Not on board with this one...

[htownbrown]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-signs-executive-order-taking-action-on-social-media-bias-we-cant-let-this-continue-to-happen

 

As long as they aren't skewing the message, you can't realistically punish them.  After reelection, Trump doesn't need Twitter anymore, why do this?  You're fighting censorship with censorship.  It just isn't the right thing to do here.

[Axe]

15 minutes ago, htownbrown said:

 

 

  After reelection, Trump doesn't need Twitter anymore

You're joking right?

 

Of course he will.. And so will a plethora of conservative candidates across the board in future elections.

 

[MLD Woody]

He's either that petty and that big of a thin skinned baby that this is all an actual tirade of his in response to twitter being mean to him

or this is all just some big distraction from COVID, some other issue, etc

 

 

If anyone on this board can justify Trump's response and actions to this twitter thing I'd love to hear it 

[Axe]

Jeez, you really are a pathetic lil TWAT aren't ya. 🤣

[jbluhm86]

17 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

He's either that petty and that big of a thin skinned baby that this is all an actual tirade of his in response to twitter being mean to him

or this is all just some big distraction from COVID, some other issue, etc

 

 

If anyone on this board can justify Trump's response and actions to this twitter thing I'd love to hear it 

Actually, I do find myself in agreement with Trump on this one. Here's why:

The issue boils down to whether or not social media companies like Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. are considered to be "platforms" or "publishers", and whether or not said companies are liable for the content of their users.

Back in the early days of the internet, some people tried to sue message boards and other online social media companies for the opinions posted on there by their users. In response, Congress passed 47 U.S. Code § 230: Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material. This statue laid out protections for social media sites against litigation for what their users posted. The most important part of the statue, and the one that is at the heart of this executive orders, follows:

 

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

• 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.

(2) Civil liability. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

• (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
• (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

 

Basically, what this states is that as long as social media companies make good faith efforts in restricting speech that is unreasonably "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable", they are considered "platforms" by law and are protected against lawsuits for the content on their website. Publishers, on the other hand, are open to lawsuits for the content that they publish because they actively edit and curate the content they put out that either exceeds or is outside the scope of Section 230 - (C) 2. For example, papers like the NYT, WaPo, NYPost, etc. and news companies like ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, etc. are considered publishers because they actively curate the content that they print or put on the TV, and make a profit while doing so, so they are open to lawsuits for what they put out.

What the Trump administration is alleging by this executive order - and I tend to agree with them on this point - is that platforms like Twitter, Google and Facebook are actively censoring users and content, mostly from conservatives and conservative viewpoints, outside of the scope laid out by Section 230. It has been demonstrated numerous times that these companies are actively censoring and editing out conservative viewpoints by practices like shadow banning, demonetizing, deletion and outright banning of certain users or user-generated content. This, theoretically, exceeds the scope of a speech "platform" and falls within the realm of being a "publisher". If so, that opens up Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc, to billions of dollars worth of lawsuits about the content on their sites.

So the Trump administration, by creating this executive order, is backing these companies into the proverbial corner and forcing them to make a choice. Are they platforms? If so, they have to cease censorship practices against conservatives and viewpoints that they themselves may not necessarily agree with. Or, they can declare themselves as publishers, in which case they are free to continue to censor and edit their content however they see fit, but become legally liable for the content they provide on their sites.

 

Here is an article from 2018 that does a good job at describing the whole "platform or publisher" concept, and a video from journalist Tim Pool that also does a good job at going over the implications of Trump's executive order:

 

[hoorta]

1 hour ago, jbluhm86 said:

Actually, I do find myself in agreement with Trump on this one. Here's why:

The issue boils down to whether or not social media companies like Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. are considered to be "platforms" or "publishers", and whether or not said companies are liable for the content of their users.

Back in the early days of the internet, some people tried to sue message boards and other online social media companies for the opinions posted on there by their users. In response, Congress passed 47 U.S. Code § 230: Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material. This statue laid out protections for social media sites against litigation for what their users posted. The most important part of the statue, and the one that is at the heart of this executive orders, follows:

 

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

• 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.

