Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

[Michelle420]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

Private company yes but all business must operate within a framework of rules and regulations and l think it high time to yank the chains on Facebook, Twitter and the like.

Should Rush get regulated by gov for not covering negative stories about Trump or should he get to run his show they way he wants to run it?

The difference is, Rush is regulated. He is considered a publisher and is responsible for the content of his show. If he says something, or allows someone else to say something slanderous or defamatory, on his show, rush can be held liable, and even sued for that.

I'm all for Twitter, or any social media, having those same freedoms, as long as they are held to the same legal standard.

So let’s say a business is not a publisher, they are a platform that enables social interactions... they still have a responsibility to moderate, right? For example they can make rules against posting lewd, offensive, violent, provocative, pornographic and the like... and they do have the ability and obligation to moderate their platform appropriately, right? So what’s fines the boundaries around a publisher and a platform with content guidelines.

Well, yes, but with reservation. When the content is obviously and blatantly harmful, yes, and when it displays personally identifiable information. On its face, that would be correct. However, with some of that, you can get into the weeds a little. For example, who decides what is offensive and violent? One side wants to label the other as a hate group. We see that all the time these days.

Just because its politically in opposition to what you believe doesn't mean its hateful. Therein lies the minutiae. Twitter, being obviously left biased, is going to be much more critical of anything that a right wing person posts, and will often restrict content, just because they don't like it, even if the content is not actually bad, its just in opposition.

Its at this point when that social media platform has to make a choice. Do they want to allow their users to be able to freely post content and express their ideas, and be able to enjoy the protection that they cannot be held liable for what those users post, or do they want to give up that protection, and now have to comb through all of the posts that millions of users make on a daily basis to make sure there is nothing there that can get them in trouble?

As long as those social media outlets allow the fair and unhindered free flow of political ideas, even those you don't agree with, as long as those posts are not actually harmful, then that is a good thing.

Well let’s drill down on that a bit. Where are the conditions defined that a Platform has the right to moderate harmful content? And where is “harmful” defined? What you say makes sense but we are talking law here so these things must be written and defined... Right?

Why do corporations want biden to win so bad?

Which corporations are you talking about?

All of them

 

[Slade3200]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

Private company yes but all business must operate within a framework of rules and regulations and l think it high time to yank the chains on Facebook, Twitter and the like.

Should Rush get regulated by gov for not covering negative stories about Trump or should he get to run his show they way he wants to run it?

The difference is, Rush is regulated. He is considered a publisher and is responsible for the content of his show. If he says something, or allows someone else to say something slanderous or defamatory, on his show, rush can be held liable, and even sued for that.

I'm all for Twitter, or any social media, having those same freedoms, as long as they are held to the same legal standard.

So let’s say a business is not a publisher, they are a platform that enables social interactions... they still have a responsibility to moderate, right? For example they can make rules against posting lewd, offensive, violent, provocative, pornographic and the like... and they do have the ability and obligation to moderate their platform appropriately, right? So what’s fines the boundaries around a publisher and a platform with content guidelines.

Well, yes, but with reservation. When the content is obviously and blatantly harmful, yes, and when it displays personally identifiable information. On its face, that would be correct. However, with some of that, you can get into the weeds a little. For example, who decides what is offensive and violent? One side wants to label the other as a hate group. We see that all the time these days.

Just because its politically in opposition to what you believe doesn't mean its hateful. Therein lies the minutiae. Twitter, being obviously left biased, is going to be much more critical of anything that a right wing person posts, and will often restrict content, just because they don't like it, even if the content is not actually bad, its just in opposition.

Its at this point when that social media platform has to make a choice. Do they want to allow their users to be able to freely post content and express their ideas, and be able to enjoy the protection that they cannot be held liable for what those users post, or do they want to give up that protection, and now have to comb through all of the posts that millions of users make on a daily basis to make sure there is nothing there that can get them in trouble?

As long as those social media outlets allow the fair and unhindered free flow of political ideas, even those you don't agree with, as long as those posts are not actually harmful, then that is a good thing.

Well let’s drill down on that a bit. Where are the conditions defined that a Platform has the right to moderate harmful content? And where is “harmful” defined? What you say makes sense but we are talking law here so these things must be written and defined... Right?

Well, now we are getting into defining "what is hate speech". Well, unfortunately, that definition changes based on what political spectrum you align to. Now, that doesn't mean its an accurate definition. There is true hate speech, and then there are varying politically correct opinions of hate speech.

Just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they are hating. If I say "I dont like YOU because you do x,y, and z" is not the same as "I dont like the fact that you do x,y, and z". See what I mean? One is a difference of opinion, the other could be considered hate speech.

