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.Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.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....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.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.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?You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.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.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.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.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?
Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?
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.
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!
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.
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.
Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.
It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.