Twitter Needs To Be Held To The Same Standards As Traditional Publishers

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
All of this to say, Twitter, Facebook, Google, and other tech giants with massive social media platforms obviously have an editorial slant, much like the New York Times or the Washington Post or CNN. Unlike those outlets, however, these tech firms have been able to hide behind the canard that they’re just providing a space for third parties to exchange ideas, so they can’t be held liable for what their users post.

No more. If Twitter wants to start fact-checking everything that gets posted by influential people, fine. But there’s no way it can do so in an even-handed or fair manner, and no way it can continue to insist on Section 230 protections.

As Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said Wednesday, “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.”

Hawley has the right instincts here. At the very least, he and his Republican colleagues in the Senate should call on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to explain why his company should continue to enjoy Section 230 protections when it has clearly decided to act like a traditional publisher. While he’s at it, maybe Dorsey can explain what he meant when he told Sam Harris last year, “I don’t believe that we can afford to take a neutral stance anymore.”

Then again, maybe he doesn’t need to. We all know what he meant.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/28/its-time-to-stop-pretending-twitter-is-neutral/
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
The whole idea of the special legislation for social media is so that Twitter/FB/IG/Somd.com can't be held liable for what some sociopath posts on their platform. Everyone's opinion is their own and if you have a problem with it take it up with them, don't sue the company that owns the platform.

There is a caveat for illegal activity, excessive harassment, etc and while each platform makes their own rules regarding such, it's fairly uniform give or take.

It's a fine line between publisher and platform and once you start picking and choosing who gets to say what, you become a publisher and not a platform.

Here's the thread of Twitter dinging Trump's tweet for condoning violence:


Trump said:

148518


That last line - "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" - is what they took exception to. Yet there are any number of people who cheered the looting and rioting on Twitter. Any number of them saying to kill all white people, kill Trump, kill Mitch McConnell, etc. I see it every single day, and some examples have been referenced in the thread linked above. I've reported any number of them, only to have Twitter say "Sorry, saying Barron Trump should be kidnapped and gang raped doesn't violate our TOS."

What's interesting is that the Left vehemently wants Trump's account to be banned. They don't think he has a right to make them mad on social media. And they use highly inflammatory and violent language to protest that......Trump is inflammatory and violent.

:crazy:
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
What's interesting is that the Left vehemently wants Trump's account to be banned.

I wish Twitter Would .......


Meanwhile .....

Mark Zuckerberg says social media censorship not the ‘right reflex’


Asked during an interview on Fox News about President Trump’s plan to sign an executive order curbing the power of Twitter, Facebook and Google, Zuckerberg said it would depend on what the intent is.

“But in general, I think a government choosing to censor a platform, because they’re worried about censorship doesn’t exactly strike me as the right reflex there,” he said in the interview that aired on Thursday.

The founder of the social media giant said such platforms strive for a balance: “we try very hard to give people a voice, and we get a lot of criticism from some people who think that we censor too much.”

Zuckerberg said his company cares “deeply” about giving people a voice and empowering individuals.

“I don’t think that you build a company that gives people a voice like this if you don’t believe that individuals having a voice is a good thing,” he said.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
This tweet, apparently, is not inciting violence:


Note the blue check. That means she's someone of importance in some form and her account has been verified by Twitter as legitimate. (Heading off those who try to say that she's a bot or Russian troll.)
 

Kyle

Having a Beer while the world burns!
PREMO Member
  • Ode to the Women on Long Island. Olivia Gatwood.
  • Alternative Universe in Which I Am Unfazed by the Men Who Do Not Love Me. Olivia Gatwood.
  • Ode to my Bitch Face. Olivia Gatwood.
:killingme :roflmao:
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This tweet, apparently, is not inciting violence:


Note the blue check. That means she's someone of importance in some form and her account has been verified by Twitter as legitimate. (Heading off those who try to say that she's a bot or Russian troll.)
I’m noting the tweet is unavailable......
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
[T]his is a glimpse at an ugly authoritarian soul fantasizing openly about using government power to censor a critic. Not even a critic, as Twitter's let him run wild on their platform for a decade. All they did to piss him off was append a note to two of his tweets that slightly complicated his scheme to scapegoat voting-by-mail for his possible defeat in November. Two days later we have the president ranting in the Oval Office next to the Attorney General about closing down a prominent media company that's used by millions to communicate.
Twitter isn't the state actor here. Trump is. It's not Trump's free speech that's being threatened. Twitter's is, by Trump. Social media companies can't "censor" because they're not public forums, a point that was reiterated literally just yesterday by the D.C. Circuit. [The opening passage of the executive order] is Trump's twisted victimhood complex distilled to its essence, a case of the president bringing the power of the federal government onto a private actor because of how powerless he's been made to feel.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Since Twitter Is 'Fact-Checking,' Here Are Some Tweets We'd Like Them to Take a Look At



Social media giant Twitter is taking upon itself the challenge of arbitrating what is truth and fiction about President Trump’s tweets. The reputed Minister of Truth at Twitter, Yoel Roth, whose job it is to determine that there is no such thing as mail-in ballot fraud, you imbecilic “tangerine racist,” “Nazi” lover, has determined that Trump’s prediction of voter fraud is “misleading.”