(2) Civil liability. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

• (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
• (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

 

Basically, what this states is that as long as social media companies make good faith efforts in restricting speech that is unreasonably "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable", they are considered "platforms" by law and are protected against lawsuits for the content on their website. Publishers, on the other hand, are open to lawsuits for the content that they publish because they actively edit and curate the content they put out that either exceeds or is outside the scope of Section 230 - (C) 2. For example, papers like the NYT, WaPo, NYPost, etc. and news companies like ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, etc. are considered publishers because they actively curate the content that they print or put on the TV, and make a profit while doing so, so they are open to lawsuits for what they put out.

What the Trump administration is alleging by this executive order - and I tend to agree with them on this point - is that platforms like Twitter, Google and Facebook are actively censoring users and content, mostly from conservatives and conservative viewpoints, outside of the scope laid out by Section 230. It has been demonstrated numerous times that these companies are actively censoring and editing out conservative viewpoints by practices like shadow banning, demonetizing, deletion and outright banning of certain users or user-generated content. This, theoretically, exceeds the scope of a speech "platform" and falls within the realm of being a "publisher". If so, that opens up Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc, to billions of dollars worth of lawsuits about the content on their sites.

So the Trump administration, by creating this executive order, is backing these companies into the proverbial corner and forcing them to make a choice. Are they platforms? If so, they have to cease censorship practices against conservatives and viewpoints that they themselves may not necessarily agree with. Or, they can declare themselves as publishers, in which case they are free to continue to censor and edit their content however they see fit, but become legally liable for the content they provide on their sites.

OTOH- more simply-  you can take it as Trump is claiming he can publish outright lies, and his millions of Twitter followers can do their own fact checking (which they won't) ..... And we can start with his BS Lamb voted for Pelosi. There's plenty of other crap. If Trump wasn't the President- I suspect he'd have been kicked off of Twitter long ago- just based on personal attacks with zero basis in fact- other than he doesn't like them.... 

And if they become liable- they can sue Trump for posting BS- it cuts both ways....  But- but I'm the President- you can't do that.  Whatever- King Donald. 

[tiamat63]

Weapoizing the office for personal vendetta quite blatantly... Is never a good idea.

Yes, Cal... Obama and the IRS blah blah blah.

[Westside Steve]

47 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Weapoizing the office for personal vendetta quite blatantly... Is never a good idea.

Yes, Cal... Obama and the IRS blah blah blah.

But it was cool then right? It's just that everybody switches hats depending on who's in the White House. That being said...

I think it's probably a bad idea. As I said often I would advise him to handle the opposition in different ways at different times.

But regardless of your love or hatred for Trump ask yourselves if social media has any responsibility whatsoever just because so many more Americans get their news from that they ever did before? Should they be held to any kind of standard? I mean you can't really deny that the major newspapers and networks have all picked sides.

WSS

[Canton Dawg]

I’m certainly glad Jack Dorsey hired a Head of Integrity that’s “unbiased” to police Twitterville.

[MLD Woody]

7 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

Actually, I do find myself in agreement with Trump on this one. Here's why:

The issue boils down to whether or not social media companies like Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. are considered to be "platforms" or "publishers", and whether or not said companies are liable for the content of their users.

Back in the early days of the internet, some people tried to sue message boards and other online social media companies for the opinions posted on there by their users. In response, Congress passed 47 U.S. Code § 230: Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material. This statue laid out protections for social media sites against litigation for what their users posted. The most important part of the statue, and the one that is at the heart of this executive orders, follows:

 

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

• 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.

(2) Civil liability. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

• (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
• (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

 

Basically, what this states is that as long as social media companies make good faith efforts in restricting speech that is unreasonably "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable", they are considered "platforms" by law and are protected against lawsuits for the content on their website. Publishers, on the other hand, are open to lawsuits for the content that they publish because they actively edit and curate the content they put out that either exceeds or is outside the scope of Section 230 - (C) 2. For example, papers like the NYT, WaPo, NYPost, etc. and news companies like ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, etc. are considered publishers because they actively curate the content that they print or put on the TV, and make a profit while doing so, so they are open to lawsuits for what they put out.