We can disagree, vigorously, about abortion, doesnt mean i hate you because you support abortion.

Its not so much about "law" as it is about Twitter (or any other platform) using their own definition to censor content, which, as ive said before, they are completely free to do, but if they are going to moderate their content, and only allow free expression from one side, then they can't enjoy protections as a platform, if they are going to function as a publisher.

I apologize if I'm not explaining well enough, got a plate of fajitas in front of me so my attention is divided

You’re doing just fine, especially with the Fajitas... damn that sounds good!

mom not just talking about hate speech. What about photos of aborted babies? Does Twitter have the right to be a “platform” and make rules against posting photos like that?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

They are a private company enjoying exemption from liability because they are supposedly a "neutral platform." Once they begin to censure content they should not enjoy section 230 status and should be open to any lawsuit like any other news platform is.

Section 230 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

New case law around 2008 started to find cases where providers can be liable for user content due to being a "publisher or speaker" related to that content under §230(c)(1). One of the first such cases to make this challenge was Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LL

They are now a publisher, editing content as they see fit. That means they should be exempt and open to any and all liability lawsuits.

 

[depotoo]

The latest...

BOOM, Biden

One of the people on the Hunter Biden email chain has corroborated the authenticity of the emails. Damn fricken ouch. BOOM! One of the People in Explosive Hunter Biden Email Chain Has Corroborated the Authenticity of the Emails

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

Private company yes but all business must operate within a framework of rules and regulations and l think it high time to yank the chains on Facebook, Twitter and the like.

Parler Free Speech Social Network

Parler is an unbiased social media focused on real user experiences and engagement. Free expression without violence and no censorship. Parler never shares your personal data.

share.par.pw

I honestly dont know why they all havent abandoned twitter. It's long past time to leave

 

[Slade3200]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

Private company yes but all business must operate within a framework of rules and regulations and l think it high time to yank the chains on Facebook, Twitter and the like.

Should Rush get regulated by gov for not covering negative stories about Trump or should he get to run his show they way he wants to run it?

The difference is, Rush is regulated. He is considered a publisher and is responsible for the content of his show. If he says something, or allows someone else to say something slanderous or defamatory, on his show, rush can be held liable, and even sued for that.

I'm all for Twitter, or any social media, having those same freedoms, as long as they are held to the same legal standard.

So let’s say a business is not a publisher, they are a platform that enables social interactions... they still have a responsibility to moderate, right? For example they can make rules against posting lewd, offensive, violent, provocative, pornographic and the like... and they do have the ability and obligation to moderate their platform appropriately, right? So what’s fines the boundaries around a publisher and a platform with content guidelines.

Well, yes, but with reservation. When the content is obviously and blatantly harmful, yes, and when it displays personally identifiable information. On its face, that would be correct. However, with some of that, you can get into the weeds a little. For example, who decides what is offensive and violent? One side wants to label the other as a hate group. We see that all the time these days.

Just because its politically in opposition to what you believe doesn't mean its hateful. Therein lies the minutiae. Twitter, being obviously left biased, is going to be much more critical of anything that a right wing person posts, and will often restrict content, just because they don't like it, even if the content is not actually bad, its just in opposition.

Its at this point when that social media platform has to make a choice. Do they want to allow their users to be able to freely post content and express their ideas, and be able to enjoy the protection that they cannot be held liable for what those users post, or do they want to give up that protection, and now have to comb through all of the posts that millions of users make on a daily basis to make sure there is nothing there that can get them in trouble?

As long as those social media outlets allow the fair and unhindered free flow of political ideas, even those you don't agree with, as long as those posts are not actually harmful, then that is a good thing.

Well let’s drill down on that a bit. Where are the conditions defined that a Platform has the right to moderate harmful content? And where is “harmful” defined? What you say makes sense but we are talking law here so these things must be written and defined... Right?

Why do corporations want biden to win so bad?

Which corporations are you talking about?

All of them

Haha. Ok

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It doesn't matter any more. Those emails are rocketing around the world. Two people in the email string have come forward to confirm the emails, that Hunter Biden was selling the shitstain obama administration by the inch. The "Big Guy" is Joe Biden. This is starting to avalanche.

 

[Slade3200]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

They are a private company enjoying exemption from liability because they are supposedly a "neutral platform." Once they begin to censure content they should not enjoy section 230 status and should be open to any lawsuit like any other news platform is.

Section 230 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

New case law around 2008 started to find cases where providers can be liable for user content due to being a "publisher or speaker" related to that content under §230(c)(1). One of the first such cases to make this challenge was Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LL

They are now a publisher, editing content as they see fit. That means they should be exempt and open to any and all liability lawsuits.

