GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

[Hutch Starskey]

The fucker signed it a couple minutes ago.

This, needs to go through our system. EOs have now obliterated our checksvand balances.

All the EO did was direct the FCC/other agencies to start enforcing existing law.


It changed NO laws.

.

hope not. like i told old lady, i need to hush til i get a chance to read and understand it.

hope not. like i told old lady, i need to hush til i get a chance to read and understand it.

 

[iceberg]

WaPo got it right. The FTC will be censoring social media:
c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

but isn't social media censoring social media also? the whole point is to stop the censoring. man gonna need more popcorn.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

in a quick read - i have to agree. it's not writing a law but clarifying 230 and it's original intent.

I was thinking the same thing ... you need to read the whole thing. I don't like that FTC part I just quoted. Don't like it at all. I suppose if someone has to "investigate" these social media platforms, FTC is the appropriate agency. But I don't like the "prohibit" stuff. HEY--I get to have my paranoia moment. Everyone else around here gets to have theirs.

It is very disconcerting to me anytime government does anything at all.

This is giving the green light to the FTC to take legal action against social media who deceptively violate their own rules by banning people. I understand the intent, but I am really worried about how this shit will play out in the hands of power-hungry statist authoritarians.

I wish these big tech guys would have played fair and not brought it to this. They are to blame too. Assholes always ruin a good thing.

.

 

[iceberg]

WaPo reported earlier today that the EO has the FCC handle complaints of bias against social media companies. A government agency deciding what can be on social media? That one sends chills up my spine. Is this the USSR or China now?

Wow are you stupid. Not ignorant - stupid.

That all ya got? Well, your breath smells. So there.

and it must REALLY smell if you can tell online...

now THAT should be illegal! ;0

 

[iceberg]

in a quick read - i have to agree. it's not writing a law but clarifying 230 and it's original intent.

I was thinking the same thing ... you need to read the whole thing. I don't like that FTC part I just quoted. Don't like it at all. I suppose if someone has to "investigate" these social media platforms, FTC is the appropriate agency. But I don't like the "prohibit" stuff. HEY--I get to have my paranoia moment. Everyone else around here gets to have theirs.

It is very disconcerting to me anytime government does anything at all.

This is giving the green light to the FTC to take legal action against social media who deceptively violate their own rules by banning people. I understand the intent, but I am really worried about how this shit will play out in the hands of power-hungry statist authoritarians.

I wish these big tech guys would have played fair and not brought it to this. They are to blame too. Assholes always ruin a good thing.

.

that's simply how we roll these days. push it to the extreme, redefine extreme and push it again.

we're hitting the limits but have no fear, we're certainly not hitting the end of THIS ride!

 

[OldLady]

WaPo got it right. The FTC will be censoring social media:
c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

You have successfully pointed out one of the limitations on free speech (deception with the intent to defraud). Congratulations.

.

That's not included in 230
an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Twitter does not have the right to censor political posts simply because it disagrees with the content.

I think we can all agree with that. This isn't a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of fact checking..............as in Trump's tweet contained a demonstrable lie.

Yeah?

Here is twitters response:

"Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud
On Tuesday, President Trump made a series of claims about potential voter fraud after California Governor Gavin Newsom announced an effort to expand mail-in voting in California during the COVID-19 pandemic. These claims are unsubstantiated, according to CNN, Washington Post and others. Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud."

Their very first sentence is a lie. There have been over 20 case of elections being overturned due to mail in voting fraud since 1993. I'm not posting a fucking link either. Go look it up. It's all over the place. There is plenty of substantiating evidence.

So now we have to fact check Twitter's fact check. And they used CNN and WAPO as sources. YCMTSU. The most biased major media sites. What a crock of shit.

You're very much wrong.

You have nothing huh Hutch? Does Starsky have anything? Just a thumbs down. Got it.

Nothing

You have nothing huh Hutch? Does Starsky have anything? Just a thumbs down. Got it.

Nothing

What more is required?

You disagreed with my post but provided not information on why my post displeased you. Do you have something to offer? If not - fuck off.

You disagreed with my post but provided not information on why my post displeased you. Do you have something to offer? If not - fuck off.

I'm not required to respond, cupcake.

