Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

[AzogtheDefiler]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

If thats the case then they are a content provider not a disseminator. Verizon and AT&T cannot and do not do that. YouTube does not either.

Not sure what you mean about Verizon and ATT but YouTube definitely does that.

Twitter and Youtube are in this to make money. Not propagate you’re message for you.

Why hasn’t Twitter made money? Why are you opposed to allowing experts decide this? Neither you nor I are experts on this.

Twitter became profitable a few years ago.

What’s that got to do with anything?

It means they may be sued if they provide inaccurate content. How are you not following this? If they are just a disseminator then they aren’t liable but if they pick and choose they are. This is my understanding of the law. Now if I am wrong the committee or panel will tell me I am if I am right then they will be regulated as such.

No panel needed. This is a legal argument and has been weighed in court cases. You’re inventing regulations that don’t exist. It doesn’t matter if a website decided to remove content they don’t like. They’re not liable based on the law. Section 230 of the CDA.

They are an App. If they choose to filter certain content then they are no longer just a disseminator. They are a provider. And may be sued. You say no panel needed. Are you an attorney? How do you know? Let the courts decide and we can move on. I disagree with you.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No panel needed. This is a legal argument and has been weighed in court cases. You’re inventing regulations that don’t exist. It doesn’t matter if a website decided to remove content they don’t like. They’re not liable based on the law. Section 230 of the CDA.

There goes your apples and oranges argument again. Do you not understand you are comparing different things and expecting them to be the same? Or is mixing up the elements within your point the only way you think you can "win"?

 

[OldLady]

Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

But in that case, Twitter CAN control its content and ban every single conservative it doesn't like. Right?

 

[OldLady]

And may be sued

For what? Do you mean I can sue my local paper if they don't publish my op ed?

 

[colfax_m]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

But in that case, Twitter CAN control its content and ban every single conservative it doesn't like. Right?

Duh...but right now they aren’t considered one. They are considered like AT&T and not like a newspaper. Are you not following this?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

 

[colfax_m]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

If thats the case then they are a content provider not a disseminator. Verizon and AT&T cannot and do not do that. YouTube does not either.

Not sure what you mean about Verizon and ATT but YouTube definitely does that.

Twitter and Youtube are in this to make money. Not propagate you’re message for you.

Why hasn’t Twitter made money? Why are you opposed to allowing experts decide this? Neither you nor I are experts on this.

Twitter became profitable a few years ago.

What’s that got to do with anything?

It means they may be sued if they provide inaccurate content. How are you not following this? If they are just a disseminator then they aren’t liable but if they pick and choose they are. This is my understanding of the law. Now if I am wrong the committee or panel will tell me I am if I am right then they will be regulated as such.

No panel needed. This is a legal argument and has been weighed in court cases. You’re inventing regulations that don’t exist. It doesn’t matter if a website decided to remove content they don’t like. They’re not liable based on the law. Section 230 of the CDA.

They are an App. If they choose to filter certain content then they are no longer just a disseminator. They are a provider. And may be sued. You say no panel needed. Are you an attorney? How do you know? Let the courts decide and we can move on. I disagree with you.

I don’t think you’ve done much research on the issue because you’re repeating a very superficial argument that I’ve seen in right wing media.

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996).

The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet

www.cato.org

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

And may be sued

For what? Do you mean I can sue my local paper if they don't publish my op ed?

If they write that you’re a transgender witch who kills babies, yes you may sue them. Duh...unless of course that is who you are.

 

[colfax_m]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

If thats the case then they are a content provider not a disseminator. Verizon and AT&T cannot and do not do that. YouTube does not either.

Not sure what you mean about Verizon and ATT but YouTube definitely does that.

Twitter and Youtube are in this to make money. Not propagate you’re message for you.

Why hasn’t Twitter made money? Why are you opposed to allowing experts decide this? Neither you nor I are experts on this.

Twitter became profitable a few years ago.

What’s that got to do with anything?

It means they may be sued if they provide inaccurate content. How are you not following this? If they are just a disseminator then they aren’t liable but if they pick and choose they are. This is my understanding of the law. Now if I am wrong the committee or panel will tell me I am if I am right then they will be regulated as such.