What the Trump administration is alleging by this executive order - and I tend to agree with them on this point - is that platforms like Twitter, Google and Facebook are actively censoring users and content, mostly from conservatives and conservative viewpoints, outside of the scope laid out by Section 230. It has been demonstrated numerous times that these companies are actively censoring and editing out conservative viewpoints by practices like shadow banning, demonetizing, deletion and outright banning of certain users or user-generated content. This, theoretically, exceeds the scope of a speech "platform" and falls within the realm of being a "publisher". If so, that opens up Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc, to billions of dollars worth of lawsuits about the content on their sites.

So the Trump administration, by creating this executive order, is backing these companies into the proverbial corner and forcing them to make a choice. Are they platforms? If so, they have to cease censorship practices against conservatives and viewpoints that they themselves may not necessarily agree with. Or, they can declare themselves as publishers, in which case they are free to continue to censor and edit their content however they see fit, but become legally liable for the content they provide on their sites.

 

Here is an article from 2018 that does a good job at describing the whole "platform or publisher" concept, and a video from journalist Tim Pool that also does a good job at going over the implications of Trump's executive order:

 

Sorry, I just haven't seen sufficient evidence yet that Twitter is actively "censoring" conservative viewpoints just because they're conservative. Most of the time when this comes up it turns out that user said something homophobic (or similar) and that led to the actions.

Plus, nothing is stopping these people from using another platform to post their content. 

Also, Trump isn't even being censored. The content is still there. 

And is it "censoring a conservative viewpoint" if that viewpoint is an outright lie?

As Tia said I think he's using the office for his own vendetta. 

 

If anything this opens the door to them having to fact check EVERY public figure on Twitter now. But, again, they're their own company. If they wanted to actually censor every post talking about mass shootings could they not just do that? Couldn't users just go to another platform? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but I thought the law above is more about the responsibility they hold when something unlawful is posted, and not necessarily what they allow to be posted overall. 

[MLD Woody]

23 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

I’m certainly glad Jack Dorsey hired a Head of Integrity that’s “unbiased” to police Twitterville.

Go to another social media site then? 

Go create Conservatwitter and use that. 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[Canton Dawg]

1 minute ago, MLD Woody said:

Go to another social media site then? 

Go create Conservatwitter and use that. 

That’s not the point.

Is Twitter a Social Media website, or does it want to be a Publisher?

It can’t drive on both sides of the road.

If you think Conservatives aren’t being censored on Twitter, you’re delusional.

 

[Westside Steve]

30 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

That’s not the point.

Is Twitter a Social Media website, or does it want to be a Publisher?

It can’t drive on both sides of the road.

If you think Conservatives aren’t being censored on Twitter, you’re delusional.

 

Wasn't Woody just complaining that half the Twitter accounts are Russian Bots?

WSS

[MLD Woody]

24 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Wasn't Woody just complaining that half the Twitter accounts are Russian Bots?

WSS

I'm sorry you're unable to keep up

[MLD Woody]

56 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

That’s not the point.

Is Twitter a Social Media website, or does it want to be a Publisher?

It can’t drive on both sides of the road.

If you think Conservatives aren’t being censored on Twitter, you’re delusional.

 

 

I've looked at basically every instance of Twitter "censorship" that has been posted on this board. Many of them are basically "gays are sinners!" type posts. I see no problem in taking down those posts. 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the law posted above, but it seems more about protecting the site from what users might post. If Twitter wants to delete posts then why can't they? Other social media sites exist. As long as they aren't discriminating based on sex, race, sexual orientation, etc then shouldn't they be allowed? 

[Westside Steve]

51 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I'm sorry you're unable to keep up

I will take a page from Cal's book --Woodpecker translation: "Why yes, as a matter of fact I did. I must have forgotten, sorry. Russia Russia Bots Bots"

😊

WSS

[Axe]

It never occurred to BJ that the point of Trump using twitter is to reach fair minded liberals and that's exactly what Herr Roth wants to prevent.

