It Is DONE - Welcome To Being Treated Just Like Every Other Business in the US Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

[Blues Man]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

and twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them.

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Straw man.

No that is all that happened here

 

[Blues Man]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

No, but if you follow the rules of Twitter and end up punished because of shadow rules that were never explicitly stated, then you have been defrauded.

who was "punished"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

/——/ The next step is for the EO to be court tested.

No, the next step is for the FCC and FTC to look into the directives the EO gave them, and come up with a finding and plan of resolution, if they determine one is needed. Then THAT will be court tested.

There's nothing about the President directing agencies in his administration to look into something that can or should be court tested.

Do you think the Court is going to order the Federal Govt to give selective, huge, wealthy private businesses special protections that are not afforded to all businesses, protections that were GIVEN to them, not ones they always held privately on their own?

Do you think the Federal Govt can not / is not allowed to terminate a program / perk / 'freebies' that help massive, rich leftist privately owned companies make even massive amounts more of money?

Can you point to where in the Constitution the Federal Govt is tasked with doing so?

Um, I'm not sure what this response has to do with anything I actually said.

 

[Blues Man]

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

It is when they are calling you a liar.

Then sue for libel and see what the courts think

And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them

You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.

Oops. Der it is.

I have done no such thing.

They are not a platform and never have been.

The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.

Platforms Are Not Publishers

The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.

www.theatlantic.com

The world is wrong. Just like you are.

If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.

So what's your problem then? Other than total ignorance of the topic.

Wow you are too thick to realize I don't have a problem with what Twitter did.

I just happen to actually know the definition of censorship and fact checking is not censorship.

Definition of CENSORSHIP

the institution, system, or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively; the office, power, or term of a Roman censor… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of CENSOR

a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as; an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter; an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

now what part of Trump post was suppressed. deleted, redacted or omitted?

Wow you are too thick to understand we are way beyond Trump and well into defining rules of engagement for social media.

News publishers have rules to follow and avenues of recourse for grievences.

Platforms not so much.

NOW IF YOU MUST "TRUMP" THIS UP all Trump did was remove 230 protection.

Platform protections.

Now you claim Twitter is NOT a platform, ergo what Trump did has zero impact.

So Beavis what the fuck you bitching about? Trump didn't change a thing to you.

Back to big picture... No social media has no "category" today so 1990s rules have been used. It is time we write, rules of play for social media.

I never claimed Twitter is not a platform nor have I claimed Twitter is a publisher

I have always claimed that Twitter can do whatever it wants in regards to commenting on the posts of its users, banning users, deleting posts etc because they are a private company and can make any rules they want for those who they allow to use their service.

Except that, like all private companies, they are required to be up-front and honest with their customers about those rules. Otherwise, they're committing fraud.

Also, if they are going to claim immunity from liability as a specific type of business, then they have to meet the definition of that type of business.

And you do seem to consistently and stubbornly ignore that point.

No I am not.

I am stating that Twitter is neither a platform nor a publisher.

Hence Twitter can do whatever it wants on its own website.

Users can be banned, posts deleted or blocked etc because Twitter is for all intents and purposes nothing but a privately owned space where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements

You all want to make Twitter and Facebook into things they aren't

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

/——/ The next step is for the EO to be court tested.

No, the next step is for the FCC and FTC to look into the directives the EO gave them, and come up with a finding and plan of resolution, if they determine one is needed. Then THAT will be court tested.

There's nothing about the President directing agencies in his administration to look into something that can or should be court tested.

Do you think the Court is going to order the Federal Govt to give selective, huge, wealthy private businesses special protections that are not afforded to all businesses, protections that were GIVEN to them, not ones they always held privately on their own?

Do you think the Federal Govt can not / is not allowed to terminate a program / perk / 'freebies' that help massive, rich leftist privately owned companies make even massive amounts more of money?

Can you point to where in the Constitution the Federal Govt is tasked with doing so?

/——-/ It ain’t law till the courts say its Constitutional. Don’t get pissed at me.

Was he talking to you, or me? Because technically, he replied to MY post.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

and twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them.

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Straw man.

No that is all that happened here

The straw man is your "it's not against the law". Who said it was? We've said, and will continue to say, that it is editorializing, which makes Twitter no longer fit the definition of a platform. Now YOU'RE trying to argue a defense against something that wasn't said.

If Twitter, or someone at Twitter, wants to respond to his post with a link, they can go right ahead. Making it essentially part of HIS post, that's editorializing, and no amount of weaseling around and making up new definitions and talking about "They JUST did this" and "that's ALL that happened" is going to make other people see it as the no big deal you want it to be.