The link you provided seems to allow for the moderation of content. See here.

The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

 

[Slade3200]

It doesn't matter any more. Those emails are rocketing around the world. Two people in the email string have come forward to confirm the emails, that Hunter Biden was selling the shitstain obama administration by the inch. The "Big Guy" is Joe Biden. This is starting to avalanche.

I totally believe you... keep up the good work?! Y’all are off your rockers

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

It doesn't matter any more. Those emails are rocketing around the world. Two people in the email string have come forward to confirm the emails, that Hunter Biden was selling the shitstain obama administration by the inch. The "Big Guy" is Joe Biden. This is starting to avalanche.

Leftists think "laughing" emojis will make it all go away

 

[bluzman61]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, will little Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

It figures.

 

[bluzman61]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

 

[Slade3200]

It doesn't matter any more. Those emails are rocketing around the world. Two people in the email string have come forward to confirm the emails, that Hunter Biden was selling the shitstain obama administration by the inch. The "Big Guy" is Joe Biden. This is starting to avalanche.

Leftists think "laughing" emojis will make it all go away

Laughing emojis just show how I’m reacting to funny posts

 

[iceberg]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

Private company yes but all business must operate within a framework of rules and regulations and l think it high time to yank the chains on Facebook, Twitter and the like.

Should Rush get regulated by gov for not covering negative stories about Trump or should he get to run his show they way he wants to run it?

The difference is, Rush is regulated. He is considered a publisher and is responsible for the content of his show. If he says something, or allows someone else to say something slanderous or defamatory, on his show, rush can be held liable, and even sued for that.

I'm all for Twitter, or any social media, having those same freedoms, as long as they are held to the same legal standard.

So let’s say a business is not a publisher, they are a platform that enables social interactions... they still have a responsibility to moderate, right? For example they can make rules against posting lewd, offensive, violent, provocative, pornographic and the like... and they do have the ability and obligation to moderate their platform appropriately, right? So what’s fines the boundaries around a publisher and a platform with content guidelines.

Well, yes, but with reservation. When the content is obviously and blatantly harmful, yes, and when it displays personally identifiable information. On its face, that would be correct. However, with some of that, you can get into the weeds a little. For example, who decides what is offensive and violent? One side wants to label the other as a hate group. We see that all the time these days.

Just because its politically in opposition to what you believe doesn't mean its hateful. Therein lies the minutiae. Twitter, being obviously left biased, is going to be much more critical of anything that a right wing person posts, and will often restrict content, just because they don't like it, even if the content is not actually bad, its just in opposition.

Its at this point when that social media platform has to make a choice. Do they want to allow their users to be able to freely post content and express their ideas, and be able to enjoy the protection that they cannot be held liable for what those users post, or do they want to give up that protection, and now have to comb through all of the posts that millions of users make on a daily basis to make sure there is nothing there that can get them in trouble?

As long as those social media outlets allow the fair and unhindered free flow of political ideas, even those you don't agree with, as long as those posts are not actually harmful, then that is a good thing.

Well let’s drill down on that a bit. Where are the conditions defined that a Platform has the right to moderate harmful content? And where is “harmful” defined? What you say makes sense but we are talking law here so these things must be written and defined... Right?

Well, now we are getting into defining "what is hate speech". Well, unfortunately, that definition changes based on what political spectrum you align to. Now, that doesn't mean its an accurate definition. There is true hate speech, and then there are varying politically correct opinions of hate speech.

Just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they are hating. If I say "I dont like YOU because you do x,y, and z" is not the same as "I dont like the fact that you do x,y, and z". See what I mean? One is a difference of opinion, the other could be considered hate speech.

We can disagree, vigorously, about abortion, doesnt mean i hate you because you support abortion.

Its not so much about "law" as it is about Twitter (or any other platform) using their own definition to censor content, which, as ive said before, they are completely free to do, but if they are going to moderate their content, and only allow free expression from one side, then they can't enjoy protections as a platform, if they are going to function as a publisher.

I apologize if I'm not explaining well enough, got a plate of fajitas in front of me so my attention is divided

You’re doing just fine, especially with the Fajitas... damn that sounds good!

mom not just talking about hate speech. What about photos of aborted babies? Does Twitter have the right to be a “platform” and make rules against posting photos like that?

As long as rules are, the, same for all and enforced evenlyn.

Dunno why that i

It doesn't matter any more. Those emails are rocketing around the world. Two people in the email string have come forward to confirm the emails, that Hunter Biden was selling the shitstain obama administration by the inch. The "Big Guy" is Joe Biden. This is starting to avalanche.

