Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Verizon is a common carrier.They claim they are an open space for everyone and then they pick and choose in terms of who to ban. So now they are a private club aka a publisher of content. Roh roh. You said it yourself. Verizon doesn’t pick and choose who uses their services. Twitter does as you admitted. So why should they be regulated the same way?
Colfax said they are a “private club”.No, they say they are open to anyone that abides by their terms of service. Now argue if you wish that they do not enforce them equally but all Trump had to do was Tweet like an adult.
Colfax said they are a “private club”.
My point was that Twitter doesn’t just let anyone post. Twitter only lets those who agree to the TOS to post. You can’t claim that it’s unfair to be kicked off in accordance with the terms you agreed to.Lol....ok...not exactly that but all the same. Act decent and you don't get booted. For some odd reason Trump simply can't do that.
Then why are the letting the Taliban and Hamas continue to post? It's unfair if they don't apply their TOS equally, and target those of a certain political party.My point was that Twitter doesn’t just let anyone post. Twitter only lets those who agree to the TOS to post. You can’t claim that it’s unfair to be kicked off in accordance with the terms you agreed to.
What difference does it make?Then why are the letting the Taliban and Hamas continue to post? It's unfair if they don't apply their TOS equally, and target those of a certain political party.
Difference is they pick and choose who to allow to post based on subjective standards. That makes them a publisher in my view. You disagree. So the courts should decide.What difference does it make?
The law specifically states that they are not to be treated as publishers, specifically to allow them to pick and choose based on subjective standards.Difference is they pick and choose who to allow to post based on subjective standards. That makes them a publisher in my view. You disagree. So the courts should decide.
So you agree it should not be rated as Verizon and they claim they should. We are making progress. How is a social media platform regulated that arbitrarily bans accounts based on subjectivity that pushes a certain narrative? I have no idea as I am not an attorney.Verizon is a common carrier.
Twitter is not.
This is an extremely important distinction.
As for treating Twitter as a publisher, it’s a stupid idea. People keep talking about whether Twitter should be regulated like a phone company or a newspaper. It’s neither. It shouldn’t be forced into a regulatory structure that wasn’t designed for something like it. It should be regulated as a social media platform.
Yes, Trump is arguing they don't apply their TOS fairly. This may get Twitter regulated for the entity they actually are.Difference is they pick and choose who to allow to post based on subjective standards. That makes them a publisher in my view. You disagree. So the courts should decide.
They’re not being “rated” as Verizon.So you agree it should not be rated as Verizon and they claim they should. We are making progress. How is a social media platform regulated that arbitrarily bans accounts based on subjectivity that pushes a certain narrative? I have no idea as I am not an attorney.
Twitter is under no legal obligation to apply their TOS fairly.Yes, Trump is arguing they don't apply their TOS fairly. This may get Twitter regulated for the entity they actually are.
In reality, they are nothing more than an arm of the DNC.
My point was that Twitter doesn’t just let anyone post. Twitter only lets those who agree to the TOS to post. You can’t claim that it’s unfair to be kicked off in accordance with the terms you agreed to.
The Taliban took over the Afghan government, not tried to overthrow the US government.Then why are the letting the Taliban and Hamas continue to post? It's unfair if they don't apply their TOS equally, and target those of a certain political party.
What difference does it make?
Difference is they pick and choose who to allow to post based on subjective standards. That makes them a publisher in my view. You disagree. So the courts should decide.
I can't dispute a non-opinion, which is basically all you have.
I gave you my views and you cannot dispute them. The courts will decide. Checkmate
Regulated. Auto correct. You don’t get to decide how social media is regulated and neither do I. Legislative Branch of the US Govt does. Courts then interpret the law. They may ban Trump all day. And they may let Hamas post all day. They may also ban the IDF and anyone who supports Israel. They are a private company. But they cannot then state they are a neutral platform and be regulated like AT&T or Verizon.They’re not being “rated” as Verizon.
Social media should be regulated a social media. It’s unique. When we invented phones, we came up with new regulations. When we invented radio, we came up with new regulations.
Social media shouldn’t be shoehorned into regulatory framework for something it isn’t, such as a publisher equivalent to a newspaper.
The 4 star restaurant doesn’t pick and choose who to let in based on political ideologyNo, that makes them a regular business. Who get to write terms of service, that their customers have to follow.
Have you ever gone to a 4 star restaurant in casual attire?
Did you file a lawsuit?
