trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[Nostra]

You are reduced to making shit up..

During the Clinton years, hundreds of billion of taxpayer dollars went to build the fiber backbone of the internet - in cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, etc. I posted a link showing that public funding of fiber continues 35 years later.

BTW, I earned an MSCE in 1992, when did you earn network certifications?




It's amusing that you lie about this, while Clinton still brags about it.

The Clinton Presidency: Unleashing the New Economy -- Expanding Access to Technology

clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov

All Colfax does is make shit up. Have you ever seen him bring a link that supports his claims?

 

[colfax_m]

Yes they are as they have the same protections in terms of what is posted aka content they aren’t liable for. Twitter should be IMO or they need to change their subjective guidelines on who may or may not post. I had to spell it out for you? LOL

Their protection isn’t the same, and their requirements aren’t the same.

ATT and Verizon are protected from liability due to their status as a common carrier. That has obligations to carry communication for everyone.

Social media has protections from the CDA which has no obligations.

They’re regulated by completely different frameworks and although some of their protections are the same, many aren’t and their obligations are totally different.

 

[colfax_m]

You are reduced to making shit up..

During the Clinton years, hundreds of billion of taxpayer dollars went to build the fiber backbone of the internet - in cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, etc. I posted a link showing that public funding of fiber continues 35 years later.

BTW, I earned an MSCE in 1992, when did you earn network certifications?




It's amusing that you lie about this, while Clinton still brags about it.

The Clinton Presidency: Unleashing the New Economy -- Expanding Access to Technology

clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov

Great. And the country benefited greatly from it.

This isn’t relevant to Twitter.

 

[colfax_m]

All Colfax does is make shit up. Have you ever seen him bring a link that supports his claims?

You are a moron who doesn’t know what they’re talking about and ignores any question which would demonstrate your ignorance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Great. And the country benefited greatly from it.

This isn’t relevant to Twitter.

So the lie changes for "nuhn uhn" to "isn't it great."

You're such a mindless partisan.

 

[Nostra]

You are a moron who doesn’t know what they’re talking about and ignores any question which would demonstrate your ignorance.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Their protection isn’t the same, and their requirements aren’t the same.

ATT and Verizon are protected from liability due to their status as a common carrier. That has obligations to carry communication for everyone.

Social media has protections from the CDA which has no obligations.

They’re regulated by completely different frameworks and although some of their protections are the same, many aren’t and their obligations are totally different.

Some protections are the same as you said. To me Twitter is closer to the NYT than Verizon. And should be regulated as such. Legal scholars cannot agree on this so our debate is tangible. To me if I can say that Colfax abuses cats and Twitter blocks you from a retort they are in fact a publisher of content now. That’s my view. Let the courts and legal scholars fight it out.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You need to do some reading. Jim Crow was about laws, passed and enforced by government. It had nothing to do with private business.
In the way you're suggesting, yeah, it is

Private businesses (laundries, diners, stores, theaters etc.) did not refuse black customers?
Good to know.

 

[DBA]

The parties have drastically different opinions on how 230 should be reformed. Congress is so dysfunctional they can hardly pass things they agree with let alone come to a compromise on something like 230.

So we are just going to allow websites like Twitter and Facebook to unevenly apply their TOS based on politics and at the same time do nothing about their protections? I can promise you that if Zuckerburg was a big Republican and started banning anti-gun or pro-life folks, for example, based on "misinformation", the left would be going bananas. They don't seem to care much now because it works in their favor.

 

[postman]

They should be regulated as a content publisher IMO. But I am not a legal expert so the courts should decide. Why do you have an issue with courts deciding?

You opinion is they should be regulated as a content publisher.
Reality is that they are merely a content distributor, and as such aren't regulated like
a newspaper, or internet news site.

But you can go on wishing, and hoping, and hoping and wishing....

 

[postman]

So we are just going to allow websites like Twitter and Facebook to unevenly apply their TOS based on politics and at the same time do nothing about their protections?