Leftists think "laughing" emojis will make it all go away

Laughing emojis just show how I’m reacting to funny posts

more shows you are a dick.

 

[iceberg]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

Twitter doesn't make dog collars. As you certainly know it is the largest social media platform in the world. They wield tremendous power to influence public opinion and they are using that power selectively to help Biden win.

I don’t know how many different ways I can say it. They are a private company, they can control and present and do whatever they want with in the bounds of the law. If they broke the law then state the law and I’ll look. Otherwise be a good conservative and fight for the federal government to regulate them

personally I don’t give a shit if they want to filter out political disinformation during elections. We get enough of that crap as it is

Especially when Twitter selectively decides what is and is not "political disinformation", right? As a good Conservative, I want companies in control of information to stay out of politics.

Yes Twitter decides what they want and don’t want on their platform, it’s their platform, they decide what is fake and not, what’s appropriate and not, it’s THEIR PLATFORM.

a platform doesn't get to make that decision.

a publisher does.

while a platform has guidelines of use they must be fair in enforcement.

ya fuck.

 

[iceberg]

Go to Parler.com, opposite of Twitter for some perspective.

wimkin.com for a new Facebook.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

Private company yes but all business must operate within a framework of rules and regulations and l think it high time to yank the chains on Facebook, Twitter and the like.

Should Rush get regulated by gov for not covering negative stories about Trump or should he get to run his show they way he wants to run it?

The difference is, Rush is regulated. He is considered a publisher and is responsible for the content of his show. If he says something, or allows someone else to say something slanderous or defamatory, on his show, rush can be held liable, and even sued for that.

I'm all for Twitter, or any social media, having those same freedoms, as long as they are held to the same legal standard.

So let’s say a business is not a publisher, they are a platform that enables social interactions... they still have a responsibility to moderate, right? For example they can make rules against posting lewd, offensive, violent, provocative, pornographic and the like... and they do have the ability and obligation to moderate their platform appropriately, right? So what’s fines the boundaries around a publisher and a platform with content guidelines.

Well, yes, but with reservation. When the content is obviously and blatantly harmful, yes, and when it displays personally identifiable information. On its face, that would be correct. However, with some of that, you can get into the weeds a little. For example, who decides what is offensive and violent? One side wants to label the other as a hate group. We see that all the time these days.

Just because its politically in opposition to what you believe doesn't mean its hateful. Therein lies the minutiae. Twitter, being obviously left biased, is going to be much more critical of anything that a right wing person posts, and will often restrict content, just because they don't like it, even if the content is not actually bad, its just in opposition.

Its at this point when that social media platform has to make a choice. Do they want to allow their users to be able to freely post content and express their ideas, and be able to enjoy the protection that they cannot be held liable for what those users post, or do they want to give up that protection, and now have to comb through all of the posts that millions of users make on a daily basis to make sure there is nothing there that can get them in trouble?

As long as those social media outlets allow the fair and unhindered free flow of political ideas, even those you don't agree with, as long as those posts are not actually harmful, then that is a good thing.

Well let’s drill down on that a bit. Where are the conditions defined that a Platform has the right to moderate harmful content? And where is “harmful” defined? What you say makes sense but we are talking law here so these things must be written and defined... Right?

Well, now we are getting into defining "what is hate speech". Well, unfortunately, that definition changes based on what political spectrum you align to. Now, that doesn't mean its an accurate definition. There is true hate speech, and then there are varying politically correct opinions of hate speech.

Just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they are hating. If I say "I dont like YOU because you do x,y, and z" is not the same as "I dont like the fact that you do x,y, and z". See what I mean? One is a difference of opinion, the other could be considered hate speech.

We can disagree, vigorously, about abortion, doesnt mean i hate you because you support abortion.

Its not so much about "law" as it is about Twitter (or any other platform) using their own definition to censor content, which, as ive said before, they are completely free to do, but if they are going to moderate their content, and only allow free expression from one side, then they can't enjoy protections as a platform, if they are going to function as a publisher.

I apologize if I'm not explaining well enough, got a plate of fajitas in front of me so my attention is divided

You’re doing just fine, especially with the Fajitas... damn that sounds good!

mom not just talking about hate speech. What about photos of aborted babies? Does Twitter have the right to be a “platform” and make rules against posting photos like that?

I'm not on twitter so I don't know the photos you speak of, or the context in which they are posted.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Go to Parler.com, opposite of Twitter for some perspective.

wimkin.com for a new Facebook.

