Twitter locks official Trump campaign account over sharing Hunter Biden video

[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?

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?

As long as they block ALL DEAD BABY posts.

 

[bravoactual]

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.”

This latest Hunter Bdien (Who IS NOT RUNNING FOR A DAMN THING) is now being investigated as a Russian Intell Op. Way to Cons, keep believing the lies.

 

[MisterBeale]

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?

View attachment 401903View attachment 401903

 

[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.

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

Obscene or offensive is what the law says? Is that defined? Can you post the details?

 

[beagle9]

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.”

Trump gets no respect from these Demoncrat lackey's. I pray he wins so he can take care of business concerning these anti-American POC in the coming years. It's time for justice, and the corruption of the deep state to end. I hope I hear "you're fired" for the next 4 years around the deep state enclaves.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.”

This latest Hunter Bdien (Who IS NOT RUNNING FOR A DAMN THING) is now being investigated as a Russian Intell Op. Way to Cons, keep believing the lies.

Only by the deep state operatives in the FBI.. The same ones who with held this information from the president while he was being impeached.. I would love to be a fly on the wall when Wray is brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee and called to the Preisdents Office on monday for a full explanation...

 

[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.

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?

Sure, they can ban them, again, its their site. They can do with it as they wish. If banning the photos of dead babies was in protest to abortion, then they would also have to ban those who support abortion. If they ban profanity from one person, they would have to ban profanity from all persons.

My argument is not about how a social media platform conducts its business, its about if it claims to be a platform that supports the free and open exchange of ideas, and gains certain immunities because of that, but then decides it wants to decide which content they are going to allow and not allow by shutting out the opposing views, then, they lose those immunities.

It would be the difference between them saying "look, these yahoos are going to post what they want to, and, im not responsible for their words, im just the paper on which they print it, and if you don't hold me accountable, im not getting involved" and them saying "these yahoos are going to post what they want, but i agree with you, and you and you, but i do not agree with you, and you".

They would essentially be taking a stand, and saying they stand behind and agree with what their members post on their platform and they are going tonsilence those they don't agree with. This turns them into a publisher of those thoughts and ideas and they are now liable for what those people say.

If there are laws that allow them immunity in exchange for being a fair and open platform, then they relinquish thise immunities if they decide to be a publisher of content.

 

[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?

Sure, they can ban them, again, its their site. They can do with it as they wish. If banning the photos of dead babies was in protest to abortion, then they would also have to ban those who support abortion. If they ban profanity from one person, they would have to ban profanity from all persons.

My argument is not about how a social media platform conducts its business, its about if it claims to be a platform that supports the free and open exchange of ideas, and gains certain immunities because of that, but then decides it wants to decide which content they are going to allow and not allow by shutting out the opposing views, then, they lose those immunities.

It would be the difference between them saying "look, these yahoos are going to post what they want to, and, im not responsible for their words, im just the paper on which they print it, and if you don't hold me accountable, im not getting involved" and them saying "these yahoos are going to post what they want, but i agree with you, and you and you, but i do not agree with you, and you".

They would essentially be taking a stand, and saying they stand behind and agree with what their members post on their platform and they are going tonsilence those they don't agree with. This turns them into a publisher of those thoughts and ideas and they are now liable for what those people say.

If there are laws that allow them immunity in exchange for being a fair and open platform, then they relinquish thise immunities if they decide to be a publisher of content.

Ok but I’m this case they banned the Post article because it violated their privacy policy by exposing private information in the emails the article contained. That’s not blocking a point of view that’s enforcing their guidelines, right?

 

[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?

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?

Sure, they can ban them, again, its their site. They can do with it as they wish. If banning the photos of dead babies was in protest to abortion, then they would also have to ban those who support abortion. If they ban profanity from one person, they would have to ban profanity from all persons.

My argument is not about how a social media platform conducts its business, its about if it claims to be a platform that supports the free and open exchange of ideas, and gains certain immunities because of that, but then decides it wants to decide which content they are going to allow and not allow by shutting out the opposing views, then, they lose those immunities.

It would be the difference between them saying "look, these yahoos are going to post what they want to, and, im not responsible for their words, im just the paper on which they print it, and if you don't hold me accountable, im not getting involved" and them saying "these yahoos are going to post what they want, but i agree with you, and you and you, but i do not agree with you, and you".