Like I said - You have nothing. My post is only full of truth on the matter. There is no misleading or untruthful information made by me. So you thumbs down is meaningless. Empty, Void, Empty set, Vacuous...

Like I said - You have nothing. My post is only full of truth on the matter. There is no misleading or untruthful information made by me. So you thumbs down is meaningless. Empty, Void, Empty set, Vacuous...

I offered nothing, dope.

dope, you never do.

dope, you never do.

Derp....
Fact check:
Not the proper use of "Dope".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

he knows what the rabid left are going to do. he dared them to cross that line with him and he did something about it. still reading / understanding the implications but if it's even just "no more section 230" social media just died to a degree today. at least in the form it has been headed.

And they have NO ONE to blame but themselves.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

WaPo got it right. The FTC will be censoring social media:
c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

You have successfully pointed out one of the limitations on free speech (deception with the intent to defraud). Congratulations.

.

That's not included in 230
an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”

Correct.

Deceptive Trade Practices is a separate issue all together. I think that is something Twitter et al did NOT consider. They may have just seriously fucked up in a way that will completely destroy them.

.

 

[OldLady]

in a quick read - i have to agree. it's not writing a law but clarifying 230 and it's original intent.

I was thinking the same thing ... you need to read the whole thing. I don't like that FTC part I just quoted. Don't like it at all. I suppose if someone has to "investigate" these social media platforms, FTC is the appropriate agency. But I don't like the "prohibit" stuff. HEY--I get to have my paranoia moment. Everyone else around here gets to have theirs.

yea there's some "personal agenda" stuff in there and while i agree with it - i don't think it belongs in these types of documents. i could be wrong, i don't read a lot of these. but the schiff slams made it more personal than about the country to me.

in the end i 100% agree that facebook, twitter and so forth are *NOT* a newsgroup like this and should NOT be afforded protections from it. but there needs to be a "new" type creation perhaps that i hope we can work together to figure out where this falls.

they're not CNN, but they're not USMB. it's something new and needs it's own set of guidelines specific to it.

Someone--I wish I could remember who--put up a nonpartisan write up on this very thing -- maybe it was in this thread this morning? I don't remember. Anyway, it said the old laws aren't going to fit this new reality--new rules need to be styled.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Trump has accused Joe Scarborough of having an affair with an intern and then murdering her. And the usual cucks line up to defend Trump, thus demonstrating they have even less decency and self-respect than Trump.

They took a dead innocent women and shit all over her memory. Calling her an adultress and a murder victim. Just to bear false witness against someone who dares to stand up to the Fuhrer.

It just doesn't get any sicker than that, ladies and gentlemen. Trump is beyond despicable. And the submissive snails who suck his cock are even worse.

Trump also retweeted a video which says, "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat."

Every one of us, including Trump's shit-eating tard herd, know that if Obama had done things like that, they would have all been collectively foaming at the mouth enough to fill an ocean.

I daily wonder how these fucktards can stand their own stench.

You really like the cuck word.

 

[iceberg]

in a quick read - i have to agree. it's not writing a law but clarifying 230 and it's original intent.

I was thinking the same thing ... you need to read the whole thing. I don't like that FTC part I just quoted. Don't like it at all. I suppose if someone has to "investigate" these social media platforms, FTC is the appropriate agency. But I don't like the "prohibit" stuff. HEY--I get to have my paranoia moment. Everyone else around here gets to have theirs.

yea there's some "personal agenda" stuff in there and while i agree with it - i don't think it belongs in these types of documents. i could be wrong, i don't read a lot of these. but the schiff slams made it more personal than about the country to me.

in the end i 100% agree that facebook, twitter and so forth are *NOT* a newsgroup like this and should NOT be afforded protections from it. but there needs to be a "new" type creation perhaps that i hope we can work together to figure out where this falls.

they're not CNN, but they're not USMB. it's something new and needs it's own set of guidelines specific to it.

Someone--I wish I could remember who--put up a nonpartisan write up on this very thing -- maybe it was in this thread this morning? I don't remember. Anyway, it said the old laws aren't going to fit this new reality--new rules need to be styled.

and that's what i'm getting at.

facebook isn't CNN, but it's not USMB either. they're something new and you can't just flip a switch and demand they be one or the other. it's a lot more complex than that which is likely why no one has really dove into it before. i imagine at this point a compromise of no more fact checking, just illegal crap removed will be put in place while they figure out what to do.

seems the fair thing to do vs. try to make them a news agency that they are not.