 

[easyt65]

/——-/ It ain’t law till the courts say its Constitutional. Don’t get pissed at me.

Bullshit - all you need are some activist judges who refuse to acknowledge and enforce the constitution....Barry and his Un-Constitutional DACA proved that.

Bottom Line is DACA is Un-Constitutional AND everyone knows IT BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST WROTE - YOU JUST ADMITTED IT. Even if you hadn't, Barry - the self-declared 'Constitutional Scholar - declared to pass it through an EO was Un-Constitutional because he did not have the Constitutional authority to do so .... THAT WAS RIGHT BEFORE HE DID IT ANYWAY.

So don't give me that BS about 'It's legal / Constitutional when Barry does it but NOT when Trump does it' shtick.

I happen to agree with you, though, on the point you did not exactly MEAN to make - that both DACA and stripping US govt protections from huge, rich leftist-owned mega-companies while not offering such protection across the board is illegal / Un-Constitutional.

The Democrats had a damn-near 'Super majority' control of Congress at the time Barry DEMANDED Congress pass DACA...and Democrats did NOT do it. Barry was so pissed that he was not being given his way fast enough (remember him saying if Congress did not pass it he would do it himself?) that he DID do it.

But back to Trump....I wonder if other privately-owned companies - small ones owned by less rich, elitist billionaires donating massive amounts to the Democrats - sued and claimed that singling these companies out instead of doing so equally across the spectrum - how Justice Roberts and the USSC would rule?!

What would be the Constitutional Justification for decriminating against these other businesses...just becaue they are smaller, make less money...and can not donate such huge amounts to the Democrats.....

.

 

[Blues Man]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

and twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them.

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Straw man.

No that is all that happened here

The straw man is your "it's not against the law". Who said it was? We've said, and will continue to say, that it is editorializing, which makes Twitter no longer fit the definition of a platform. Now YOU'RE trying to argue a defense against something that wasn't said.

If Twitter, or someone at Twitter, wants to respond to his post with a link, they can go right ahead. Making it essentially part of HIS post, that's editorializing, and no amount of weaseling around and making up new definitions and talking about "They JUST did this" and "that's ALL that happened" is going to make other people see it as the no big deal you want it to be.

I just explained this to you in my last post

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

No, but if you follow the rules of Twitter and end up punished because of shadow rules that were never explicitly stated, then you have been defrauded.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

 

[Blues Man]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

and twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them.

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Straw man.

No that is all that happened here

The straw man is your "it's not against the law". Who said it was? We've said, and will continue to say, that it is editorializing, which makes Twitter no longer fit the definition of a platform. Now YOU'RE trying to argue a defense against something that wasn't said.

If Twitter, or someone at Twitter, wants to respond to his post with a link, they can go right ahead. Making it essentially part of HIS post, that's editorializing, and no amount of weaseling around and making up new definitions and talking about "They JUST did this" and "that's ALL that happened" is going to make other people see it as the no big deal you want it to be.

So you're panties are in a twist because the link was put at the end of a post and not posted separately?

Nit picking

 

[Blues Man]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

No, but if you follow the rules of Twitter and end up punished because of shadow rules that were never explicitly stated, then you have been defrauded.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

 

[easyt65]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

No, but if you follow the rules of Twitter and end up punished because of shadow rules that were never explicitly stated, then you have been defrauded.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

You have already decided in your head that you are right, everyone else is wrong, and you will continue to argue to that point for a thousand more 'pages' if you have to instead of engaging in conversation with an open mind.....which means any further arguing (not discussing) this with you is a pointless waste of time.

In the meantime the President just moved to strip Twitter of its govt-provided 302 Protections, which you agree they don't need anyway so the impact should be 'nil' and not worth arguing about.

Much like Barry's DACA edict, the courts have not ruled on Trump's '302 EO', so it remains 'law of the land' for now....and all your arguing against that fact doesn't change that it IS indeed a fact....for now.

'It is DONE' ... for now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

Social media giants have agreed, in exchange for liability immunity, to not censor content creators,
which Facebook is not. Facebook is merely a publisher, like a phone book is.
The Big Tech Boys agreed to a certain set of rules which they now want to ignore. It's pretty simple.

Right because yo can't have it both ways

Yet you are letting social media do exactly that.

I'm not letting anyone do anything.

FAct checking is not censorship

Twitter commenting on a post is not censorship

It is when they are calling you a liar.

