Specifically, What do you like or dislike about Trump?

wrong

you fail to grasp that what twitter did was to selectively fact check opinion, not fact.

when doing so they editorialize their content. as a result, Twitter has crossed the line from a content provider to publishing its own content

as such, they no longer get to enjoy liability protections that traditional publishers don’t have while censoring opinions they don’t like and promoting those they do.

can’t have it both ways. this is what 123 is trying to explain to you

 

this is america, we get to fact check. move to china if you dont want your leaders questioned.

please pay attention.

their protection is about them not being liable for

hold on, pause here. let me remind you. pay attention:

their protection is about not being liable for what their users post.

pay attention.

THEIR USERS.

they were always liable for what they (twitter) post.

if you make them liable for everything on twitter they will die because they will get sued for things their users says. thats the protection they have.

you guys do not understand what you are talking about, and you refuse to listen.

 

her,e i found an article that explains this to you dumbshits

https://reason.com/video/politicians-want-to-destroy-section-230-the-internets-first-amendment/

"There is no legal distinction in Section 230 between a "publisher" and a "platform." The word "platform" doesn't even appear. What matters for legal purposes is who is responsible for creating particular web content. "

this is what i am telling you faggots. the issue is not being liable for what users post. the way the owner of this site is not responsible for things i post here. if i post isis stuff here, its my reponsibility, not the site! get it?

 

define ‘good faith’

 

make your point more directly. are you saying, for example, this site should not be allowed to moderate itself?

 

they never had these protections you imagine! you are making shit up

if twiter creates illegal content itself they are liable. there is no distintion between them and tradiational publishers in that regard. none. when you say there is, you are wrong and spreading lies.

their liability from 230 is about stuff USERS POST!

 

Not currently. Recent cases cite broad immunity under 230, because they are still classified as a platform.

All the EO is asking for them to clarify the rules and adjust as needed. No one serious is trying to have Twitter be liable for my tweets. It’s a silly left wing argument.

 

thanks for agreeing with me

Will Twitter start fact-checking everything posted? they’ve already proven to discriminate against conservatives on their platform and have proven there’s no way it can do so in an even-handed or fair manner, thus no way it can continue to insist on Section 230 protections.
that’s why I asked you to define fair but you chose to deflect

here’s a quote from sen hawley, “It’s pretty simple: if Twitter and Google and the rest are going to editorialize and censor and act like traditional publishers, they should be treated like traditional publishers and stop receiving the special carve out from the federal government in Section 230“

 

no need to define fair, thats not anyone's responsibility becasue it doesnt matter. they do not have to be fair or even handed. this is america. we have freedom of speech. they can discriminate all they want. section 230 protections are not contingent on them satisfying your poltical bias. they could be exclusively liberal or marxist twitter if they want.

they are already treated like traditional publishers. there is no distinction. the distinction is for what users post on twitter.

let me explain one more dang time. you guys seem unable to grok this bit:

the 230 protections are not for what twitter does. its for what users post on twitter. twitter is like any other publisher with regard to what they publish themselves.

again: THE 230 PROTECTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO WHAT TWITTER POSTS. ITS TO PROTECT THEM FROM LIABILITY RFOM USER POSTS

 

let me explain this yet again

the new york times has an opinion page, where they publish things they didnt write. but they do curate that opinion page. they are held responsible for that content. they can responsibly curate that comntent because they dont have a billion posts per day.

twitter, and this tigerfan forum, are not responsible for the content here that i post, or red55 posts. these online fora cannot be managed the way a magazine or newspaper can, because the public has access to the publishing mechanism (the submit button).

you can post on twitter without approval. you cannot write a short story for my book. without oversight. see the difference? me publishing a book full of your child porn means i am responsible. because i am expected to know what the fuck is in my book or newpaper. twitter is not the same.

if this forum was not afforded these protections, i could have it ruined by posting something illegal. then this site, through no fault of its own, loses its investment. without this protection, the internet could not exist as a discussion forum or marketplace of ideas as it does now. free speech would effectively be ruined.

what trump has done is vaguely threaten this protection. its stupid faggotry and means nothing, no one is scared and would be catastrophcally destroyed by EVERY court

trump dis this to please the ignorant masses, like you clowns