They would essentially be taking a stand, and saying they stand behind and agree with what their members post on their platform and they are going tonsilence those they don't agree with. This turns them into a publisher of those thoughts and ideas and they are now liable for what those people say.

If there are laws that allow them immunity in exchange for being a fair and open platform, then they relinquish thise immunities if they decide to be a publisher of content.

Ok but I’m this case they banned the Post article because it violated their privacy policy by exposing private information in the emails the article contained. That’s not blocking a point of view that’s enforcing their guidelines, right?

You dig really good, ponyboy.

 

[Invisibleflash]

Trump should just send out emails. Screw the twits.

 

[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.

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?

Sure, they can ban them, again, its their site. They can do with it as they wish. If banning the photos of dead babies was in protest to abortion, then they would also have to ban those who support abortion. If they ban profanity from one person, they would have to ban profanity from all persons.

My argument is not about how a social media platform conducts its business, its about if it claims to be a platform that supports the free and open exchange of ideas, and gains certain immunities because of that, but then decides it wants to decide which content they are going to allow and not allow by shutting out the opposing views, then, they lose those immunities.

It would be the difference between them saying "look, these yahoos are going to post what they want to, and, im not responsible for their words, im just the paper on which they print it, and if you don't hold me accountable, im not getting involved" and them saying "these yahoos are going to post what they want, but i agree with you, and you and you, but i do not agree with you, and you".

They would essentially be taking a stand, and saying they stand behind and agree with what their members post on their platform and they are going tonsilence those they don't agree with. This turns them into a publisher of those thoughts and ideas and they are now liable for what those people say.

If there are laws that allow them immunity in exchange for being a fair and open platform, then they relinquish thise immunities if they decide to be a publisher of content.

Ok but I’m this case they banned the Post article because it violated their privacy policy by exposing private information in the emails the article contained. That’s not blocking a point of view that’s enforcing their guidelines, right?

Yep, and my first response to this post indicated that if there was a privacy issue, that Twitter had the right to take action.

Now, you may disagree, but we all know its was really a politically motivated action disguised as a terms of service violation, but nobody can prove that, aside from all of the other anti conservative stances they have taken as well as the anti conservative viewpoints of their management.

 

[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?

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?

Sure, they can ban them, again, its their site. They can do with it as they wish. If banning the photos of dead babies was in protest to abortion, then they would also have to ban those who support abortion. If they ban profanity from one person, they would have to ban profanity from all persons.

My argument is not about how a social media platform conducts its business, its about if it claims to be a platform that supports the free and open exchange of ideas, and gains certain immunities because of that, but then decides it wants to decide which content they are going to allow and not allow by shutting out the opposing views, then, they lose those immunities.

It would be the difference between them saying "look, these yahoos are going to post what they want to, and, im not responsible for their words, im just the paper on which they print it, and if you don't hold me accountable, im not getting involved" and them saying "these yahoos are going to post what they want, but i agree with you, and you and you, but i do not agree with you, and you".

They would essentially be taking a stand, and saying they stand behind and agree with what their members post on their platform and they are going tonsilence those they don't agree with. This turns them into a publisher of those thoughts and ideas and they are now liable for what those people say.

If there are laws that allow them immunity in exchange for being a fair and open platform, then they relinquish thise immunities if they decide to be a publisher of content.

Ok but I’m this case they banned the Post article because it violated their privacy policy by exposing private information in the emails the article contained. That’s not blocking a point of view that’s enforcing their guidelines, right?

Yep, and my first response to this post indicated that if there was a privacy issue, that Twitter had the right to take action.

Now, you may disagree, but we all know its was really a politically motivated action disguised as a terms of service violation, but nobody can prove that, aside from all of the other anti conservative stances they have taken as well as the anti conservative viewpoints of their management.

welcome to slades world. if he doesn't like it, it's not true. the standards he uses to judge his side with are vastly different than the standards he uses against people he doesn't like. by this fact alone he's impossible to talk to because in his mind, intentional or not, he refuses to be open to being wrong.

we have stacks of evidence against the bidens. evidence that to date they have not said is a lie. why not? if you made these claims at me i'd come right back at you to demand you prove it. if it were true, i'd shut up also til i could build a story or just run and hide.

we see them doing #2 and NOT taking shit. then again maybe they are all taking a huge collective one now.

slade loves to pass himself off as smart but his self-imposed limitations and desire to always be on the right side regardless of the reality he has to warp to get there are simply annoying as hell and destroy anything he could hope to build around credibility.

when pushed, he will just say you're an idiot but can't offer any real examples.

