Specifically, What do you like or dislike about Trump?

wrong.

when twitter fact checked trump it gave up any claim it had previously in being neutral. twitter went from being a supposedly unbiased social media platform to being a traditional publisher with a clear bias. in the 90's congress passed the communications decency act that gave these platforms exemption from liability, and for being sued when publishing things that were inaccurate as long as they were uploaded by a third party. That meant that twitter et al was protected against being sued for lies and falsehoods posted on its platform.
twitter has now crossed the line over to publishing twitter content on twitter. as a result, they should now be held to the same journalistic standards as publishers.

agree?

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/


Have you read the EO? If anything, the EO is basically asking the FCC to clarify 230.


In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

 

the fact check inserted by twitter was content twitter posted. not a 3rd party

 

I honestly am not seeing where Trump is asking for Twitter to be made held account for what I post. All of this reads to hold TWITTER liable for TWITTERS actions.....

 

and you believe it should be illegal for them, a private company, to have opinions on whether the president is correct?

 

I have never seen you so confused here.

That is not the point. The point is they are hiding behind laws. If CNN runs a fake story on YOU, you can sue them. Twitter can publish a fake story on you and you have no legal recourse because they say they are a "platform" yet act like CNN....

You must be able to see this point.....

 

of course they can have opinions as long as they are responsible for the opinions they post

 

Lives can be ruined with 1 tweet. They should not be given "immunity" if they continue to act like a publisher.

 

thats what the president is doing, mangling their immunity from being liable for 3rd party posting.


this is why i asking for a specific example of when the government should intervene in your opinion.

the president posted whatever he posted. they posted a fact check. you think they should have jackbooted government agents point guns at them until they stop having an opinion on what the president says?

 

The EO I linked doesnt say that man.

I am not asking the government to intervene. I am saying I agree with Trump that they should not have the immunity they currently have from civil suits.