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

[LeftofLeft]

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.

They are government protected monopolies. What is "damaging to society" shouldn't be left up to them. I think liberalism is damaging to society. You only proved why the government should regulate them.

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 The legal framework for these tech giants is outdated.

In turn, it is ironic to see the Left take such a free market, government “stay out of business”.... all in the name of protecting a private business’ right censorship. I stand by google, YouTube, etc. to censor; also something the Left traditionally fights against.

I am just not buying their bullshit justification that they are doing it to prevent misinformation and safety. If that were the mission, much content would need to be stripped? Hell, they’d lose their market.

The actions of Google, Facebook, YouTube are purely political.

 

[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.

You're totally lost on this issue.

No, I am not.

Here is some enlightenment:

https://www.morse.law/news/publishing-legal-issues

Yes you are.

Prove that publishers can be sued for not publishing someone’s submission ( this time about a fee and contract arrangement).

You don't even make any sense. the purpose of s230 was so that boards like this are not liable. for shot I may say. ergo you don't have to delete it cause you are not responsible for it.

now if you corrected me and edited my posts to your views, you are not acting the the intent of the 1996 decree.

BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true. If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for.

 

[Shelzin]

BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true.

You are right... that's not true.

If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for.

That's true... They are better off being a platform. Which doesn't really moderate anything but legality. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from allowing users to ignore each other though.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you didn't use window like 5 % of the people at the time... but you are not the world... Microsoft had 85%+ of the market share...

Did your Mac do statistics?

Microsoft used there dominance in the PC market to shut Netscape out.... A Judge found that out... You can't by so myopic to not understand that.

By the way I am a Mac user and so is my whole company. We tried to give a guy a Windows PC once about 7 years ago (the guy was on a government paid training) after 2 weeks the other lads came and said we had to give him a Mac.

I hated Apple before it was cool to hate Apple.

I hated Apple in the mid-90's because of the shitty way they treat developers. A lot of people think that Apple opened the App Store and started treating developers like shit, but no, Apple is the North Korea of the computing world. Closed, proprietary, secretive, and unethical. PC and Linux are open and free. Mac sucks. It deserves the 2% market share it enjoys. No it doesn't, not even that. Mac sucks. Apple is SO SHITTY that they drove their ONE MAINSTREAM developer, Aldus, into bankruptcy due to the utter shitiness of Apple. Poor Aldus was gobbled up by Adobe because Apple fucked them sideways - as Apple does to everyone. It's no surprise that Apple sucks the cock of China - Apple understands China, Apple is EXACTLY like China.

Oh, and Firefox killed Netscape, because it was a FAR better browser.

 

[Coyote]

BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true.

You are right... that's not true.

If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for.

That's true... They are better off being a platform. Which doesn't really moderate anything but legality. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from allowing users to ignore each other though.

I think what is most likely needed is an overhaul of those laws.

 

[Shelzin]

I think what is most likely needed is an overhaul of those laws.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE.

 

[Uncensored2008]

BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true. If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for.

Bullshit.

Platforms like USMB are PROTECTED from civil liability because USERS are responsible for their own content.

WHEN a company like the Twazis DICTATE content, they assume responsibility for that content. Twitter isn't a message board, it is a publisher of far left commentary. IF as a publisher, their contributing writers slander and libel others - whihc is ALL Twitter does - then Twitter is just like CNN and can be sued.

USMB will tell you WHAT infraction - even the utterly bullshit ones by Will - you are being dinged for. That's called transparency - IF USMB can have transparency in moderation so can the Twazis.

 

[CowboyTed]

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.

They are government protected monopolies. What is "damaging to society" shouldn't be left up to them. I think liberalism is damaging to society. You only proved why the government should regulate them.

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.

In turn, it is ironic to see the Left take such a free market, government “stay out of business”.... all in the name of protecting a private business’ right censorship. I stand by google, YouTube, etc. to censor; also something the Left traditionally fights against.

I am just not buying their bullshit justification that they are doing it to prevent misinformation and safety. If that were the mission, much content would need to be stripped? Hell, they’d lose their market.

The actions of Google, Facebook, YouTube are purely political.

I is actually Business decision, they are trying to protect their brand. Twitter doesn't like letters of widowers of dead people to ask that a very wrong fact about his wife is being published on their platform. He pointed out it is against their policies.
This is call corporate responsibility, social media companies don't have much of it but they got some. They know there vast majority of their customers don't like to be fooled on their network.
No Social Media company wants to get the name that this is where you come to be made a fool off..

I will put it this way. If you were in a bar and a guy sees a bunch of police officers coming in, they are regulars. The guy goes over and abuses them, claims they are all corrupt and they are just a bunch of murders and rapists.
Can the bar owner go over and tell him to shut up or leave the bar?
He say it his 1st amendment right to say what he likes?
He can say what he likes but not in that bar.

So you can behave all you like in public but not on there corporate owned networks. Much like bar owner he wants to keep everyone else's business as well...

 

[Uncensored2008]

you did not answer the question.

Of course I did. You can't sue because I didn't violate the provisions by promoting a particular view. Twitter publishes far left propaganda. Users who don't promote what Twitter wants are banned. The TOS is meaningless, pedophiles have a platform on Twitter, provided they promote leftism. Anyone right of Mao who is not a celebrity is instantly banned.

my question was clear. it was about what happens if the legal shield provided by 230 CDA no longer applies. don't bother. i did not expect a responsive, honest, intelligent, and/or interesting reply from you.

That you don't like facts doesn't mean I didn't give you a substantive and accurate answer.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

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

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

PROGS aren't rational people, they have mouths on a string. It's not unexpected, they desire dependency.