 

[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?

Sure, they can ban them, again, its their site. They can do with it as they wish. If banning the photos of dead babies was in protest to abortion, then they would also have to ban those who support abortion. If they ban profanity from one person, they would have to ban profanity from all persons.

My argument is not about how a social media platform conducts its business, its about if it claims to be a platform that supports the free and open exchange of ideas, and gains certain immunities because of that, but then decides it wants to decide which content they are going to allow and not allow by shutting out the opposing views, then, they lose those immunities.

It would be the difference between them saying "look, these yahoos are going to post what they want to, and, im not responsible for their words, im just the paper on which they print it, and if you don't hold me accountable, im not getting involved" and them saying "these yahoos are going to post what they want, but i agree with you, and you and you, but i do not agree with you, and you".

They would essentially be taking a stand, and saying they stand behind and agree with what their members post on their platform and they are going tonsilence those they don't agree with. This turns them into a publisher of those thoughts and ideas and they are now liable for what those people say.

If there are laws that allow them immunity in exchange for being a fair and open platform, then they relinquish thise immunities if they decide to be a publisher of content.

Ok but I’m this case they banned the Post article because it violated their privacy policy by exposing private information in the emails the article contained. That’s not blocking a point of view that’s enforcing their guidelines, right?

Yep, and my first response to this post indicated that if there was a privacy issue, that Twitter had the right to take action.

Now, you may disagree, but we all know its was really a politically motivated action disguised as a terms of service violation, but nobody can prove that, aside from all of the other anti conservative stances they have taken as well as the anti conservative viewpoints of their management.

How do you disguise a privacy issue? The posts either had personal information or they didn’t

 

[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?

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?

Sure, they can ban them, again, its their site. They can do with it as they wish. If banning the photos of dead babies was in protest to abortion, then they would also have to ban those who support abortion. If they ban profanity from one person, they would have to ban profanity from all persons.

My argument is not about how a social media platform conducts its business, its about if it claims to be a platform that supports the free and open exchange of ideas, and gains certain immunities because of that, but then decides it wants to decide which content they are going to allow and not allow by shutting out the opposing views, then, they lose those immunities.

It would be the difference between them saying "look, these yahoos are going to post what they want to, and, im not responsible for their words, im just the paper on which they print it, and if you don't hold me accountable, im not getting involved" and them saying "these yahoos are going to post what they want, but i agree with you, and you and you, but i do not agree with you, and you".

They would essentially be taking a stand, and saying they stand behind and agree with what their members post on their platform and they are going tonsilence those they don't agree with. This turns them into a publisher of those thoughts and ideas and they are now liable for what those people say.

If there are laws that allow them immunity in exchange for being a fair and open platform, then they relinquish thise immunities if they decide to be a publisher of content.

Ok but I’m this case they banned the Post article because it violated their privacy policy by exposing private information in the emails the article contained. That’s not blocking a point of view that’s enforcing their guidelines, right?

Yep, and my first response to this post indicated that if there was a privacy issue, that Twitter had the right to take action.

Now, you may disagree, but we all know its was really a politically motivated action disguised as a terms of service violation, but nobody can prove that, aside from all of the other anti conservative stances they have taken as well as the anti conservative viewpoints of their management.

How do you disguise a privacy issue? The posts either had personal information or they didn’t

so what was the personal info divulged and once we establish that, we will go look to see who else on the left is posting that and what happened to them.

 

[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.

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?

Sure, they can ban them, again, its their site. They can do with it as they wish. If banning the photos of dead babies was in protest to abortion, then they would also have to ban those who support abortion. If they ban profanity from one person, they would have to ban profanity from all persons.

My argument is not about how a social media platform conducts its business, its about if it claims to be a platform that supports the free and open exchange of ideas, and gains certain immunities because of that, but then decides it wants to decide which content they are going to allow and not allow by shutting out the opposing views, then, they lose those immunities.

It would be the difference between them saying "look, these yahoos are going to post what they want to, and, im not responsible for their words, im just the paper on which they print it, and if you don't hold me accountable, im not getting involved" and them saying "these yahoos are going to post what they want, but i agree with you, and you and you, but i do not agree with you, and you".