No panel needed. This is a legal argument and has been weighed in court cases. You’re inventing regulations that don’t exist. It doesn’t matter if a website decided to remove content they don’t like. They’re not liable based on the law. Section 230 of the CDA.

They are an App. If they choose to filter certain content then they are no longer just a disseminator. They are a provider. And may be sued. You say no panel needed. Are you an attorney? How do you know? Let the courts decide and we can move on. I disagree with you.

I don’t think you’ve done much research on the issue because you’re repeating a very superficial argument that I’ve seen in right wing media.

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996).

The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet

www.cato.org

What the fuck colfax? I am not a lawyer. I want Legal experts to look at this and opine. If I am wrong then I will admit as such. Why are you arguing against that?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

Well let’s see what happens now that they get investigated thoroughly. You may be right and we can go on our way.

 

[colfax_m]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

If thats the case then they are a content provider not a disseminator. Verizon and AT&T cannot and do not do that. YouTube does not either.

Not sure what you mean about Verizon and ATT but YouTube definitely does that.

Twitter and Youtube are in this to make money. Not propagate you’re message for you.

Why hasn’t Twitter made money? Why are you opposed to allowing experts decide this? Neither you nor I are experts on this.

Twitter became profitable a few years ago.

What’s that got to do with anything?

It means they may be sued if they provide inaccurate content. How are you not following this? If they are just a disseminator then they aren’t liable but if they pick and choose they are. This is my understanding of the law. Now if I am wrong the committee or panel will tell me I am if I am right then they will be regulated as such.

No panel needed. This is a legal argument and has been weighed in court cases. You’re inventing regulations that don’t exist. It doesn’t matter if a website decided to remove content they don’t like. They’re not liable based on the law. Section 230 of the CDA.

They are an App. If they choose to filter certain content then they are no longer just a disseminator. They are a provider. And may be sued. You say no panel needed. Are you an attorney? How do you know? Let the courts decide and we can move on. I disagree with you.

I don’t think you’ve done much research on the issue because you’re repeating a very superficial argument that I’ve seen in right wing media.

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996).

The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet

www.cato.org

What the fuck colfax? I am not a lawyer. I want Legal experts to look at this and opine. If I am wrong then I will admit as such. Why are you arguing against that?

Why are you mad at me? I’m just trying to give you some information that is useful to your understanding.

 

[colfax_m]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

Well let’s see what happens now that they get investigated thoroughly. You may be right and we can go on our way.

The government is not a party here. This is a private company with private users.

 

[colfax_m]

No panel needed. This is a legal argument and has been weighed in court cases. You’re inventing regulations that don’t exist. It doesn’t matter if a website decided to remove content they don’t like. They’re not liable based on the law. Section 230 of the CDA.

There goes your apples and oranges argument again. Do you not understand you are comparing different things and expecting them to be the same? Or is mixing up the elements within your point the only way you think you can "win"?

Feel free to point it out.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

If thats the case then they are a content provider not a disseminator. Verizon and AT&T cannot and do not do that. YouTube does not either.

Not sure what you mean about Verizon and ATT but YouTube definitely does that.

Twitter and Youtube are in this to make money. Not propagate you’re message for you.

Why hasn’t Twitter made money? Why are you opposed to allowing experts decide this? Neither you nor I are experts on this.

Twitter became profitable a few years ago.

What’s that got to do with anything?

It means they may be sued if they provide inaccurate content. How are you not following this? If they are just a disseminator then they aren’t liable but if they pick and choose they are. This is my understanding of the law. Now if I am wrong the committee or panel will tell me I am if I am right then they will be regulated as such.

No panel needed. This is a legal argument and has been weighed in court cases. You’re inventing regulations that don’t exist. It doesn’t matter if a website decided to remove content they don’t like. They’re not liable based on the law. Section 230 of the CDA.

They are an App. If they choose to filter certain content then they are no longer just a disseminator. They are a provider. And may be sued. You say no panel needed. Are you an attorney? How do you know? Let the courts decide and we can move on. I disagree with you.