Then sue for libel and see what the courts think

And FYI all politicians are liars. If Trump wrote an EO every time someone called him a liar there'd be millions of them

You can't. You have allowed them to enjoy platform status which prevents your legal recourse.

Oops. Der it is.

I have done no such thing.

They are not a platform and never have been.

The world disagrees. I now factcheck you.

Platforms Are Not Publishers

The essential value of the internet is conversation, not content—and journalists need to embrace it.

www.theatlantic.com

The world is wrong. Just like you are.

If Twitter isn't a platform then ending their section 230 protection will have no effect.

So what's your problem then? Other than total ignorance of the topic.

Wow you are too thick to realize I don't have a problem with what Twitter did.

I just happen to actually know the definition of censorship and fact checking is not censorship.

Definition of CENSORSHIP

the institution, system, or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively; the office, power, or term of a Roman censor… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of CENSOR

a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as; an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter; an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

now what part of Trump post was suppressed. deleted, redacted or omitted?

Wow you are too thick to understand we are way beyond Trump and well into defining rules of engagement for social media.

News publishers have rules to follow and avenues of recourse for grievences.

Platforms not so much.

NOW IF YOU MUST "TRUMP" THIS UP all Trump did was remove 230 protection.

Platform protections.

Now you claim Twitter is NOT a platform, ergo what Trump did has zero impact.

So Beavis what the fuck you bitching about? Trump didn't change a thing to you.

Back to big picture... No social media has no "category" today so 1990s rules have been used. It is time we write, rules of play for social media.

I never claimed Twitter is not a platform nor have I claimed Twitter is a publisher

I have always claimed that Twitter can do whatever it wants in regards to commenting on the posts of its users, banning users, deleting posts etc because they are a private company and can make any rules they want for those who they allow to use their service.

Except that, like all private companies, they are required to be up-front and honest with their customers about those rules. Otherwise, they're committing fraud.

Also, if they are going to claim immunity from liability as a specific type of business, then they have to meet the definition of that type of business.

And you do seem to consistently and stubbornly ignore that point.

No I am not.

I am stating that Twitter is neither a platform nor a publisher.

Hence Twitter can do whatever it wants on its own website.

Users can be banned, posts deleted or blocked etc because Twitter is for all intents and purposes nothing but a privately owned space where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements

You all want to make Twitter and Facebook into things they aren't

And I am stating that even Twitter isn't agreeing with your statement. What is this new, completely different, not either one thing you've decided they are for the purposes of your rationalizations, and when do you plan to let THEM know about it?

I am stating that Twitter has specific rules stating what you can and can't be banned, deleted, blocked for. If they are imposing those punishments for things OTHER than what their rules state, they are defrauding their customers. You can screech, "Private business, so they can do whatever they want!" until your face turns blue, and that won't make it true, because it's not true for any other business.

Can WalMart sell you an item online and then send you a different item, simply because it's "their own private store"? No, because that's fraud. Can Pizza Hut advertise that they're going to give you a free pizza if their delivery takes more than 30 minutes, and then refuse to give it to you because it's "their own private business"? No, because that's fraud. And Twitter can't tell you that you can post on their space and THESE are the rules you have to follow to keep posting, and then impose other rules they never mentioned. That's fraud.

You are trying to make Twitter and Facebook into something they have never claimed to be, and you have yet to even name for us. And in the end, it doesn't matter, because whatever that amorphous new something is, if it ain't a platform, they still don't have protection under Section 230.

 

[colfax_m]

I am stating that Twitter has specific rules stating what you can and can't be banned, deleted, blocked for.

This would be a lot easier if you would read the Twitter TOS. They can ban, delete and block you for any reason they want.

But hey, continue to ignore it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

and twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them.

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Straw man.

No that is all that happened here

The straw man is your "it's not against the law". Who said it was? We've said, and will continue to say, that it is editorializing, which makes Twitter no longer fit the definition of a platform. Now YOU'RE trying to argue a defense against something that wasn't said.

If Twitter, or someone at Twitter, wants to respond to his post with a link, they can go right ahead. Making it essentially part of HIS post, that's editorializing, and no amount of weaseling around and making up new definitions and talking about "They JUST did this" and "that's ALL that happened" is going to make other people see it as the no big deal you want it to be.

I just explained this to you in my last post

And I just told you your last post was bullshit, so there we are.

 

[Coyote]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

I doubt it has any teeth, but I wonder if you Trumptards realize that means even more aggressive content policing? If Trump posts lies, he has no protection.