They would essentially be taking a stand, and saying they stand behind and agree with what their members post on their platform and they are going tonsilence those they don't agree with. This turns them into a publisher of those thoughts and ideas and they are now liable for what those people say.

If there are laws that allow them immunity in exchange for being a fair and open platform, then they relinquish thise immunities if they decide to be a publisher of content.

Ok but I’m this case they banned the Post article because it violated their privacy policy by exposing private information in the emails the article contained. That’s not blocking a point of view that’s enforcing their guidelines, right?

Yep, and my first response to this post indicated that if there was a privacy issue, that Twitter had the right to take action.

Now, you may disagree, but we all know its was really a politically motivated action disguised as a terms of service violation, but nobody can prove that, aside from all of the other anti conservative stances they have taken as well as the anti conservative viewpoints of their management.

How do you disguise a privacy issue? The posts either had personal information or they didn’t

Well, we need to first establish what the personal information was. I'm reading 2 different things online. 1 says that trump tweeted a video which contains the email address of a nypost staff member, the other says his account was suspended for simply tweeting a video calling biden a liar.

So, if the first is true, was trump posting the personal email address of the nypost staff member? If so, I'd question how that email address ended up in the video trump posted, but, if it was a working email address that is available publicly, such as on the NY posts own website, then I dont see the problem.

Also, if you go to the NY Posts own Twitter account, they have tweets that link back to the same story that trump was talking about. How is that any different than what trump did.

It seems like a flimsy excuse to block trumps account.

Also, there's this:



This is someone's Twitter who has pictures of the supposed trump tax returns, which, this account, and this post are still active today.

Why hasn't this account been suspended?

 

[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?

Sure, they can ban them, again, its their site. They can do with it as they wish. If banning the photos of dead babies was in protest to abortion, then they would also have to ban those who support abortion. If they ban profanity from one person, they would have to ban profanity from all persons.

My argument is not about how a social media platform conducts its business, its about if it claims to be a platform that supports the free and open exchange of ideas, and gains certain immunities because of that, but then decides it wants to decide which content they are going to allow and not allow by shutting out the opposing views, then, they lose those immunities.

It would be the difference between them saying "look, these yahoos are going to post what they want to, and, im not responsible for their words, im just the paper on which they print it, and if you don't hold me accountable, im not getting involved" and them saying "these yahoos are going to post what they want, but i agree with you, and you and you, but i do not agree with you, and you".

They would essentially be taking a stand, and saying they stand behind and agree with what their members post on their platform and they are going tonsilence those they don't agree with. This turns them into a publisher of those thoughts and ideas and they are now liable for what those people say.

If there are laws that allow them immunity in exchange for being a fair and open platform, then they relinquish thise immunities if they decide to be a publisher of content.

Ok but I’m this case they banned the Post article because it violated their privacy policy by exposing private information in the emails the article contained. That’s not blocking a point of view that’s enforcing their guidelines, right?

Yep, and my first response to this post indicated that if there was a privacy issue, that Twitter had the right to take action.

Now, you may disagree, but we all know its was really a politically motivated action disguised as a terms of service violation, but nobody can prove that, aside from all of the other anti conservative stances they have taken as well as the anti conservative viewpoints of their management.

How do you disguise a privacy issue? The posts either had personal information or they didn’t

Well, we need to first establish what the personal information was. I'm reading 2 different things online. 1 says that trump tweeted a video which contains the email address of a nypost staff member, the other says his account was suspended for simply tweeting a video calling biden a liar.

So, if the first is true, was trump posting the personal email address of the nypost staff member? If so, I'd question how that email address ended up in the video trump posted, but, if it was a working email address that is available publicly, such as on the NY posts own website, then I dont see the problem.

Also, if you go to the NY Posts own Twitter account, they have tweets that link back to the same story that trump was talking about. How is that any different than what trump did.

It seems like a flimsy excuse to block trumps account.

Also, there's this:



This is someone's Twitter who has pictures of the supposed trump tax returns, which, this account, and this post are still active today.

Why hasn't this account been suspended?

Apparently they blocked links referencing the NY post article because it contained personal email addresses and violated their privacy policy. They then retracted the ban because the article had circulated enough that the info wasn’t considered private anymore as it was in the public domain.