[MLD Woody]

47 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

I will take a page from Cal's book --Woodpecker translation: "Why yes, as a matter of fact I did. I must have forgotten, sorry. Russia Russia Bots Bots"

😊

WSS

I assumed you read at a higher grade level than that

[calfoxwc]

oh, go shove your stinking feathers, greta woodpecka.

[BaconHound]

I would hope any leader would welcome their constituents fact checking their points to reinforce all the truth that’s being disseminated

[Gorka]

4 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Sorry, I just haven't seen sufficient evidence yet that Twitter is actively "censoring" conservative viewpoints just because they're conservative. Most of the time when this comes up it turns out that user said something homophobic (or similar) and that led to the actions.

 

You never will because you don't want to.

James Woods was censored. You honestly never heard about that?

Twitter employees have been found guilty conservative censorship attempts before. In November 2018, Twitter suspended Marine veteran and conservative commentator Jesse Kelly’s account, but refused to explain why. After online backlash, Twitter reinstated Kelly’s account.

So Twitter names this anti-Trump guy Yoel Roth as Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity who has Tweeted posts such as:

“I’m just saying, we fly over those states that voter for a racist tangerine for a reason,” Roth wrote the night of the 2016 election.

Roth also called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “bag of farts” in one tweet, and expressed fear over “actual nazis in the White House” in another.

Quite a display of site integrity there eh?

Earlier in 2018, Project Veritas obtained undercover footage of Twitter employees boasting about using their positions to quietly block certain users’ posts from being seen. “One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control,” said a former Twitter software engineer in the clip.

In testimony before Congress, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey insisted that “Twitter does not use political ideology to make any decisions, whether related to ranking content on our service or how we enforce our rules.” Yet, when asked by podcaster Sam Harris about Twitter’s suspension of certain accounts, Dorsey claimed, “I don’t believe that we can afford to take a neutral stance anymore,” according to the Daily Wire

[MLD Woody]

1 hour ago, Gorka said:

You never will because you don't want to.

James Woods was censored. You honestly never heard about that?

Twitter employees have been found guilty conservative censorship attempts before. In November 2018, Twitter suspended Marine veteran and conservative commentator Jesse Kelly’s account, but refused to explain why. After online backlash, Twitter reinstated Kelly’s account.

So Twitter names this anti-Trump guy Yoel Roth as Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity who has Tweeted posts such as:

“I’m just saying, we fly over those states that voter for a racist tangerine for a reason,” Roth wrote the night of the 2016 election.

Roth also called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “bag of farts” in one tweet, and expressed fear over “actual nazis in the White House” in another.

Quite a display of site integrity there eh?

Earlier in 2018, Project Veritas obtained undercover footage of Twitter employees boasting about using their positions to quietly block certain users’ posts from being seen. “One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control,” said a former Twitter software engineer in the clip.

In testimony before Congress, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey insisted that “Twitter does not use political ideology to make any decisions, whether related to ranking content on our service or how we enforce our rules.” Yet, when asked by podcaster Sam Harris about Twitter’s suspension of certain accounts, Dorsey claimed, “I don’t believe that we can afford to take a neutral stance anymore,” according to the Daily Wire

 

Supposed "censorship" attempts get posted on here all of the time. Most of those fall along the lines I previously mentioned. 

Alex Jones getting banned doesn't make me think Twitter is going out of their way to ban conservatives.

Project Veritas has been proven to doctor footage so forgive me if I don't put any stock into what their "investigation" finds. 

 

 

Again though, I don't see how Twitter DOESN'T have the ability to do this. This falls within their guidelines for moderation and doesn't make them a publisher. Trump and his followers are free to use another social media platform. Trump's petty vendetta leading to him trying to take out Section 230 is only going to make it worse. Twitter isn't violating the First Amendment. They aren't censoring him.

[hoorta]

5 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

oh, go shove your stinking feathers, greta woodpecka.

Right back at ya Cal- I promised Woody I'd use it when needed... You deserve one...  

[calfoxwc]

and yet, Hoorta - I haven't harrassed you with insults for years, ridiculed your Christianity for years, misdirected your threads for years...which is how he became the woodpecker.