 

[Coyote]

BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true. If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for.

Bullshit.

Platforms like USMB are PROTECTED from civil liability because USERS are responsible for their own content.

WHEN a company like the Twazis DICTATE content, they assume responsibility for that content. Twitter isn't a message board, it is a publisher of far left commentary. IF as a publisher, their contributing writers slander and libel others - whihc is ALL Twitter does - then Twitter is just like CNN and can be sued.

USMB will tell you WHAT infraction - even the utterly bullshit ones by Will - you are being dinged for. That's called transparency - IF USMB can have transparency in moderation so can the Twazis.

What specifically is bullshit about what I said? I already pointed out they would libel for slander, which means even censorship on their part.

 

[Shelzin]

So you can behave all you like in public but not on there corporate owned networks. Much like bar owner he wants to keep everyone else's business as well...

But you can sue those corporate owned networks if they do you wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true. If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for.

Bullshit.

Platforms like USMB are PROTECTED from civil liability because USERS are responsible for their own content.

WHEN a company like the Twazis DICTATE content, they assume responsibility for that content. Twitter isn't a message board, it is a publisher of far left commentary. IF as a publisher, their contributing writers slander and libel others - whihc is ALL Twitter does - then Twitter is just like CNN and can be sued.

USMB will tell you WHAT infraction - even the utterly bullshit ones by Will - you are being dinged for. That's called transparency - IF USMB can have transparency in moderation so can the Twazis.

What specifically is bullshit about what I said? I already pointed out they would libel for slander, which means even censorship on their part.

You said they must publish anything - that isn't true. They can be like NBC or DailyKOS and only publish radical left, hate filled bullshit. They simply are not shielded from liability because it is THEIR content, not user opinions.

 

[Coyote]

BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true. If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for.

Bullshit.

Platforms like USMB are PROTECTED from civil liability because USERS are responsible for their own content.

WHEN a company like the Twazis DICTATE content, they assume responsibility for that content. Twitter isn't a message board, it is a publisher of far left commentary. IF as a publisher, their contributing writers slander and libel others - whihc is ALL Twitter does - then Twitter is just like CNN and can be sued.

USMB will tell you WHAT infraction - even the utterly bullshit ones by Will - you are being dinged for. That's called transparency - IF USMB can have transparency in moderation so can the Twazis.

What specifically is bullshit about what I said? I already pointed out they would libel for slander, which means even censorship on their part.

You said they must publish anything - that isn't true. They can be like NBC or DailyKOS and only publish radical left, hate filled bullshit. They simply are not shielded from liability because it is THEIR content, not user opinions.

No. That isn’t what I said. My response was to BriPat who was claiming that if they are publishers they have to publish everything or be sued. And that isn’t true.

 

[AntonToo]

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.​

Trump is just upset his alt-fact-universe bullshit gets called out.

It's ok, this silly nonsense will be thrown out as unconstitutional, Trump will get tossed in Nov and we can get past this shit stain on America's history.

 

[lantern2814]

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.

Translation: you can't deny it so you mumble some idiocy and run. Typical

 

[Billy000]

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.

Translation: you can't deny it so you mumble some idiocy and run. Typical

Trust me I noticed how you haven’t tried to defend this without pivoting to democrats.

 

[lantern2814]

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.

Translation: you can't deny it so you mumble some idiocy and run. Typical

Trust me I noticed how you haven’t tried to defend this without pivoting to democrats.

Then you're illiterate. When you censor material you are a content provider and can now be sued. Too bad for you it's only conservatives being targeted so bringing up the FACT that you idiots post any shit you want and it stays up is a fair argument. Notice you cry when Trump does anything yet cheer Pissloai the drunk and her band of screwups. Try again

 

[iceberg]

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.

No, I am not.

Here is some enlightenment:

https://www.morse.law/news/publishing-legal-issues

Yes you are.

Prove that publishers can be sued for not publishing someone’s submission ( this time about a fee and contract arrangement).

You don't even make any sense. the purpose of s230 was so that boards like this are not liable. for shot I may say. ergo you don't have to delete it cause you are not responsible for it.

now if you corrected me and edited my posts to your views, you are not acting the the intent of the 1996 decree.

BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true. If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for.

I'm not going to make something simple complex so you have places to hide.

platforms are afforded protection from bad content.

platforms are not allowed to do anything at that point to stop or correct them.

you do that you are no longer a platform and open yourself to have to verify everything now for legal reasons.

you not liking it doesn't change it.

 

[bripat9643]

BUT....that isn’t the argument, Is it? What is being claimed is that a publisher Must publish anything or they can be sued, and that isn’t true. If anything...as a publisher, they will be forced be much more careful of the content they are liable for.

Bullshit.

Platforms like USMB are PROTECTED from civil liability because USERS are responsible for their own content.

WHEN a company like the Twazis DICTATE content, they assume responsibility for that content. Twitter isn't a message board, it is a publisher of far left commentary. IF as a publisher, their contributing writers slander and libel others - whihc is ALL Twitter does - then Twitter is just like CNN and can be sued.

USMB will tell you WHAT infraction - even the utterly bullshit ones by Will - you are being dinged for. That's called transparency - IF USMB can have transparency in moderation so can the Twazis.

What specifically is bullshit about what I said? I already pointed out they would libel for slander, which means even censorship on their part.

You said they must publish anything - that isn't true. They can be like NBC or DailyKOS and only publish radical left, hate filled bullshit. They simply are not shielded from liability because it is THEIR content, not user opinions.

No. That isn’t what I said. My response was to BriPat who was claiming that if they are publishers they have to publish everything or be sued. And that isn’t true.

That isn't what I said.