Jump to content

Does Freedom of speech mean freedom from being fact checked?


Recommended Posts

Your orange fellah moved pretty fast on this one

within 24 hours of Twitter putting a fact checking link under a trump erronious assertion he delivered an Executive order - and had Billy Frog Boy standing over his shoulder as he signed it

is this a good thing?

Surely a Trump assertion should be regarded as incontrovertable fact in modern America

Trump is a good man

Trump is an honest man

many are saying it

"Macregors are ideal for Ocean going adventures"

"All rib drivers are curteous and thoughtful about other water users"

"It is only a .22 used for controlling rats"

"Ridgelines are the best vehicles ever made"

here he is saying that "News is Fake"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to see here,  donnie is simply creating his own Ministry of Truth.

It's a most useful distraction from a death toll tipping over 6 figures..

I have visions of Miller and Kushner who we know are both incapable of thinking this shit up, they probably have a copy of1984 as their playbook cause they think it will surely make libbyrul heads explode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

Your orange fellah moved pretty fast on this one

within 24 hours of Twitter putting a fact checking link under a trump erronious assertion he delivered an Executive order - and had Billy Frog Boy standing over his shoulder as he signed it

is this a good thing?

Surely a Trump assertion should be regarded as incontrovertable fact in modern America

Trump is a good man

Trump is an honest man

many are saying it

"Macregors are ideal for Ocean going adventures"

"All rib drivers are curteous and thoughtful about other water users"

"It is only a .22 used for controlling rats"

"Ridgelines are the best vehicles ever made"

here he is saying that "News is Fake"

 

 

This is a tactic which Trump is known for in his business life. Most subcontractors can be intimidated by threats of lawsuits. Almost no matter how ridiculous those suits may be, the sub knows it's likely they will be, win or lose, stuck with big legal fees. It's like a game of poker when people eyeball the others stacks. Now that Barr is acting as his lawyer...Trump's stack is to the effin' moon.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dylan - to your OP title, simply, No.   Being free to say what you want in no way means that you are insulated from hearing what anyone else thinks about what you say. 

That said - the social media platforms have liability protection from content transmitted on their platforms because they don't "constrain, create or control" ( paraphrasing) that content.   IMHO, the basis for that protection gets a little cloudy when they employ an editorial process to determine what stays/doesn't.   

In Twitter's case?   That prompted my question in another thread as to how they selected content for scrutiny, the content sources they use for validation, and the openness of the process.  If they have automated filters that flag content, and the sources against which content is "fact checked" are independent of Twitter, and the process is open?   It would seem that they'd be compliant w/the intent, and still covered by those liability protections.  If they decide for themselves what is/isn't OK based upon their arbitrary interpretation?  That's completely within their purview as a private entity, but I think it would cross the line in terms of the stipulations for liability protection.   I think that the EO has legal holes that someone as statutorily illiterate as I am could drive a truck thru, but, we'll see what the smart guys in robes say.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mark K said:

This is a tactic which Trump is known for in his business life. Most subcontractors can be intimidated by threats of lawsuits. Almost no matter how ridiculous those suits may be, the sub knows it's likely they will be, win or lose, stuck with big legal fees. It's like a game of poker when people eyeball the others stacks. Now that Barr is acting as his lawyer...Trump's stack is to the effin' moon.  

 

 

True, but time is on Twitter's side. Trump does not have long to run up the bills, and Twitter has the financial ability to wait him out. If they acquiesce, they become less viable in a post Trump world. If they fight, they take some hits now but are stronger on the other side. And if somehow Trump is still in power in 12 months... well no private media company is viable anyway, so might as well fight. Dorsey has nothing to lose by fighting.  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, LenP said:

True, but time is on Twitter's side. Trump does not have long to run up the bills, and Twitter has the financial ability to wait him out. If they acquiesce, they become less viable in a post Trump world. If they fight, they take some hits now but are stronger on the other side. And if somehow Trump is still in power in 12 months... well no private media company is viable anyway, so might as well fight. Dorsey has nothing to lose by fighting.  

Twitter has a heck of a lot to consider. They must consider that Barr MAY be there for four and a half more years. They must consider their status if they fold to this BS. They must consider if it's worth it...as merely refraining from putting fact-check tags on Trump's tweets dodges big legal bills.

 If they didn't contemplate all this before acting they demonstrated a serious lack of judgement. Trump reacts in only one way to those who challenge him, and he's a dirty fighter...currently one with enormous resources.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Dylan - to your OP title, simply, No.   Being free to say what you want in no way means that you are insulated from hearing what anyone else thinks about what you say. 

That said - the social media platforms have liability protection from content transmitted on their platforms because they don't "constrain, create or control" ( paraphrasing) that content.   IMHO, the basis for that protection gets a little cloudy when they employ an editorial process to determine what stays/doesn't.   

In Twitter's case?   That prompted my question in another thread as to how they selected content for scrutiny, the content sources they use for validation, and the openness of the process.  If they have automated filters that flag content, and the sources against which content is "fact checked" are independent of Twitter, and the process is open?   It would seem that they'd be compliant w/the intent, and still covered by those liability protections.  If they decide for themselves what is/isn't OK based upon their arbitrary interpretation?  That's completely within their purview as a private entity, but I think it would cross the line in terms of the stipulations for liability protection.   I think that the EO has legal holes that someone as statutorily illiterate as I am could drive a truck thru, but, we'll see what the smart guys in robes say.  

 

Ding!....Ultimately the courts will have to decide the implications of a social media platform getting into the truth business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Ding!....Ultimately the courts will have to decide the implications of a social media platform getting into the truth business.

