HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech

[Coyote]

Well for one, Obama being born in Kenya was not true; whereas it is true that Russia hacked us.

Actually, you're wrong on both points. He was born in Kenya, his wife admitted it. And Russia didn't hack us; they purchased some... wait for it..FACEBOOK ads. Oh, and they provided fake opposition research to THE HILLARY CLINTON campaign in an effort to keep Trump from being elected...

According to Obama, himself, no voting machines were hacked.

Oh God...Birtherism is still alive and kicking.

The Russians did hack us - the fact that voting machines were not hacked is irrelevant. They hacked and attempted to hack both political parties and who knows what else.

How did they hack us, by putting ads on Facebook?

I have no idea how. I'm not a hacker But they hacked Podesta, the DNC, individual Republican targets, and the Illinois RNC as some examples.

See, technically, that is only the official account. There is disagreement among experts, but the political and financial establishment has decreed this, "hacking" as the paradigm, so that is what folks accept.

If it were a leak, not a hack, the entire Muellar Report, the investigation, the media coverage. . . a lot of the conservative account take downs. . . etc. have been unjustified.

What if the DNC Russian "hack" was really a leak after all? A new report raises questions media and Democrats would rather ignore

A group of intelligence pros and forensic investigators tell The Nation there was no hack— the media ignores it

www.salon.com

". . . VIPS states two things with what they describe as a high degree of certainty: There was no Russian hack on July 5, and the metadata from Guccifer’s June 15 document release was “synthetically tainted” with “Russian fingerprints.”

How did the group come to the conclusion that it was a leak, not a hack?

Investigators found that 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded locally on July 5, 2016. The information was downloaded with a memory key or some other portable storage device. The download operation took 87 seconds — meaning the speed of transfer was 22.7 megabytes per second — “a speed that far exceeds an internet capability for a remote hack,” as Lawrence puts it. What’s more, they say, a transoceanic transfer would have been even slower (Guccifer claimed to be working from Romania).

“Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible,” Folden told The Nation.. . . "

Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence

In a memo to President Trump, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite new forensic studies to challenge the claim of the key Jan. 6 “assessment” that Russia “hacked” Democratic emails last year. MEMORANDUM FOR: The President FROM: Veteran Intelligence Profe

consortiumnews.com

I am leaving it at that, what ever choose believe. It’s going to derail thread.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

Is calling "FIRE!" in a crowded auditorium censorship?
Or shouting "BOMB" IN an airplane?I
Free speech cannot cause damage or injury to others.
Fake news and outright lies are damaging to rational communications, especially when ignorant people like you are involved.

No.

But banning people on a platform for having the wrong opinion IS internet censorship.

You conflate it to shouting bomb in an airplane because your have a very, very low IQ.

No. This social media sites are privately owned and can choose what they allow up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

It is not internet censorship since anyone that is censored can open their own social media site and post whatever they'd like - up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

Correct, but along with that comes the removal of protections. Since they would then be classified as a publisher, they could be held liable for things people post on their platform.

 

[CowboyTed]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

And it's exactly what tRump is trying to do.

Hey, they love their big, centralized government, authoritarian strongman. This is what they want.

I don't see that as an argument in good faith. Requiring a company to be open about it's procedures for banning doesn't seem like a overreach at all, or some kind of hostile government take over.

And the answer by the Tech companies is when they violate our posting policies we review the content and make a judgement...

The main one here was posting of lies and falsehoods....

This was the straw that broke the camel's back:

Widower of Scarborough staffer asks Twitter to remove Trump’s conspiracy theories

Per his reading of Twitter’s terms of service, he said, other users would be banned for tweets like Trump’s.

www.politico.com

Trump's tweets from then on were fact checked and the truth was placed in a link if it was clearly false.

Companies have codes of conduct and will no undermine US democracy...

No company wants IBM's past:

IBM and the Holocaust - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[dblack]

It's funny to see the right pro-regulation all of a sudden.

That said, I think some changes in the laws are needed. The legal framework for these tech giants is outdated.

Negative... The government isn't regulating anything with this.

I guess you're right. It's not really "regulation". Just the government ordering the media to abide by the President's wishes. Authoritarian much?

