Specifically, What do you like or dislike about Trump?

nobody needs to hide behind anything, as they havent done anything wrong. they are perfectly free to say trump is a dingaling. they can edit his posts and make them say he like to lick buttholes. its their private platform.

there is no need for legislation or clarification. everything is fine. leave twitter alone. they are liberal and thats ok. fond another platform if you dont like it.

 

Right, same way Twitter "would be" responsible for editing his tweets under this proposal.

No one is trying to change that.

I never said Twitter was a monoploy, but at some point in our not to distant future, digital communication will be a utility.

The government is the reason for this 230 mess to begin with. Without it, Twitter would be treated like every other private business......

Which, friend, is the point!

 

Then why did the government give them protection under 230?

 

because they cant be held responsible for stuff you or i post. this is a new technology where publishing is available on platforms accessible by the public.

if they are held responsible for what you and i post, they are dead, as are all commenting and blogging platforms.

 

AGAIN, NO ONE IS TRYING TO CHANGE THAT.

THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE TWITTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THEY POST INSTEAD OF HIDING BEHIND 230!

 

they dont need to change anything. 230 protects them from liability of what others post. its doesnt mean they can do anything they want and be immune. it means you can do anything you want on their platform and they are immune.

you dont understand what 230 does. it doent protect twitter from what twitter says. it protects twitter from wat you say on twitter.

trump should take this executive order and shove it up his delicious orange asshole

 

I understand fully. The problem, as I have outlined, is they use it as a shield from THEIR actions....

What this will do is force political speech into protected speech.

Further, the EO that I linked seeks to add clarity around this issue and does not plan to REMOVE it.... Its very clear... It actually asks the FCC for added guidance and clarity.

I mean, the SC already have the FCC authority to regulate content of media companies and twitter fucked around here.

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

Maybe read this again. This seems very logical.

Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

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.

 

ok well i hope the clarity helps you understand why twitter is with its right to run their stuff as they choose

 

Martin, the way they are running it is as a publisher now. So, they should not get pissy when handled as such....

 

For example, the FCC regulates that CNN must give equal air time to political adds as a media publisher/broadcaster.

If Twitter continues down this path, by law, they wont be able to ban trumps political tweets.

Twitter would really just be better off acting like facebook.