 

[Blues Man]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

No, but if you follow the rules of Twitter and end up punished because of shadow rules that were never explicitly stated, then you have been defrauded.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

You have already decided in your head that you are right, everyone else is wrong, and you will continue to argue to that point for a thousand more 'pages' if you have to instead of engaging in conversation with an open mind.....which means any further arguing (not discussing) this with you is a pointless waste of time.

In the meantime the President just moved to strip Twitter of its govt-provided 302 Protections, which you agree they don't need anyway so the impact should be 'nil' and not worth arguing about.

Much like Barry's DACA edict, the courts have not ruled on Trump's '302 EO', so it remains 'law of the land' for now....and all your arguing against that fact doesn't change that it IS indeed a fact....for now.

'It is DONE' ... for now.

I'm not using words like "punished" or "censored"

Because they do not apply and I will keep telling you they do not apply just like the word "monopoly" does not apply.

As i said you people insist on making Twitter and Facebook etc more than what they are.

Social media sites are nothing but privately owned spaces where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements.

That is all they are , that is all they have ever been and that is all they will ever be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

No, but if you follow the rules of Twitter and end up punished because of shadow rules that were never explicitly stated, then you have been defrauded.

who was "punished"?

Really? NOW you're going to give me, "It's no big deal for that to happen, so that makes it okay"?

Spare me.

No one was "punished"

Who is using straw men here?

More word-parsing. "I am right because QUIBBLE ABOUT THIS WORD CHOICE". Always a sign of someone who knows he's making a shit argument simply because he wants something whether it's right or not.

 

[Blues Man]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

It doesn't matter. Nothing is stopping them from controlling the content on their websites.

I don't have to let you into my business so you can make some political speech and I can tell you to leave or have you removed by the cops and that will not violate your first amendment rights because no private party can violate your first amendment rights as the first amendment applies only to the government.

"Congress shall make no laws...."

When the government protects your business from being sued because of what the people you let into your business say, then my constitutional rights are being denied.

Don't sue the company sue the person that said whatever it is that was libelous or slanderous.

Twitter is not responsible for what people post

You can't have it both ways.

They are if they start saying what is, real or not. That crosses the line from platform to something else. What if Twitter corrects someone and is wrong? Can we sue them now?

You agreed to the terms of service when you signed up for your user account did you not?

I suggest you read them then you might find the answer to your question

So a ToS invalidates law.

You funny.

What law?

No social media provider is capable of violating your freedom of speech rights so they can censor anyone they want to for any reason.

But you don't want them to do that right?

Why doesn't the company that owns the social media site have the right to dispute anything that any user says?

If you people don't like what the social media company does don't use it.

No, they can't censor anyone they want to for any reason if they want government protection from lawsuits. When are you going to get that through your fucking skull?

No private company can violate the first amendment. And I'll say it again fact checking is not censorship

You do not have a guaranteed right to post on Twitter.

and twitter has every right to do what they've done, but now chance a suit against them.

Sue for what? exactly?

Posting a link to a differing opinion?

Fact checking is not against the law

Straw man.

No that is all that happened here

The straw man is your "it's not against the law". Who said it was? We've said, and will continue to say, that it is editorializing, which makes Twitter no longer fit the definition of a platform. Now YOU'RE trying to argue a defense against something that wasn't said.

If Twitter, or someone at Twitter, wants to respond to his post with a link, they can go right ahead. Making it essentially part of HIS post, that's editorializing, and no amount of weaseling around and making up new definitions and talking about "They JUST did this" and "that's ALL that happened" is going to make other people see it as the no big deal you want it to be.

I just explained this to you in my last post

And I just told you your last post was bullshit, so there we are.

no you have yet to reply to the post where I told you what Twitter, Facebook etc are so I will tell you again

Social media sites are nothing but privately owned spaces where people are allowed to communicate with each other for free in exchange for being subjected to advertisements.

That is all they are , that is all they have ever been and that is all they will ever be

You are attempting to make them more than that

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's Done.... Twitter is now free to exercise whatever control it wants, run its company any way it wants....without any Government 'Liability Shield' just like so many other companies and businesses across this country have to do every day.....

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling for Social Media Companies to Lose Liability Protections if They Discriminate

pjmedia.com

'On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content.'

Welcome to being treated just like every other business, Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc....

I doubt it has any teeth, but I wonder if you Trumptards realize that means even more aggressive content policing? If Trump posts lies, he has no protection.

I doubt you even understand the legitimate purpose of an EO if you think it's supposed to "have teeth", but I wonder if you TrumpHateTards realize that you've gotten the whole situation backwards due to your "I don't need to get facts about this, because my TDS has TOLD me what's true."