I don’t think you’ve done much research on the issue because you’re repeating a very superficial argument that I’ve seen in right wing media.

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996).

The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet

www.cato.org

What the fuck colfax? I am not a lawyer. I want Legal experts to look at this and opine. If I am wrong then I will admit as such. Why are you arguing against that?

Why are you mad at me? I’m just trying to give you some information that is useful to your understanding.

I am angry because you act like a lawyer when you’re not one. Let’s let the law decide? Why are you against that. Let it go to the Supreme Court and see what they say. We are in the infancy of Apps and social media so let’s get it right now. I am Not saying I am right as I dont know but you claim to be right and that I am wrong and that is simply not true because it has yet to be fully adjudicated yet. This is what I hate about Leftists. You’re never wrong. You never don’t know. We cannot agree on this topic. Let’s go to court and see who is correct and who is incorrect. What are you afraid of?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

Well let’s see what happens now that they get investigated thoroughly. You may be right and we can go on our way.

The government is not a party here. This is a private company with private users.

That has to follow US law. McDonalds is a private company it cannot discriminate who it serves burgers to. Maybe they should be able to?

 

[BlueGin]

It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.

??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.

They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. That’s my argument.

Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.

Then they should not block certain tweets. Why are you angry with me? This is the law. Challenge the law not people who expect Twitter to follow it. Why are you so angry. I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.

You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.

Sure but then they should no longer be considered a disseminator. If you and I get in a scuffle we let the law decide what happens. We cannot even agree on this here so why not let the law decide? What is so bad about that?

The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. I’ve never heard of anyone winning.

And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed? Mostly because he says FB allowed posts related to his son and Russia to be posted?

You are assuming only the right has issues with these “protections”.

Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230

The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know it

www.google.com

Section 230 Is the Internet’s First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away.

Imagine, for a moment, the following series of online exchanges. This isn't a real conversation. But it's the sort of…

www.google.com

 

[OldLady]

I am saying we should let the experts decide.

I know you think Trump is trying to right a wrong.

Doing so will end the internet as we know it including this message board.

What a feeble hollow threat.

So let’s say you own this website. You have two choices. Either stop any effort to remove content, no matter what (outside flagrantly illegal content) or continue mod policy to remove some content at their discretion and be subject to liability for the content anyone posts here?

Or just shut down.

What would you do?

First of all “editing” doesn’t include specified rules of use listed in their guidelines members have to abide by when joining.

It relates to censorship being done to members who are posting content within the rules due to bias.

Read any website’s TOS and you’ll find they can remove your content and ban you for any reason at all with no notification. That’s not censorship. You dont have a right to post on Twitter or any other privately owned and operated website.

If thats the case then they are a content provider not a disseminator. Verizon and AT&T cannot and do not do that. YouTube does not either.

Not sure what you mean about Verizon and ATT but YouTube definitely does that.

Twitter and Youtube are in this to make money. Not propagate you’re message for you.

Why hasn’t Twitter made money? Why are you opposed to allowing experts decide this? Neither you nor I are experts on this.

Twitter became profitable a few years ago.

What’s that got to do with anything?

It means they may be sued if they provide inaccurate content. How are you not following this? If they are just a disseminator then they aren’t liable but if they pick and choose they are. This is my understanding of the law. Now if I am wrong the committee or panel will tell me I am if I am right then they will be regulated as such.

No panel needed. This is a legal argument and has been weighed in court cases. You’re inventing regulations that don’t exist. It doesn’t matter if a website decided to remove content they don’t like. They’re not liable based on the law. Section 230 of the CDA.

They are an App. If they choose to filter certain content then they are no longer just a disseminator. They are a provider. And may be sued. You say no panel needed. Are you an attorney? How do you know? Let the courts decide and we can move on. I disagree with you.

I don’t think you’ve done much research on the issue because you’re repeating a very superficial argument that I’ve seen in right wing media.

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996).

The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet

www.cato.org

At last I begin to see where this is coming from.