 

[colfax_m]

I’m just telling you the truth and how your desires will destroy the internet.

How so?

The internet meets the definition of a platform.

GOOGLE has blown its platform protections, but GOOGLE is not "the internet."

The internet is a completely open place. Anyone who wants to engage in speech can. I’m not stopping anyone. What you’re demanding is the ability to use Twitter’s property to publish a disseminate speech to their own detriment.

What do you mean? I am not, nor is the POTUS via the EO, demanding ANYTHING.

Twitter is acting like a fucking newspaper (editing content). They get no 230 protections if they act like a newspaper. They can still do their left-wing thought policing all they want. They just don't get to hide behind 230 protections.

It's that fucking simple.

.

No one edited Trump’s tweet. They don’t alter tweets. Sometimes they delete them for violating policy.

Thats exactly what 230 was intended to let them do without being subject to liability.

It’s that fucking simple.

You can’t let a company institute itself as the arbiters of truth. What happens if it comes out that Twitter or facebook are actively creating their sites to be addicting, both to kids and adults, the same way a slot machine does so. And if a story comes out that this addiction is actually harmful to brains, and these publishers decide to “fact check” these articles and label them false?

Here’s the truth. Sites like google and twitter have blown newspapers out of the water in a matter of mere years. Now they anoint themselves as publishers but don’t want to take on the liability that goes with it. If your company or gas station, or whatever place of business m has a community poster board, they are not allowed to pick and choose what is posted, as long as the content is legal. That is a violation of the first amendment.

You’re being hyperbolic. No one has become an arbiter or truth.

Where did you get this impression about a “community poster board”? No one has a first amendment right to post something on private property.

 

[Christ_on_a_croissant]

So, a couple of ball-gobbling, shitbags with zero shame are “working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal protections that ensure the company is not held liable for what is posted on its platform.”

Not that this embarrassing use of taxpayer dollars meant to ease the Orange Stain’s butthurt will ever become law; but, on the off chance that it does, I’m suing the shit out of Twitter and Trump for his abusive and fact-void tweets, and their refusal to remove them.

 

[colfax_m]

The difference between you and me is that I may hate Neo-Nazis' speech, but I hate blocking their speech more than I hate their speech.

Great. Then make a platform and do it. People have tried doing just that and their platforms have devolved into racist and disgusting cesspools. Those platforms fail because no one wants to dwell in those cesspools, least of all advertisers who pay the bills.

That’s what I mean when I say you’re not thinking of the big picture. You’re going to kill the internet.

Interesting that you use the word "platform."

But, this is typical of you and your ilk. You would rather shield yourself from speech you hate and you don't care how you accomplish it.

The remedy to speech you hate is not pussy-ass censorship. The remedy is MORE speech.
.

I’m just telling you the truth and how your desires will destroy the internet.

The internet is a completely open place. Anyone who wants to engage in speech can. I’m not stopping anyone. What you’re demanding is the ability to use Twitter’s property to publish a disseminate speech to their own detriment.

How is it to their detriment? That is a red herring if I every read one. They thrive on any disagreement and the more posts the better. Duking it out is what their platform is for. Jeebus, do you know anything?

You don’t know the content that they delete. You want to take away their ability to get rid of racist, anti-Semitic, conspiratorial and violent rhetoric then they’re going to lose advertisers.

Have you heard of the ad-pocalypse on YouTube?

 

[OldLady]

I am really worried about how this shit will play out in the hands of power-hungry statist authoritarians.

Me too.

 

[Ken Mac]

WaPo got it right. The FTC will be censoring social media:
c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

You don't even know what that means.

That's not censorship.

 

[Ken Mac]

The difference between you and me is that I may hate Neo-Nazis' speech, but I hate blocking their speech more than I hate their speech.

Great. Then make a platform and do it. People have tried doing just that and their platforms have devolved into racist and disgusting cesspools. Those platforms fail because no one wants to dwell in those cesspools, least of all advertisers who pay the bills.

That’s what I mean when I say you’re not thinking of the big picture. You’re going to kill the internet.