I understand there is debate around motives and equal enforcement, but putting that aside for one question let me ask... do you find that course of action reasonable and legal for a Platform to take if the conditions I laid out are accurate?

 

[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.

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?

Sure, they can ban them, again, its their site. They can do with it as they wish. If banning the photos of dead babies was in protest to abortion, then they would also have to ban those who support abortion. If they ban profanity from one person, they would have to ban profanity from all persons.

My argument is not about how a social media platform conducts its business, its about if it claims to be a platform that supports the free and open exchange of ideas, and gains certain immunities because of that, but then decides it wants to decide which content they are going to allow and not allow by shutting out the opposing views, then, they lose those immunities.

It would be the difference between them saying "look, these yahoos are going to post what they want to, and, im not responsible for their words, im just the paper on which they print it, and if you don't hold me accountable, im not getting involved" and them saying "these yahoos are going to post what they want, but i agree with you, and you and you, but i do not agree with you, and you".

They would essentially be taking a stand, and saying they stand behind and agree with what their members post on their platform and they are going tonsilence those they don't agree with. This turns them into a publisher of those thoughts and ideas and they are now liable for what those people say.

If there are laws that allow them immunity in exchange for being a fair and open platform, then they relinquish thise immunities if they decide to be a publisher of content.

Ok but I’m this case they banned the Post article because it violated their privacy policy by exposing private information in the emails the article contained. That’s not blocking a point of view that’s enforcing their guidelines, right?

Yep, and my first response to this post indicated that if there was a privacy issue, that Twitter had the right to take action.

Now, you may disagree, but we all know its was really a politically motivated action disguised as a terms of service violation, but nobody can prove that, aside from all of the other anti conservative stances they have taken as well as the anti conservative viewpoints of their management.

How do you disguise a privacy issue? The posts either had personal information or they didn’t

Well, we need to first establish what the personal information was. I'm reading 2 different things online. 1 says that trump tweeted a video which contains the email address of a nypost staff member, the other says his account was suspended for simply tweeting a video calling biden a liar.

So, if the first is true, was trump posting the personal email address of the nypost staff member? If so, I'd question how that email address ended up in the video trump posted, but, if it was a working email address that is available publicly, such as on the NY posts own website, then I dont see the problem.

Also, if you go to the NY Posts own Twitter account, they have tweets that link back to the same story that trump was talking about. How is that any different than what trump did.

It seems like a flimsy excuse to block trumps account.

Also, there's this:



This is someone's Twitter who has pictures of the supposed trump tax returns, which, this account, and this post are still active today.

Why hasn't this account been suspended?

Apparently they blocked links referencing the NY post article because it contained personal email addresses and violated their privacy policy. They then retracted the ban because the article had circulated enough that the info wasn’t considered private anymore as it was in the public domain.

I understand there is debate around motives and equal enforcement, but putting that aside for one question let me ask... do you find that course of action reasonable and legal for a Platform to take if the conditions I laid out are accurate?

Yes, I've said it from the start. If trump posted a link to personal information, then twitter acted reasonably, as long as they also take the same action equally among all its users.

However, I reading a Washington times article, it may have a little more clarity:

Trump campaign says Twitter suspended its official campaign account

Trump campaign official Mike Hahn said Thursday that Twitter suspended the Trump campaign’s official Twitter account, @TeamTrump, after it posted anti-Biden content.

m.washingtontimes.com

Mr. Dorsey also shared a tweet-thread from a company account, @TwitterSafety, which said the New York Post article actually violated Twitter rules because it contained images with personal and private information.

So, according to Dorsey, the NY Post article itself actually contains private and personal information, yet you can still go to the NY Post twitter feed and find links to articles about that article and links inside that article linking back to the original article.

I'm sure you can find numerous instances of people breaking that rule, I just posted one about trumps taxes apparently being displayed on twitter for all to see, but nobody is blocking that post, or suspending that account.

I've never said that twitter cannot moderate its content, I've always maintained that if they do, they shouldn't be allowed the protections they get.

 

[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?

Sure, they can ban them, again, its their site. They can do with it as they wish. If banning the photos of dead babies was in protest to abortion, then they would also have to ban those who support abortion. If they ban profanity from one person, they would have to ban profanity from all persons.

