youtube are in this to make money. Not propagate you’re message for you.

Why hasn’t Twitter made money? Why are you opposed to allowing experts decide this? Neither you nor I are experts on this.

Twitter became profitable a few years ago.

What’s that got to do with anything?

It means they may be sued if they provide inaccurate content. How are you not following this? If they are just a disseminator then they aren’t liable but if they pick and choose they are. This is my understanding of the law. Now if I am wrong the committee or panel will tell me I am if I am right then they will be regulated as such.

No panel needed. This is a legal argument and has been weighed in court cases. You’re inventing regulations that don’t exist. It doesn’t matter if a website decided to remove content they don’t like. They’re not liable based on the law. Section 230 of the CDA.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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

Newspapers don't claim monopoly privileges that Facebook does, for instance.
That's a totally specious point.

 

[BlueGin]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

If thats the case then they are a content provider not a disseminator. Verizon and AT&T cannot and do not do that. YouTube does not either.

Not sure what you mean about Verizon and ATT but YouTube definitely does that.

Twitter and Youtube are in this to make money. Not propagate you’re message for you.

Why hasn’t Twitter made money? Why are you opposed to allowing experts decide this? Neither you nor I are experts on this.

Twitter became profitable a few years ago.

What’s that got to do with anything?

It means they may be sued if they provide inaccurate content. How are you not following this? If they are just a disseminator then they aren’t liable but if they pick and choose they are. This is my understanding of the law. Now if I am wrong the committee or panel will tell me I am if I am right then they will be regulated as such.

You are not wrong. They are planning to investigate these huge social media corporations because they use the government protections to skirt the law.