At this point anyone with more than 65% market share in that particular market should be considered a public utility and should follow such rules that govern a public utility.

Ahhh... loves ya some socialism?

 

[CowboyTed]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

And it's exactly what tRump is trying to do.

Hey, they love their big, centralized government, authoritarian strongman. This is what they want.

Most of the discussion in Yesterday's hearing was about the government-provided monopoly these corporations enjoy.

This executive order is likely unconstitutional, but since when has that stopped Trump… who is mockingly doing the same thing Obama did, and he may get the SCOTUS to make that order irreversible by the next administration (5 years from now) like they did on DACA, which will be a nice big fat FUCK YOU to the establishment...which is pretty much why we have Trump in the first place.

People forget the Clinton years when he was fining Microsoft a million dollars a day for monopoly practices. Even back then I was an Apple user, and still am today. I've never once used a Microsoft product because I never needed one. It was not a monopoly at all. The real problem Bill had is that Gates was cheap as all hell. He didn't contribute to charities, politicians or political parties. He kept every dime he made for himself.

Of course he did a 180 after that. He realized that being wealthy is a pay-to-play game, and is still handing out money today to various causes and politicians.

Well you don't remember the ninties much...

Microsoft was fined because of antitrust issues in relation to Netscape...

At the time Microsoft was shipped with 85%+ personal computers and they shipped with IE...

Microsoft Accused Of Antitrust Violations Justice Department Asks Federal Court To Fine Software Giant $1 Million A Day

The Justice Department accused Microsoft on Monday of stifling competition on the Internet and urged a federal court to fine the software giant $1 million a day. The action strikes at the heart of Microsoft's multibillion-dollar effort to extend its dominance of the PC industry to the rapidly...

www.spokesman.com

Can you explain to me who has 85% of the Social Media market...

 

[dblack]

It's funny to see the right pro-regulation all of a sudden.

That said, I think some changes in the laws are needed. The legal framework for these tech giants is outdated.

Negative... The government isn't regulating anything with this.

I guess you're right. It's not really "regulation". Just the government ordering the media to abide by the President's wishes. Authoritarian much?

Mmm... That has no biases in reality. It's literally saying no regulation, and treating it like a private entity.

Of course, of course.

Here's the thing. This is all about personal revenge because these companies defied Trump. That's it. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. It has nothing to do with any of the other horseshit excuses you're going on about. And the fact that you try to deny that, and go on and on peddling fake arguments makes it utterly impossible to take you seriously. Ever again. You have no integrity. No principle. No standing worth recognizing.

 

[Shelzin]

Of course, of course.

Here's the thing. This is all about personal revenge because these companies defied Trump. That's it. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. It has nothing to do with any of the other horseshit excuses you're going on about. And the fact that you try to deny that, and go on and on peddling fake arguments makes it utterly impossible to take you seriously. Ever again. You have no integrity. No principle. No standing worth recognizing.

*shrugs*

Opinions vary. That didn't address any point I made.

Edit: You may very well be right why Trump is doing what he's doing. Why he's doing it doesn't mean much to me. What does mean something to me, is people getting banned for saying "Men aren't women though" and "Learn to code".

Being insulted by something doesn't warrant anything other than your own personal choice to ignore them. By just passing over their content, or a helper button that will ignore said user for you.

I have a facebook account... I use it maybe a couple times a year. If it wasn't for Words with Friends I never would have made an account. I don't really have a dog in the fight... Other that I'm telling you what I believe, and what I support. If that isn't good enough for you... *shrugs*

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

And it's exactly what tRump is trying to do.

Hey, they love their big, centralized government, authoritarian strongman. This is what they want.

Most of the discussion in Yesterday's hearing was about the government-provided monopoly these corporations enjoy.

This executive order is likely unconstitutional, but since when has that stopped Trump… who is mockingly doing the same thing Obama did, and he may get the SCOTUS to make that order irreversible by the next administration (5 years from now) like they did on DACA, which will be a nice big fat FUCK YOU to the establishment...which is pretty much why we have Trump in the first place.

People forget the Clinton years when he was fining Microsoft a million dollars a day for monopoly practices. Even back then I was an Apple user, and still am today. I've never once used a Microsoft product because I never needed one. It was not a monopoly at all. The real problem Bill had is that Gates was cheap as all hell. He didn't contribute to charities, politicians or political parties. He kept every dime he made for himself.