I support leaving these PLATFORMS. But I also support forcing them to apply the rules equally or shut them down

 

[Slade3200]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

Private company yes but all business must operate within a framework of rules and regulations and l think it high time to yank the chains on Facebook, Twitter and the like.

Should Rush get regulated by gov for not covering negative stories about Trump or should he get to run his show they way he wants to run it?

The difference is, Rush is regulated. He is considered a publisher and is responsible for the content of his show. If he says something, or allows someone else to say something slanderous or defamatory, on his show, rush can be held liable, and even sued for that.

I'm all for Twitter, or any social media, having those same freedoms, as long as they are held to the same legal standard.

So let’s say a business is not a publisher, they are a platform that enables social interactions... they still have a responsibility to moderate, right? For example they can make rules against posting lewd, offensive, violent, provocative, pornographic and the like... and they do have the ability and obligation to moderate their platform appropriately, right? So what’s fines the boundaries around a publisher and a platform with content guidelines.

Well, yes, but with reservation. When the content is obviously and blatantly harmful, yes, and when it displays personally identifiable information. On its face, that would be correct. However, with some of that, you can get into the weeds a little. For example, who decides what is offensive and violent? One side wants to label the other as a hate group. We see that all the time these days.

Just because its politically in opposition to what you believe doesn't mean its hateful. Therein lies the minutiae. Twitter, being obviously left biased, is going to be much more critical of anything that a right wing person posts, and will often restrict content, just because they don't like it, even if the content is not actually bad, its just in opposition.

Its at this point when that social media platform has to make a choice. Do they want to allow their users to be able to freely post content and express their ideas, and be able to enjoy the protection that they cannot be held liable for what those users post, or do they want to give up that protection, and now have to comb through all of the posts that millions of users make on a daily basis to make sure there is nothing there that can get them in trouble?

As long as those social media outlets allow the fair and unhindered free flow of political ideas, even those you don't agree with, as long as those posts are not actually harmful, then that is a good thing.

Well let’s drill down on that a bit. Where are the conditions defined that a Platform has the right to moderate harmful content? And where is “harmful” defined? What you say makes sense but we are talking law here so these things must be written and defined... Right?

Well, now we are getting into defining "what is hate speech". Well, unfortunately, that definition changes based on what political spectrum you align to. Now, that doesn't mean its an accurate definition. There is true hate speech, and then there are varying politically correct opinions of hate speech.

Just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they are hating. If I say "I dont like YOU because you do x,y, and z" is not the same as "I dont like the fact that you do x,y, and z". See what I mean? One is a difference of opinion, the other could be considered hate speech.

We can disagree, vigorously, about abortion, doesnt mean i hate you because you support abortion.

Its not so much about "law" as it is about Twitter (or any other platform) using their own definition to censor content, which, as ive said before, they are completely free to do, but if they are going to moderate their content, and only allow free expression from one side, then they can't enjoy protections as a platform, if they are going to function as a publisher.

I apologize if I'm not explaining well enough, got a plate of fajitas in front of me so my attention is divided

You’re doing just fine, especially with the Fajitas... damn that sounds good!

mom not just talking about hate speech. What about photos of aborted babies? Does Twitter have the right to be a “platform” and make rules against posting photos like that?

I'm not on twitter so I don't know the photos you speak of, or the context in which they are posted.

I’m stating a hypothetical. If Twitter doesn’t want posts with dead babies on their site do they have the right to block those?

what about profanity?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Who is surprised? Jack and his lackeys are hedging on the Dems winning and them gaining immense power and expansion within the U.S. They would lose millions of Trump supporters, but, there would be benefits for them for their loyalty.

The question is. If China succeeds in their objectives, wile Jack be spared for his high social credit score, or will he be lined up with the others?

Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

Twitter suspended the official account of the Trump campaign on Thursday, saying Team Trump’s tweet calling Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “liar” and posting a video about Hunter Biden’s business dealings is a violation of its policy.

The action comes just 19 days before Election Day.

“Your account has been locked,” the standard Twitter message read. “What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for: Violating our rules against posting private information.”

They are a private company are they not? They can do whatever they want. Who cares?

They are a private company enjoying exemption from liability because they are supposedly a "neutral platform." Once they begin to censure content they should not enjoy section 230 status and should be open to any lawsuit like any other news platform is.

Section 230 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

New case law around 2008 started to find cases where providers can be liable for user content due to being a "publisher or speaker" related to that content under §230(c)(1). One of the first such cases to make this challenge was Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LL

They are now a publisher, editing content as they see fit. That means they should be exempt and open to any and all liability lawsuits.

The link you provided seems to allow for the moderation of content. See here.

The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

They can ONLY moderate content that is obscene or offensive. NOT content they don't agree with politically.