My argument is not about how a social media platform conducts its business, its about if it claims to be a platform that supports the free and open exchange of ideas, and gains certain immunities because of that, but then decides it wants to decide which content they are going to allow and not allow by shutting out the opposing views, then, they lose those immunities.

It would be the difference between them saying "look, these yahoos are going to post what they want to, and, im not responsible for their words, im just the paper on which they print it, and if you don't hold me accountable, im not getting involved" and them saying "these yahoos are going to post what they want, but i agree with you, and you and you, but i do not agree with you, and you".

They would essentially be taking a stand, and saying they stand behind and agree with what their members post on their platform and they are going tonsilence those they don't agree with. This turns them into a publisher of those thoughts and ideas and they are now liable for what those people say.

If there are laws that allow them immunity in exchange for being a fair and open platform, then they relinquish thise immunities if they decide to be a publisher of content.

Ok but I’m this case they banned the Post article because it violated their privacy policy by exposing private information in the emails the article contained. That’s not blocking a point of view that’s enforcing their guidelines, right?

Yep, and my first response to this post indicated that if there was a privacy issue, that Twitter had the right to take action.

Now, you may disagree, but we all know its was really a politically motivated action disguised as a terms of service violation, but nobody can prove that, aside from all of the other anti conservative stances they have taken as well as the anti conservative viewpoints of their management.

How do you disguise a privacy issue? The posts either had personal information or they didn’t

Well, we need to first establish what the personal information was. I'm reading 2 different things online. 1 says that trump tweeted a video which contains the email address of a nypost staff member, the other says his account was suspended for simply tweeting a video calling biden a liar.

So, if the first is true, was trump posting the personal email address of the nypost staff member? If so, I'd question how that email address ended up in the video trump posted, but, if it was a working email address that is available publicly, such as on the NY posts own website, then I dont see the problem.

Also, if you go to the NY Posts own Twitter account, they have tweets that link back to the same story that trump was talking about. How is that any different than what trump did.

It seems like a flimsy excuse to block trumps account.

Also, there's this:



This is someone's Twitter who has pictures of the supposed trump tax returns, which, this account, and this post are still active today.

Why hasn't this account been suspended?

Regarding the tax return photos, seems like those absolutely should be deleted if their privacy policy prevents the spread of personal information

 

[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?

Sure, they can ban them, again, its their site. They can do with it as they wish. If banning the photos of dead babies was in protest to abortion, then they would also have to ban those who support abortion. If they ban profanity from one person, they would have to ban profanity from all persons.

My argument is not about how a social media platform conducts its business, its about if it claims to be a platform that supports the free and open exchange of ideas, and gains certain immunities because of that, but then decides it wants to decide which content they are going to allow and not allow by shutting out the opposing views, then, they lose those immunities.

It would be the difference between them saying "look, these yahoos are going to post what they want to, and, im not responsible for their words, im just the paper on which they print it, and if you don't hold me accountable, im not getting involved" and them saying "these yahoos are going to post what they want, but i agree with you, and you and you, but i do not agree with you, and you".

They would essentially be taking a stand, and saying they stand behind and agree with what their members post on their platform and they are going tonsilence those they don't agree with. This turns them into a publisher of those thoughts and ideas and they are now liable for what those people say.

If there are laws that allow them immunity in exchange for being a fair and open platform, then they relinquish thise immunities if they decide to be a publisher of content.

Ok but I’m this case they banned the Post article because it violated their privacy policy by exposing private information in the emails the article contained. That’s not blocking a point of view that’s enforcing their guidelines, right?

Yep, and my first response to this post indicated that if there was a privacy issue, that Twitter had the right to take action.

Now, you may disagree, but we all know its was really a politically motivated action disguised as a terms of service violation, but nobody can prove that, aside from all of the other anti conservative stances they have taken as well as the anti conservative viewpoints of their management.

How do you disguise a privacy issue? The posts either had personal information or they didn’t

Well, we need to first establish what the personal information was. I'm reading 2 different things online. 1 says that trump tweeted a video which contains the email address of a nypost staff member, the other says his account was suspended for simply tweeting a video calling biden a liar.

So, if the first is true, was trump posting the personal email address of the nypost staff member? If so, I'd question how that email address ended up in the video trump posted, but, if it was a working email address that is available publicly, such as on the NY posts own website, then I dont see the problem.

Also, if you go to the NY Posts own Twitter account, they have tweets that link back to the same story that trump was talking about. How is that any different than what trump did.