Minister of Truth Roth made sure to refer people to news sites, manned by the same reporters who brought you that crack reportage on the Trump spying scandal. The president refers to the spying scandal as “Obamagate,” but we’ll defer to your judgment, @Jack and Yoel, if you find that name “misleading.” You know best, of course.

Still, hope springs eternal, and as long as you’re in the business of truth-detecting political thought and opinion, here are a few tweets that the rest of America would like to have checked out by the Twitteratti at Twitterster of Truth.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Bullsht ...... once Twitter stars Editorializing on content they are a publisher NOT Just a Content Host
Perhaps you know something all those legal scholars don't (or you just read the GOP's talking points on Breitbart), but they most certainly are not a publisher. What they've done falls squarely within legal standards.

The fact is, Trump got fact-checked and he lost it. Goes on a Twitter tirade, and drafts an EO without going through the normal review process.

He can't defend his positions without going on these rambling speeches where seemingly the only people able to decipher them are his supporters, so he drafts a clearly unconstitutional EO.


You folks come on here and whine that wearing masks is the work of fascists and these shutdowns are the end of the free world as we know it. Trump drafts this hodgepodge of legal mumbo-jumbo and you all collectively shrug your shoulders.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Perhaps you know something all those legal scholars don't
Users almost always know what out of touch legal scholars don't. And you know this. All those freaking dinosaurs have no idea what Twitter even is, let alone how it should be classified.

I know you know this. It just suits your narrative to pretend that these "authorities" know what they're talking about.

Trump drafts this hodgepodge of legal mumbo-jumbo and you all collectively shrug your shoulders.
Because we know it will play out in the legal system. Trump (or any President) doesn't just issue an EO and that's that. EOs are because a President wants something to happen, but they don't want to wait decades for Congress to get off their dead ass. This forces the issue.

And you know that, too.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Users almost always know what out of touch legal scholars don't. And you know this. All those freaking dinosaurs have no idea what Twitter even is, let alone how it should be classified.

I know you know this. It just suits your narrative to pretend that these "authorities" know what they're talking about.



Because we know it will play out in the legal system. Trump (or any President) doesn't just issue an EO and that's that. EOs are because a President wants something to happen, but they don't want to wait decades for Congress to get off their dead ass. This forces the issue.

And you know that, too.
:lol: Okay. Ignoring the simple fact that legal scholars aren't "authorities"....

"That Floyd guy deserved to die because the authorities said he resisted!"
"Those authorities don't know what they're talking about"



Oh I know it. And that's the problem. Congress passes laws, and that's something that has continuously been a misunderstanding with Trump and his supporters. Trump drafted this EO to censor social media because his feelings got hurt. We see what happened with the CDC and the Trump administration as a whole when it came to COVID, and you jump right in this with both feet as if the govt. has shown some innate ability to do what they say they are going to do without completely ****ing it up.

You keep on having faith in our govt. just because "Daddy" is in office. God forbid any part of this cluster**** stands, you can bet your ass that it'll come back to bite us all, and then you'll be back to screaming about fascists and "how could this happen".



But you just ignore any dissenting voices, because that's the easy thing to do. Just blame any differing opinions on someone being a "bot" who is simply being told what to think. In your mind it's completely out of the realm of possibility that someone is able to form their opion, so I fully expect you to brush this off with your typical black and white stances, or claiming someone is a progbot who can't think for themselves (while you parrot Trump).
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
You keep on having faith in our govt.
I can't even believe you'd say that to me after the last three months. I have been quite outspoken about our govt's lack of ability and common sense, and yet it suits your narrative to declare that I'm some yes-man to the very entity I have been vehemently and openly critical of for decades, and most specifically since this COVID crap started up.

You're a tool. :loser:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
But you just ignore any dissenting voices
I don't ignore dissenting voices. I ignore slackjaws who have nothing to say besides "Erm, orange man bad! :dork: " Be more interesting and less ridiculous and maybe I'll pay more attention to you.

It also doesn't help your cause when you say stupid things like, "Oh, you have all this faith in the government...." when I have been obnoxiously outspoken against it.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Twitter Declares WAR On Trump By Censoring His Tweets AND The White House Official Account's


 
Top