Of course he did a 180 after that. He realized that being wealthy is a pay-to-play game, and is still handing out money today to various causes and politicians.

Well you don't remember the ninties much...

Microsoft was fined because of antitrust issues in relation to Netscape...

At the time Microsoft was shipped with 85%+ personal computers and they shipped with IE...

Microsoft Accused Of Antitrust Violations Justice Department Asks Federal Court To Fine Software Giant $1 Million A Day

The Justice Department accused Microsoft on Monday of stifling competition on the Internet and urged a federal court to fine the software giant $1 million a day. The action strikes at the heart of Microsoft's multibillion-dollar effort to extend its dominance of the PC industry to the rapidly...

www.spokesman.com

Can you explain to me who has 85% of the Social Media market...

View attachment 369232

It's still utter bunk, because I've never used a Microsoft product in my life. What is windows? Windows was created to duplicate the Macintosh interface. We used to laugh back then when a new version of Windows came out, and people were jamming the stores to try and get a copy. We laughed because people were killing each other to get a program that turned their PC into a five year old Mac.

In any case, it had nothing to do with it. Gates didn't pass his money around. That was really the bottom line.

 

[Correll]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

And it's exactly what tRump is trying to do.

Uhh... An executive order against censorship is censorship? What?

libs just say shit. it does not mean anything. everything they say, is bullshit that should be dismissed, without consideration.

If that were true, you wouldn't be posting here.

true. liberals would be dismissed, their ideas would be considered based on their actual merits and the lies of liberals would be ignored.

people would realize that liberals' policies were designed to fuck them and ruin their lives and the country and they would be rejected.


people would stop being divided against each other, based on liberal lies.


i would not feel the need to come here and scream at assholes and morons, to make up for having to put up with the constant din of liberal lies and stupidities.


it would be a wonderful world. we would all live happily ever after.


except for you hate filled lefties.


unable to get your hate out of your insides, onto the rest of the world, it would fester inside of you and your lives would be a hell of trying to keep down a fountain of black bile, that was your soul, for bleeding out of your every pore.


which would be fine with me. as long as you did not get any of it on any of my stuff.

 

[dblack]

Of course, of course.

Here's the thing. This is all about personal revenge because these companies defied Trump. That's it. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. It has nothing to do with any of the other horseshit excuses you're going on about. And the fact that you try to deny that, and go on and on peddling fake arguments makes it utterly impossible to take you seriously. Ever again. You have no integrity. No principle. No standing worth recognizing.

*shrugs*

Opinions vary. That didn't address any point I made.

Because your point is fake. See above.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

Ugh you’re such an idiot. If Trump never whines about this, you wouldn’t even give a shut.

More importantly, the fact that you think letting these companies censor content is a violation of the 1st amendment is so fucking stupid. NO ONE IS BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME INVOLVING FREE SPEECH IDIOT. It’s their goddamn platform. Funny how you support regulations that fit your narrative.

Trump isn't asking them to censor content, moron. He's asking them not to censor it.

They have been protected by the law, so it's not "their goddamn platform."

I sure do enjoy watching you have a royal hissy fit when your game is over.

Yeah idiot. I know. He doesn’t want his completr bullshit censored. It’s so moronic how you think their censorship ON THEIR PLATFORM is a violation of his 1st amendment rights. I can’t get over how fucking stupid that is lol

Trump gets censored for the truth, yet idiots like you cheer as the PROVEN BULLSHIT Russia hoax crap get so to remain up. As well as true hate speech from the Ayatollah and the Democrat Party. When it’s only conservatives getting removed, that’s censorship and illegal. We can’t get over how stupid you are. Lol.

I wouldn’t give two shits if they censored anything. Because, I’m you know, an adult.

Bullshit. If a conservatives run site removed Obozo or Biden’s posts you’d be here screaming censorship or racism. Because you’re, you know, a raving loon libtard.

Your desperation to defend this pure stupidity by claiming the left would do it is so incredibly lame lol. It’s not like you can even defend this with any reasoned, intelligent argument otherwise.

That isn't stupidity. It's common sense.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think people have really thought this through.

I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.

Me either.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.

Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".

That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.

If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.

I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.

Explained above.

I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.

I don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.

I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.

I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

They reason they can be sued is the fact that they pick and choose, like WAPO with respect to Nicholas Sandman.

Aren't following this discussion?

 

[Coyote]

I don't think people have really thought this through.

I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.

Me either.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.

Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".

That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.

If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.

I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.

Explained above.

I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.

I don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.

I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.

I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

They reason they can be sued is the fact that they pick and choose, like WAPO with respect to Nicholas Sandman.

Aren't following this discussion?

No, that is not a reason for being sued as a publisher. The can be sued for libel. But at end of the day, like any other private entity, including WAPO and Fox, they are not required to publish everything or anything. They can pick and choose.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don't think people have really thought this through.

I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.

Me either.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.

Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".

That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.

If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.

I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.

Explained above.

I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.

I don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.

I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.

I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Agreed, but that means they are held liable for things posted on their sites. Also, that means they can no longer be partnered with any government entity, since there would be a conflict of interest if our government were supporting, subsidizing, or doing business with a company who only allowed speech from one political party.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well,

I don't think people have really thought this through.

I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.

Me either.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.

Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".

That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.

If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.

I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.

Explained above.

I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.

I don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.

I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.

I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Agreed, but that means they are held liable for things posted on their sites. Also, that means they can no longer be partnered with any government entity, since there would be a conflict of interest if our government were supporting, subsidizing, or doing business with a company who only allowed speech from one political party.

Well for one, Obama being born in Kenya was not true; whereas it is true that Russia hacked us.

Actually, you're wrong on both points. He was born in Kenya, his wife admitted it. And Russia didn't hack us; they purchased some... wait for it..FACEBOOK ads. Oh, and they provided fake opposition research to THE HILLARY CLINTON campaign in an effort to keep Trump from being elected...

According to Obama, himself, no voting machines were hacked.

Oh God...Birtherism is still alive and kicking.

The Russians did hack us - the fact that voting machines were not hacked is irrelevant. They hacked and attempted to hack both political parties and who knows what else.

How did they hack us, by putting ads on Facebook?

I have no idea how. I'm not a hacker But they hacked Podesta, the DNC, individual Republican targets, and the Illinois RNC as some examples.

I don't know what Podesta or the DNC actually had to do with the election. Plus those were pretty controversial anyway. Podesta's email password was actually P-A-S-S-W-O-R-D, and it's been said that the DNC server had no trace of online transfers, suggesting that whoever stole that information did it from the inside--not the outside.

Well, podesta was actually the victim of a phishing scam, which us how they got ahold of his password. At least thats what I understood.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think people have really thought this through.

I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.

Me either.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.

Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".

That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.

If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.

I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.

Explained above.

I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.

I don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.

I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.

I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

They reason they can be sued is the fact that they pick and choose, like WAPO with respect to Nicholas Sandman.

Aren't following this discussion?

No, that is not a reason for being sued as a publisher. The can be sued for libel. But at end of the day, like any other private entity, including WAPO and Fox, they are not required to publish everything or anything. They can pick and choose.

They can pick and choose and they can be sued for what they choose. The whole theory behind reg 230 is that these websites wouldn't pick and choose.

 

[justoffal]

The difference (well, one of them) is that the networks employ those who create the content and those are the people whose words are subject to lawsuits. Social media platforms are not employing those who post. Calling social sites "publishers" is one hell of a stretch, unless someone they employ or pay posts something in their name.

No it's not... They are choosing what can be published on their site even if it's not illegal. Whither or not anyone is paid is irrelevant as far as I'm aware.

Here is what the legal dictionary Says:

PUBLISHER. One who does by himself or his agents make a thing publicly known; one engaged in thecirculation of books, pamphlets, and other papers.
2. The publisher of a libel is responsible as if he were the author of it, and it is immaterial whether hehas any knowledge of its contents or not; 9 Co. 59; Hawk. P. C. c. 73, Sec. 10; 4 Mason, 115; and it isno justification to him that the name of the author accompanies the libel. 10 John, 447; 2 Moo. & R.312.
3. When the publication is made by writing or printing, if the matter be libelous, the publisher may beindicted for a misdemeanor, provided it was made by his direction or consent, but if he was the ownerof a newspaper merely, and the publication was made by his servants or agents, without any consentor knowledge on his part, he will not be liable to a criminal prosecution. In either case he will be liableto an action for damages sustained by the party aggrieved. 7 John. 260.
4. In order to render the publisher amenable to the law, the publication must be maliciously made,but malice will be presumed if the matter be libelous. This presumption, however, will be rebutted, if thepublication be made for some lawful purpose, as, drawing up a bill of indictment, in which the libelouswords are embodied, for the purpose of prosecuting the libeler; or if it evidently appear the publisherdid not, at the time of publication, know that the matter was libelous as, when a person reads a libelpresence of others, without beforehand knowing it to be such. 9 Co. 59. See Libel; Libeler; Publication.

By narrowing the parameters along political lines the hosts effectively become editorialists. There is a very fine line indeed between being a completely purified and righteous host absolutely neutral to politics and one who slightly seeks to promote a partisan agenda my selective application of posting rules.
Slowly but surely the courts are catching up to these guys.

Jo

 

[Coyote]

I don't think people have really thought this through.

I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.

Me either.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.

Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".

That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.

If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.

I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.

Explained above.

I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.

I don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.

I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.

I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

They reason they can be sued is the fact that they pick and choose, like WAPO with respect to Nicholas Sandman.

Aren't following this discussion?

No, that is not a reason for being sued as a publisher. The can be sued for libel. But at end of the day, like any other private entity, including WAPO and Fox, they are not required to publish everything or anything. They can pick and choose.

They can pick and choose and they can be sued for what they choose. The whole theory behind reg 230 is that these websites wouldn't pick and choose.

No, they can’t be sued for not publishing something. They are not REQUIRED to publish something. They are private entities.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think people have really thought this through.

I don't have a particular issue with them being sued. I really never liked the idea of platform "immunity" because it allows for almost criminal behavior in content posted.

Me either.

But, this means that they could be sued for the content that is published.

Not if they are a platform. If they are a platform they really don't ban ANYTHING unless it's illegal. They keep their "immunity".

That means if it's defamatory, untrue, or dangerous hoaxes (like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook, or Pizzagate) - they could be sued by the victims. I would think that means they will have to have more control over WHAT gets posted if they are held responsible for it. Think about what that means.

If they continue as they are and are made a publisher instead of a platform.. Yes. If you regulate yourself to the point that you are a publisher, like any news source, then you should be able to be sued when you wrong an entity.

I also don't see how that would alter people being banned. They have terms of service and those can be what ever they choose. They are a private entity, they don't have to publish everything or even be "equal" in viewpoints. They do not have to post hate speech, as they define it, and they don't have to allow their property to be used for perpetrating hoaxes.

Explained above.

I think this is just a bone being tossed to Trump's base, so they think they are getting something for perceived grievances that really doesn't change much EXCEPT it might clean the content up some.

I don't believe that. I think this is the first step to separating publishers from platforms.

I'm more behind Congress' efforts right now - investigating the tech giants for anti-trust activities.

I don't have a problem with them doing that as well.

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

They reason they can be sued is the fact that they pick and choose, like WAPO with respect to Nicholas Sandman.

Aren't following this discussion?

No, that is not a reason for being sued as a publisher. The can be sued for libel. But at end of the day, like any other private entity, including WAPO and Fox, they are not required to publish everything or anything. They can pick and choose.

They can pick and choose and they can be sued for what they choose. The whole theory behind reg 230 is that these websites wouldn't pick and choose.

No, they can’t be sued for not publishing something. They are not REQUIRED to publish something. They are private entities.

You're totally lost on this issue.

 

[justoffal]

Well for one, Obama being born in Kenya was not true; whereas it is true that Russia hacked us.

Actually, you're wrong on both points. He was born in Kenya, his wife admitted it. And Russia didn't hack us; they purchased some... wait for it..FACEBOOK ads. Oh, and they provided fake opposition research to THE HILLARY CLINTON campaign in an effort to keep Trump from being elected...

According to Obama, himself, no voting machines were hacked.

LOLOL

You birthers always crack me up. No, his wife never admitted it. And Yes, Russia hacked us....

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Not sure you actually understand the meaning of the word hack.

Jo