Interesting that you use the word "platform."

But, this is typical of you and your ilk. You would rather shield yourself from speech you hate and you don't care how you accomplish it.

The remedy to speech you hate is not pussy-ass censorship. The remedy is MORE speech.
.

I’m just telling you the truth and how your desires will destroy the internet.

The internet is a completely open place. Anyone who wants to engage in speech can. I’m not stopping anyone. What you’re demanding is the ability to use Twitter’s property to publish a disseminate speech to their own detriment.

How is it to their detriment? That is a red herring if I every read one. They thrive on any disagreement and the more posts the better. Duking it out is what their platform is for. Jeebus, do you know anything?

You don’t know the content that they delete. You want to take away their ability to get rid of racist, anti-Semitic, conspiratorial and violent rhetoric then they’re going to lose advertisers.

Have you heard of the ad-pocalypse on YouTube?

Those things are covered in some respect in 230.

Nice try.

 

[candycorn]

"Sen. Josh (R-Mo.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday separately announced they were both working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal protections that ensure the company is not held liable for what is posted on its platform.

Both Hawley and Gaetz argued that Twitter’s decision to flag the tweets called its legal liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act into question. Section 230 protects social media platforms from facing lawsuits over what users post.

Hawley sent a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday questioning why the platform should be given Section 230 protections and tweeted that he would soon introduce legislation to end “government giveaways” under the legal shield.

“If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users’ posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers”


IMO subsidies and / or government protections should not be given to companies that engage in trampling on Freedom of Speech. Yes, Twitter (and Facebook) is a privately owned and run company and can operate as they see fit ... but they can do so without tax dollars or protections from a government that supports and defends the Constitution which affords the right of Freedom of Speech to all Americans.

Hillicon Valley: House FISA bill in jeopardy | Democrats drop controversial surveillance measure | GOP working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

Welcome to Hillicon Valley, The Hill’s newsletter detailing all you need to know about the tech and cyber news from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley. If you don’t already, be sure to sign up fo…

thehill.com

Republicans working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal liability protections

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Wednesday separately announced they were both working on legislation to strip Twitter of federal protections that ensure the company&nb…

thehill.com

.

Instead of focusing on the Pandemic that killed over 100K Americans....these losers are focusing on....Twitter?

 

[colfax_m]

I’m just telling you the truth and how your desires will destroy the internet.

How so?

The internet meets the definition of a platform.

GOOGLE has blown its platform protections, but GOOGLE is not "the internet."

The internet is a completely open place. Anyone who wants to engage in speech can. I’m not stopping anyone. What you’re demanding is the ability to use Twitter’s property to publish a disseminate speech to their own detriment.

What do you mean? I am not, nor is the POTUS via the EO, demanding ANYTHING.

Twitter is acting like a fucking newspaper (editing content). They get no 230 protections if they act like a newspaper. They can still do their left-wing thought policing all they want. They just don't get to hide behind 230 protections.

It's that fucking simple.

.

No one edited Trump’s tweet. They don’t alter tweets. Sometimes they delete them for violating policy.

Thats exactly what 230 was intended to let them do without being subject to liability.

It’s that fucking simple.

AG Barr, who was also in attendance, said Section 230 "was stretched way beyond its original intention...its purpose was to allow websites that were acting virtually as bulletin boards were not responsible for third-party information...". When they "curate" their collection and start "censoring" particular content, they become publishers, and they shouldn't be entitled to the same kind of shield that was set up earlier. He also explained how the executive order sets up a "rule making procedure for the FCC" to try and "get back to the original interpretation" of Section 230.
-----
so since they abused the fuck out of it, it's time we re-examine it. now, the irony is Section 230 was put in place so tech companies wouldn't be responsible for 3rd party content. it was supposed to prevent censorship out of fear of litigation.

oops.

You’ve got it backwards. Before section 230, if a website never “censored” (to use your language not mine) then they wouldn’t be responsible for third party content.

But most people agreed that was a bad situation because guess what? There’s a lot of filth on the internet and we thought it’d be better if websites were allowed to clean up that filth without having to abandon their immunity from litigation.

Section 230 was specifically designed to give websites the ability to “censor”.

So I’ll ask you, respectfully, what is the goal? What do you hope to accomplish?