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

[BlueGin]

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?

You are exactly right. When these protections were created they were basing them on libraries. They had no idea of the scope of this issue then. They need to review it again because these huge tech companies are abusing them.

 

[OldLady]

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.

That isn't what I asked. Answer the question.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

I don’t think you do.

 

[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.

That isn't what I asked. Answer the question.

You may sue them it they print untruths about you and you can show damages. Your question is stupid.

Imagine if I kept calling you a Nazi and USMB deleted all your replies and then blocked you. People would assume you were one as they would not see your retorts. USMB just became a content provider and you would be able to sue them IMO. Colfax says otherwise. Let’s see what the high courts say. Why do you have an issue with that?

 

[OldLady]

Your question is stupid.

Actually, no it wasn't. You asserted that Twitter is wrong for banning certain content. Yet you also said that Twitter is like a newspaper. So I compared a newspaper controlling content by refusing to print certain op eds to Twitter controlling content by banning certain accounts. I don't see why that is "stupid."

 

[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.

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

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Your question is stupid.

Actually, no it wasn't. You asserted that Twitter is wrong for banning certain content. Yet you also said that Twitter is like a newspaper. So I compared a newspaper controlling content by refusing to print certain op eds to Twitter controlling content by banning certain accounts. I don't see why that is "stupid."

Never said wrong. I said IDK. To answer your stupid question if the newspaper published 99% of OPs but excluded yours you would likely have a case. Yes. If Verizon notices you go to white supremacy cites. May they terminate providing you your Internet access. Yes or No?

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

This stuff makes me smile. But it's also a little sad. Conservatives used to be made of iron. Now they're just a bunch of whiny little bitches. "They're being mean to us!...Government, judges, legislatures..make them stop being mean to us". No bigger statist than today's right winger. And you know someone is putting Trump up to this. He doesn't have the mental acuity to grasp the particulars of the issue...even if there isn't one. Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram are privately held companies. As such, they can make their own rules and enforce them as such. If you don't like it, feel free to start a social media company of your own. With all the money floating around in conservative circles, I'm surprised the best they can come up with is OAN or Breitbart. Here's another idea for conservatives. Come up with some fresh policy approaches instead of the same recycled crap year after year and you might get people to listen to you....maybe even support you. No social media required for 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.

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

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

 

[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

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.

however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

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

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

They can consider all they want. They can't do anything about private platforms.

You wouldn't want them to anyway. If they did you could kiss most of your "news" sources goodbye in fairly short order.

No, this is very similar to the conflict between Netscape and internet explorer. PC’s were being bundled with IE the way our phones are tied to google. Google then controls YouTube, etc. Creates a disadvantage for competitors.

 

[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.

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

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Courts have decided. They don’t agree with you. See? We don’t need a commission.

 

[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.

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

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.

however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.

There are a number of places on the internet don’t engage in the kind of “censorship” that you’re complaining of.

And they’re just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

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

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Courts have decided. They don’t agree with you. See? We don’t need a commission.

I expect it will go about as far as Trump's commission on voter fraud.
How'd that work out?

 

[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.

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

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Courts have decided. They don’t agree with you. See? We don’t need a commission.

They have not. This needs to go to the highest court as we are in the infancy of social media. If the highest court agrees then OK.

 

[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.

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

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Courts have decided. They don’t agree with you. See? We don’t need a commission.

I expect it will go about as far as Trump's commission on voter fraud.
How'd that work out?

This is not a closed case yet. We know there is fraud.

 

[satrebil]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased. It's insulting to ones intelligence for them to suggest otherwise. Whether conservative, a supporter of Trump or just "controversial' (especially if it is against the alt-left mantra), social media is silencing you in one form or another if you start to become popular.

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

WASHINGTON — President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that would likely draw pushback from technology companies and others.


The plans are still under discussion but could include the establishment of a White House-created commission that would examine allegations of online bias and censorship, these people said. The administration could also encourage similar reviews by federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, they said.

“Left-wing bias in the tech world is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed from our vantage point, and at least exposed [so] that Americans have clear eyes about what we’re dealing with,” a White House official said.

Mr. Trump has long expressed that viewpoint, and in a recent Twitter post indicated that a plan to address complaints of bias is in the works.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://twitter.com/af_clips/status/1261331113102004226 …
102K
7:56 AM - May 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

57.2K people are talking about this


Facebook Inc., which also owns Instagram, defended its practices when asked for a response to the nascent proposal.

“People on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions we’ve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,” the company said.

Social media censorship is a difficult one for me. I find censorship abhorrent but I also value the rights of a private business - so where do you draw the line?

I would propose a law that any publicly traded company who's primary purpose is to operate as a social media platform be held to 1st Amendment standards. If you want to censor people you don't like then get off the stock market and self-fund.

 

[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.

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

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Courts have decided. They don’t agree with you. See? We don’t need a commission.

They have not. This needs to go to the highest court as we are in the infancy of social media. If the highest court agrees then OK.

Section 230 of the CDA was held constitutional decades ago by the SCOTUS.

 

[Crepitus]

So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?

That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.

It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.

 

[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

I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.

Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.

however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.

There are a number of places on the internet don’t engage in the kind of “censorship” that you’re complaining of.

And they’re just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.

Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.

Anyway even Mark Zuckerburg thinks Forums like FB and Twitter need more regulations because they actually fall in between a publisher and platform due to the scope of their reach ( they are international).

Section 230 was created when the internet was new...it needs to be reviewed again.