But thanks - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?

So, you are admitting to co-ordinated attacks on conservatives on this board, too?

Little weasel beak greta woodpecka needs a friend THAT badly?

what a sissy bird he is.

Here's your sign:

 

 

[htownbrown]

17 hours ago, Axe said:

You're joking right?

 

Of course he will.. And so will a plethora of conservative candidates across the board in future elections.

 

Well, maybe that wasn't the best point for me make about this, but if the man farts, no matter what the platform, the world will know.  

I guess the better point is, and I'm not speaking about other conservatives here just Trump, it's not going to help what he has an issue with at the moment.  And that makes it rather disingenuous.  I did see they blocked something of his this morning about the Minnesota cop (retaliation?), but the executive order appears to have been sparked over fact checking. If this was about James Woods or another conservative, it should have been done way back when.

There has to be some personal, not political, leeway on a private platform.  For me, that line gets very blurry on fact checking.  And I'm not comfortable with the government telling Twitter who they can or should fact check.

 

[MLD Woody]

4 minutes ago, htownbrown said:

Well, maybe that wasn't the best point for me make about this, but if the man farts, no matter what the platform, the world will know.  

I guess the better point is, and I'm not speaking about other conservatives here just Trump, it's not going to help what he has an issue with at the moment.  And that makes it rather disingenuous.  I did see they blocked something of his this morning about the Minnesota cop (retaliation?), but the executive order appears to have been sparked over fact checking. If this was about James Woods or another conservative, it should have been done way back when.

There has to be some personal, not political, leeway on a private platform.  For me, that line gets very blurry on fact checking.  And I'm not comfortable with the government telling Twitter who they can or should fact check.

 

 

Social media is also still evolving. 5 years ago I don't think anyone would have expected the president to be utilizing Twitter like he is now. 

 

This isn't directed at you htown, but I still haven't seen anything posted here explaining why Trump is in the right or why Twitter HAS to let him tweet whatever he wants. I'm un-ignoring posts and I'm just seeing a bunch of idiotic woodpecker insults. I've read some articles on what Section 230 is and I'm not seeing what grounds Trump has here. 

If anyone actually has anything to contribute to defend Trump please let me know. 

 

 

[Vambo]

10 minutes ago, htownbrown said:

Well, maybe that wasn't the best point for me make about this, but if the man farts, no matter what the platform, the world will know.  

I guess the better point is, and I'm not speaking about other conservatives here just Trump, it's not going to help what he has an issue with at the moment.  And that makes it rather disingenuous.  I did see they blocked something of his this morning about the Minnesota cop (retaliation?), but the executive order appears to have been sparked over fact checking. If this was about James Woods or another conservative, it should have been done way back when.

There has to be some personal, not political, leeway on a private platform.  For me, that line gets very blurry on fact checking.  And I'm not comfortable with the government telling Twitter who they can or should fact check.

 

The way I understand it is they want them to Fact Check everyone equally, is there anyone else besides conservatives that are being fact checked?

The example was China saying US troops brought Covid-19 virus to China and has still not been Fact Checked.

[htownbrown]

15 minutes ago, Vambo said:

The way I understand it is they want them to Fact Check everyone equally, is there anyone else besides conservatives that are being fact checked?

The example was China saying US troops brought Covid-19 virus to China and has still not been Fact Checked.

That's how I understand it too.

I'm not trying to argue Twitter is being "fair" and I would run it differently myself, but Twitter is not obligated to fact check anyone.  At the same time, when they do, it's their freedom to do so.

Trump's beef would find a lot more sympathy if it was twitter.gov, but it's not.

[Vambo]

5 minutes ago, htownbrown said:

That's how I understand it too.

I'm not trying to argue Twitter is being "fair" and I would run it differently myself, but Twitter is not obligated to fact check anyone.  At the same time, when they do, it's their freedom to do so.

Trump's beef would find a lot more sympathy if it was twitter.gov, but it's not.

Is Twitter a publisher or platform is the question.

I don't do Twitter so if they did away with it wouldn't bother me a bit.