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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs š
Twitter was founded 10 years post CDA 230. I want it revisited by legal/constitutional experts. That is all. Not my call just my opinion.Nope. 230 was written specifically for the internet and is fundamental for its function. Itās as important now as itās ever been. More so.And that makes it obsolete. This is a new world and I would like social media platform laws to be modern.Section 230 of the CDA was held constitutional decades ago by the SCOTUS.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.Courts have decided. They donāt agree with you. See? We donāt need a commission.Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesnāt change my position.And how do you feel about Joe Biden wanting section 230 repealed?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?The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. Iāve never heard of anyone winning.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?You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.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 youāre wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. Thatās my argument.??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.
You are assuming only the right has issues with these āprotectionsā.
Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230
The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know itwww.google.comSection 230 Is the Internetās 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 ofā¦www.google.com
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 ā 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.
āLeft-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 weāre dealing with,ā 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
ā@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 ā¦
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.
āPeople on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions weāve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,ā 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.
Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.
Publisher or not is debatable.
The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.
They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.
Are your political views based on lies and hate?
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 ā 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.
āLeft-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 weāre dealing with,ā 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
ā@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 ā¦
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.
āPeople on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions weāve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,ā 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. PCās were being bundled with IE the way our phones are tied to google. Google then controls YouTube, etc. Creates a disadvantage for competitors.
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 ā 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.
āLeft-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 weāre dealing with,ā 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
ā@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 ā¦
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.
āPeople on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions weāve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,ā 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.
Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.
Publisher or not is debatable.
The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.
They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.
Are your political views based on lies and hate?
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 ā 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.
āLeft-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 weāre dealing with,ā 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
ā@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 ā¦
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.
āPeople on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions weāve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,ā the company said.
Never said deserve. Only that I want it. If it doesn't happen, so be it. I am not on Twitter anyway.You can want a pony if you want. It doesnāt mean you deserve one.Apps are not the same as websites. I would Like the SCOTUS to review. Why do you have an issue with that? I am Not saying change the law. I am saying review and opine.Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesnāt change my position.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?The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. Iāve never heard of anyone winning.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?You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.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 youāre wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. Thatās my argument.??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.
You are assuming only the right has issues with these āprotectionsā.
Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230
The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know itwww.google.comSection 230 Is the Internetās 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 ofā¦www.google.com
however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.
There are a number of places on the internet donāt engage in the kind of ācensorshipā that youāre complaining of.
And theyāre just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.
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.
Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we donāt have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyoneās postings as a result.
This is what Iāve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.
As usual your view is overly simplified, dishonest and childish. The Fight Over Section 230āand the Internet as We Know ItYes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we donāt have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyoneās postings as a result.
This is what Iāve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.
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 ā 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.
āLeft-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 weāre dealing with,ā 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
ā@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 ā¦
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.
āPeople on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions weāve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,ā 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.
They don't remove folks for their political views, they remove the for hate speech and/or false information (lies).
According to Joe Biden they do not and their protections needs to be repealed.
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 ā 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.
āLeft-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 weāre dealing with,ā 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
ā@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 ā¦
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.
āPeople on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions weāve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,ā 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.
Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.
Publisher or not is debatable.
The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.
They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.
Are your political views based on lies and hate?
I've never made hate speech on twitter, nor swore or been overly aggressive. I was outspoken against Communist China and a supporter of America, capitalism and President Trump. I was deemed a bot.
Before they took that step, they had cut off my followers, shadow banned me and other cowardly, chicken shyte communist tactics. I once hit 7500 and then they flipped the switch. I'd gain 50 and then in a day lose 75. It was obvious and comical. I never hit above 7000 again, but I didn't care, though I called out the Jack Dorsey for allowing it to happen.
Twitter is one of many I'm sure. They will face their demise as all others do that silence citizens. Jack doesn't care, he is worth billions for producing nothing but increasingly oppression of true free speech. Social media is already on the decline in terms of popularity, though revenues for ads are up. I wonder why.
In the end, they will lose what made them so great because they refused to support free speech. It's cowardice at it's finest. They will be replaced and the merry-go round will continue. A function of a new society that seems to admire Communist China more than America.
They ban repeat offenders, just like the mods do here.Even if itās not doesnāt mean you ban the person. I have No idea what he posted. Is Twitter not an opinion forum?It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.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 didnāt 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.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?
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 ā 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.
āLeft-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 weāre dealing with,ā 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
ā@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 ā¦
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.
āPeople on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions weāve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,ā 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.
Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.
Publisher or not is debatable.
The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.
They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.
Are your political views based on lies and hate?
It is debatable when they are taking a side politically and censoring based on that political stance. They feel they can skirt the law by deeming anything they donāt like as ā hatefulā and ā misinformationā.
But according to section 230 they can not censor political speech no matter how extreme. And they clearly do engage in selective censorship.
I disagree. Am I not allowed to disagree?Never said deserve. Only that I want it. If it doesn't happen, so be it. I am not on Twitter anyway.You can want a pony if you want. It doesnāt mean you deserve one.Apps are not the same as websites. I would Like the SCOTUS to review. Why do you have an issue with that? I am Not saying change the law. I am saying review and opine.Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesnāt change my position.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?The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. Iāve never heard of anyone winning.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?You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.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 youāre wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. Thatās my argument.??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.
You are assuming only the right has issues with these āprotectionsā.
Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230
The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know itwww.google.comSection 230 Is the Internetās 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 ofā¦www.google.com
however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.
There are a number of places on the internet donāt engage in the kind of ācensorshipā that youāre complaining of.
And theyāre just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.
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.
Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we donāt have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyoneās postings as a result.
This is what Iāve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.
See? No commission or panel or whatever is needed.
IDK...Twitter seems to ban only repeat offenders that are pro Israel. LOL.They ban repeat offenders, just like the mods do here.Even if itās not doesnāt mean you ban the person. I have No idea what he posted. Is Twitter not an opinion forum?It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.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 didnāt 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.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?
Facebook does not claim to be a service for all. They specifically state when you sign up that they can kick you off at any time for any reason.As usual your view is overly simplified, dishonest and childish. The Fight Over Section 230āand the Internet as We Know ItYes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we donāt have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyoneās postings as a result.
This is what Iāve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.
It, your version of things, says- everything is great. We don't need to change a thing. Without it (section 230) the internet will simply cease to exist.
That's all blatant bullshit! The fact that a commission will be looking into how it is someone like Zuckerberg
can simply toss someone out of what is supposedly a service for all (not just for those that please Lord Zuckerberg) should tell everyone we have a problem with anti civil libertarian Big Tech Giants.
Congress absolutely needs to extend more oversight so that we resemble the United States more than we currently do China. The issue is coming up. The spotlight will be turned on. Weaselish apologists and
rationalizers like you had better look out!
Donāt be such a snowflake.I disagree. Am I not allowed to disagree?Never said deserve. Only that I want it. If it doesn't happen, so be it. I am not on Twitter anyway.You can want a pony if you want. It doesnāt mean you deserve one.Apps are not the same as websites. I would Like the SCOTUS to review. Why do you have an issue with that? I am Not saying change the law. I am saying review and opine.Incorrect. That falls under hate speech and is against section 230.Exactly. Right know the left thinks they benefit so they are all for censorship.Yep. We cannot agree. So courts should decide. Thanks for agreeing with me on that.I know that criticism comes at FB and others from both sides. It doesnāt change my position.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?The law has decided. Lots of people have sued Twitter because they were banned. Iāve never heard of anyone winning.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?You are not reflecting the law. Twitter is allowed to block tweets. The experts have decided. In court.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 youāre wrong. I am saying we should let the experts decide.Twitter can not possibly fact check every tweet. It would destroy the company.They do and they may be sued if they print untruths. Twitter is more like a newspaper and less like an Internet service provider. Thatās my argument.??? Name me one newspaper or magazine that doesn't control what it prints.It merely publishes
what people provide to it. Therefore it cannot censor what people are saying.
You are assuming only the right has issues with these āprotectionsā.
Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230
The law is a foundational part of the internet as we know itwww.google.comSection 230 Is the Internetās 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 ofā¦www.google.com
however,these companies are abusing the platform vs publisher protections and it needs to stop.
There are a number of places on the internet donāt engage in the kind of ācensorshipā that youāre complaining of.
And theyāre just loaded with anti-semitism and racism.
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.
Yes. Section 230 is what makes the internet work which is why we need it. It gives platforms the ability to moderate their content so we donāt have to put up with hate speech without being considered publishers and therefore liable for the content of everyoneās postings as a result.
This is what Iāve been trying to tell you. Section 230 is essential. Without it, platforms would devolve.
See? No commission or panel or whatever is needed.
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 ā 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.
āLeft-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 weāre dealing with,ā 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
ā@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 ā¦
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.
āPeople on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions weāve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,ā 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.
Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.
Publisher or not is debatable.
The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.
They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.
Are your political views based on lies and hate?
Nope.
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 ā 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.
āLeft-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 weāre dealing with,ā 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
ā@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 ā¦
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.
āPeople on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions weāve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,ā 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.
Yes they can. They can take away their platform status and all protections they garner from the government with that status. They want to edit content...they are a publisher.
Publisher or not is debatable.
The point you kids are missing is that they aren't censoring political views points.
They are simply removing hate speech and misinformation.
Are your political views based on lies and hate?
I've never expressed hate speech on twitter, nor swore or been overly aggressive. I was outspoken against Communist China and a supporter of America, capitalism and President Trump. I was deemed a bot.
Before they took that step, they had cut off my followers, shadow banned me and other cowardly, chicken shyte communist tactics. I once hit 7500 and then they flipped the switch. I'd gain 50 and then in a day lose 75. It was obvious and comical. I never hit above 7000 again for well over a year, but I didn't care, though I called out the Jack Dorsey for allowing it to happen, in a polite and sincere manner.
Twitter is one of many I'm sure. They will face their demise as all others do that silence citizens. Jack doesn't care, he is worth billions for producing nothing but increasingly oppression of true free speech. Social media is already on the decline in terms of popularity, though revenues for ads are up. I wonder why.
In the end, they will lose what made them so great because they refused to support free speech. It's cowardice at it's finest. They will be replaced with another format which will begin in support of free speech but then turn to support the alt-left agenda, and the merry-go round will continue. A function of a new society that seems to admire Communist China more than America.
I'm a fan of the Bill of Rights. And leftists as usual are fans of Chinese style authoritarianism because their message can be sent out and no one can mess with it. Because dissent is eliminated.Conservatives are now fans of the Fairness Doctrine. Imagine that.
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 ā 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.
āLeft-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 weāre dealing with,ā 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
ā@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 ā¦
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.
āPeople on both sides of the aisle disagree with some of the positions weāve taken, but we remain committed to seeking outside perspectives and communicating clearly about why we make the decisions we do,ā 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.
They don't remove folks for their political views, they remove the for hate speech and/or false information (lies).
According to Joe Biden they do not and their protections needs to be repealed.
Sure, sure.
I'm sure that's exactly what Joe said.
Lol