Specifically, What do you like or dislike about Trump?

I have a personal code to not beat up the elderly.

 

nothing about trumps order was useful. no review of anything is needed. the social media sites are and should be free to do whatever they want, including claiming trump is full of shit. its essential to our democracy that mocking our leaders and calling them stupid shitbags is common.

 

Again I disagree as we use social media for elections more than ever.

I bet a legal argument can me made for election interference if Twitter keeps it up.

 

How much do you want to bet? If someone is foolish enough to file such a ridiculous suit it will get laughed out of court. I’ll take a piece of that any day n

 

your poor betting choices dont change reality.

read the constitution again.

we dont use social media for elections. thats a foolish thing to say.

some folks use social media for campaigns, not elections. people are free to campaign any way they want. i can go on any social media site and say trump is an orange loser. twitter can say biden is a crazy faggot. facebook can go full nazi if they want.

this is very simple. free speech is the most important thing. its the fundamentally important thing about this country. you cant stop these social media sites and the folks that post on them from saying what they want. people should fight to the death to stop people like you if they intend to intervene.

 

Russia collusion hoax focused a lot on social media.


Anyway, no one is saying stop the social media sites. All I am saying is if they act like a publisher, treat them as such. A very logical conclusion.


If you want to fight to the death with me over that let me know!

 

i dunno how many times i have to explain this

you have been lied to. idiots have told you they are not treated like a publisher and they can say whatever they want without liability. this is not true. they are treated exactly like a publisher EXCEPT in the case of third party posts on their service.

repeat

what you are saying is not true and you dont know what you are talking about.

1. As a private company, Twitter has the right to ban whomever it wants and to flag or even delete whatever content it cares to.

2. Section 230 doesn't prevent people from suing platforms or individual speakers for defamatory comments and content

repeat:

1. As a private company, Twitter has the right to ban whomever it wants and to flag or even delete whatever content it cares to.

2. Section 230 doesn't prevent people from suing platforms or individual speakers for defamatory comments and content

 

and? the russians didnt hack the election. you were lied to. elections happen ona voting machine at the polls, not on social media. you dont have to care so much about social media.

 

Here is what you are talking about :

"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"

If the 1st sentence in 230 was all that was there, you would be correct, but here is the second sentence:

(2)Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

"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."

So you see, they actually "cannot" be held civilly liable for editing and publishing content as they are doing it now.

This is the part in question to be re-evaluated. This sentence alone has many cases thrown out.

Right or wrong, this is the course of action is the EXACT reason Zuck backed off his stance on policing truth.

So please, stop trying to say I dont understand what I am talking about. I am talking about the view point, shared by many, about having the FCC re-look at this 1996 law.

 

You've missed the joke brother.