It seems like a flimsy excuse to block trumps account.

Also, there's this:



This is someone's Twitter who has pictures of the supposed trump tax returns, which, this account, and this post are still active today.

Why hasn't this account been suspended?

Apparently they blocked links referencing the NY post article because it contained personal email addresses and violated their privacy policy. They then retracted the ban because the article had circulated enough that the info wasn’t considered private anymore as it was in the public domain.

I understand there is debate around motives and equal enforcement, but putting that aside for one question let me ask... do you find that course of action reasonable and legal for a Platform to take if the conditions I laid out are accurate?

Yes, I've said it from the start. If trump posted a link to personal information, then twitter acted reasonably, as long as they also take the same action equally among all its users.

However, I reading a Washington times article, it may have a little more clarity:

Trump campaign says Twitter suspended its official campaign account

Trump campaign official Mike Hahn said Thursday that Twitter suspended the Trump campaign’s official Twitter account, @TeamTrump, after it posted anti-Biden content.

m.washingtontimes.com

Mr. Dorsey also shared a tweet-thread from a company account, @TwitterSafety, which said the New York Post article actually violated Twitter rules because it contained images with personal and private information.

So, according to Dorsey, the NY Post article itself actually contains private and personal information, yet you can still go to the NY Post twitter feed and find links to articles about that article and links inside that article linking back to the original article.

I'm sure you can find numerous instances of people breaking that rule, I just posted one about trumps taxes apparently being displayed on twitter for all to see, but nobody is blocking that post, or suspending that account.

I've never said that twitter cannot moderate its content, I've always maintained that if they do, they shouldn't be allowed the protections they get.

You make fair arguments which I can not take issue with. I think examples like the tax returns should be used to question those in charge as rules should be applied fairly

 

[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?

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?

Sure, they can ban them, again, its their site. They can do with it as they wish. If banning the photos of dead babies was in protest to abortion, then they would also have to ban those who support abortion. If they ban profanity from one person, they would have to ban profanity from all persons.

My argument is not about how a social media platform conducts its business, its about if it claims to be a platform that supports the free and open exchange of ideas, and gains certain immunities because of that, but then decides it wants to decide which content they are going to allow and not allow by shutting out the opposing views, then, they lose those immunities.

It would be the difference between them saying "look, these yahoos are going to post what they want to, and, im not responsible for their words, im just the paper on which they print it, and if you don't hold me accountable, im not getting involved" and them saying "these yahoos are going to post what they want, but i agree with you, and you and you, but i do not agree with you, and you".

They would essentially be taking a stand, and saying they stand behind and agree with what their members post on their platform and they are going tonsilence those they don't agree with. This turns them into a publisher of those thoughts and ideas and they are now liable for what those people say.

If there are laws that allow them immunity in exchange for being a fair and open platform, then they relinquish thise immunities if they decide to be a publisher of content.

Ok but I’m this case they banned the Post article because it violated their privacy policy by exposing private information in the emails the article contained. That’s not blocking a point of view that’s enforcing their guidelines, right?

Yep, and my first response to this post indicated that if there was a privacy issue, that Twitter had the right to take action.

Now, you may disagree, but we all know its was really a politically motivated action disguised as a terms of service violation, but nobody can prove that, aside from all of the other anti conservative stances they have taken as well as the anti conservative viewpoints of their management.

How do you disguise a privacy issue? The posts either had personal information or they didn’t

Well, we need to first establish what the personal information was. I'm reading 2 different things online. 1 says that trump tweeted a video which contains the email address of a nypost staff member, the other says his account was suspended for simply tweeting a video calling biden a liar.

So, if the first is true, was trump posting the personal email address of the nypost staff member? If so, I'd question how that email address ended up in the video trump posted, but, if it was a working email address that is available publicly, such as on the NY posts own website, then I dont see the problem.

Also, if you go to the NY Posts own Twitter account, they have tweets that link back to the same story that trump was talking about. How is that any different than what trump did.

It seems like a flimsy excuse to block trumps account.

Also, there's this:



This is someone's Twitter who has pictures of the supposed trump tax returns, which, this account, and this post are still active today.

Why hasn't this account been suspended?

Regarding the tax return photos, seems like those absolutely should be deleted if their privacy policy prevents the spread of personal information

Yet thy have not been

ergo, one sided censorship.