Trump wasn't banned based on his politics. He was banned for the same reason he was impeached. Inciting insurrection, which as an act of violence, is against Twitters terms of service.

 

[postman]

Some protections are the same as you said. To me Twitter is closer to the NYT than Verizon. And should be regulated as such. Legal scholars cannot agree on this so our debate is tangible.

You confuse "should be" with what they actually "are" regulated as.

Wishing and hoping, and hoping and wishing....

 

[DBA]

Trump wasn't banned based on his politics. He was banned for the same reason he was impeached. Inciting insurrection, which as an act of violence, is against Twitters terms of service.

Many other prominent people have been banned who don't tow the Democratic Party line. Those on the left, not so much. The "fact-checkers" were nothing more than political hacks. Funny that nobody of note was banned for posting "misinformation" when the Russian investigation was underway and there was a plethora of it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You opinion is they should be regulated as a content publisher.
Reality is that they are merely a content distributor, and as such aren't regulated like
a newspaper, or internet news site.

But you can go on wishing, and hoping, and hoping and wishing....

What's the real legal difference between a "content publisher" and a "content distributor"?
None at all actually...except to people that want to disingenuously give the Big Tech Oligarchs
cover to continue to flaunt and ignore the Bill of Rights.

As long as Twitter or Facebook piggyback on our publicly shared airwaves Twitter should
be required to respect protected free speech.
But our dysfunctional society respects only the money and power of Oligarchs like Jack Dorsey.

 

[postman]

. To me if I can say that Colfax abuses cats and Twitter blocks you from a retort they are in fact a publisher of content now. That’s my view. Let the courts and legal scholars fight it out.

What you say would be true if they blocked content by the actual content. If the content was blocked because the person who wanted to respond was banned, then that is not in fact blocking content.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who aren't banned, who can respond to twitter to argue Trumps side. So what's the problem?

 

[Rigby5]

Twitter is a privately owned company. The judge isn't interested.

The judge has no choice.
In this case, the paperboy is not just deciding who he will refuse to deliver papers to but also what articles are allowed to be printed as well.
Totally and completely illegal, and if everyone knew what Twitter was doing, no one would ever use it again.
The only censorship that is legal is if it could be prosecuted in court if it did not censor.
And Trump has never posted anything illegal.
So you can't legally censor him.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Trump never remotely violated any law or terms of service agreement.
His belief the election was scammed is his opinion and he is entitled to it, regardless that I think it is silly.
It is not directly harming anyone or violating any law.
And no one can be absolutely certain he is wrong.

 

[postman]

So we are just going to allow websites like Twitter and Facebook to unevenly apply their TOS based on politics and at the same time do nothing about their protections? I can promise you that if Zuckerburg was a big Republican and started banning anti-gun or pro-life folks, for example, based on "misinformation", the left would be going bananas. They don't seem to care much now because it works in their favor.

If their TOS says so.

Twitter Removed 3.8M Tweets for Violating Twitter Rules in Second Half of 2020

 

[postman]

What's the real legal difference between a "content publisher" and a "content distributor"?
None at all actually...except to people that want to disingenuously give the Big Tech Oligarchs
cover to continue to flaunt and ignore the Bill of Rights.

Actually there is a big difference. To be technical a content publisher would be known as a content producer, and is treated far differently than a content distributor.

It's like the Mann act.

The Mann Act (also known as the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910) is a federal law that criminalizes the transportation of “any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.”

The person who puts a woman on a bus, or a plane, or into a taxi out of state would be considered the producer. While the airline, bus company, or Uber would be the distributor.
With legal liability going solely to the producer, and none to the distributor.

 

[postman]

The only censorship that is legal is if it could be prosecuted in court if it did not censor.
And Trump has never posted anything illegal.
So you can't legally censor him.

As they say, you couldn't be more wrong.
It is not illegal to give mis-information, such as telling people they can vote after election day, or that they don't need a license to carry a gun in New York. But Twitter is perfectly within their terms of service to keep such dangerous statements from being spread on their platform.