Ha, ha. That is a joke. The voters will decide in November. Throttling press, and social media will not stand through the election. 

Twitter has made a good bet. Following Trump's own strategy, they have bit the hand that feeds. You know the old saying, the hand you hold, holds you down. 

Now Trump will have to decide, keep posting on twitter, with constant humiliation, or turn to (hold your nose) Facebook.

Trump and Zuk. Dump Pence!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Dylan - to your OP title, simply, No.   Being free to say what you want in no way means that you are insulated from hearing what anyone else thinks about what you say. 

That said - the social media platforms have liability protection from content transmitted on their platforms because they don't "constrain, create or control" ( paraphrasing) that content.   IMHO, the basis for that protection gets a little cloudy when they employ an editorial process to determine what stays/doesn't.   

In Twitter's case?   That prompted my question in another thread as to how they selected content for scrutiny, the content sources they use for validation, and the openness of the process.  If they have automated filters that flag content, and the sources against which content is "fact checked" are independent of Twitter, and the process is open?   It would seem that they'd be compliant w/the intent, and still covered by those liability protections.  If they decide for themselves what is/isn't OK based upon their arbitrary interpretation?  That's completely within their purview as a private entity, but I think it would cross the line in terms of the stipulations for liability protection.   I think that the EO has legal holes that someone as statutorily illiterate as I am could drive a truck thru, but, we'll see what the smart guys in robes say.  

 

How has Twitter constrained, created or controlled content by pointing out that it is bullshit? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

How has Twitter constrained, created or controlled content by pointing out that it is bullshit? 

Because the act of labeling it, and hiding it, and restricting comments on it is a constraint.   If there process for selecting and validating prior to labeling/constraining is based upon objective criterion, and the process is open?  Then I think Twitter is still compliant w/the intent of section 230.  If the criterion and review process are subjective and adjudicated internally?  Then their position looks a lot more like editorial commentary, and if I'm not mistaken, that's not what section 230 protections were intended to address.  As others have said, I think they'd have been in a much better position to simply ban the account for a violation of TOS.   

If I'm mistaken - I'm happy to be corrected, but, that's how I see things at the moment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Twitter has a heck of a lot to consider. They must consider that Barr MAY be there for four and a half more years. They must consider their status if they fold to this BS. They must consider if it's worth it...as merely refraining from putting fact-check tags on Trump's tweets dodges big legal bills.

 If they didn't contemplate all this before acting they demonstrated a serious lack of judgement. Trump reacts in only one way to those who challenge him, and he's a dirty fighter...currently one with enormous resources.  

Well, that didn't take long to answer. Twitter flagged Trump this morn for "glorifying violence". 

 https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-hides-trump-tweet-for-glorifying-violence-11590743851?mod=djemalertNEWS

Twitter's response to the executive order is an unequivocal "Fuck you".  As Yoda might put it: "On like Donkey Kong, it is."  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Because the act of labeling it, and hiding it, and restricting comments on it is a constraint.   If there process for selecting and validating prior to labeling/constraining is based upon objective criterion, and the process is open?  Then I think Twitter is still compliant w/the intent of section 230.  If the criterion and review process are subjective and adjudicated internally?  Then their position looks a lot more like editorial commentary, and if I'm not mistaken, that's not what section 230 protections were intended to address.  As others have said, I think they'd have been in a much better position to simply ban the account for a violation of TOS.   

If I'm mistaken - I'm happy to be corrected, but, that's how I see things at the moment. 

He can write whatever he chooses.  He has not been constrained.  People will not be constrained from pointing out that it is bullshit. That will never happen. We used to be more polite about it, even here in PA, but that did not work. So we call bullshit bullshit, and we will never be constrained from doing that, unless we violate the TOS or accuse someone of kiddilly diddilly.  Same with any platform. 

I don't know why they don't just give him the boot. He needs them a hell of a lot more than they need him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

He can write whatever he chooses.  He has not been constrained.  People will not be constrained from pointing out that it is bullshit. That will never happen. We used to be more polite about it, even here in PA, but that did not work. So we call bullshit bullshit, and we will never be constrained from doing that, unless we violate the TOS or accuse someone of kiddilly diddilly.  Same with any platform. 

I don't know why they don't just give him the boot. He needs them a hell of a lot more than they need him. 

 It may be the decided inviting him to leave in this way carries less inherent legal and PR risk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

He can write whatever he chooses.  He has not been constrained.  People will not be constrained from pointing out that it is bullshit. That will never happen. We used to be more polite about it, even here in PA, but that did not work. So we call bullshit bullshit, and we will never be constrained from doing that, unless we violate the TOS or accuse someone of kiddilly diddilly.  Same with any platform. 

I don't know why they don't just give him the boot. He needs them a hell of a lot more than they need him. 

I think you're missing my point.  Twitter's process for determining what's bullshit and what's not, and their behavior w/r/t that determination is what's at question.   

No one is saying that private individuals can't say what they want, for whatever reasons they want.  Twitter/FB/etc as "social media platforms" have obligations above the individual, if they want to maintain the section 230 protections, don't they?    Those protections insulate them from things that other people say on their platform -  and unless I'm badly mistaken, they don't insulate the social media platforms from things they say/do themselves. 

SO - the act of Twitter in fact censuring a comment, or not censuring a comment, has the potential to put their eligibility for that protection at risk, and as I see it, that determination hinges upon how they select content for scrutiny, and the means by which they validate the content.  

Again - if I'm mistaken in what I'm thinking, I'm open to being squared away. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I don't know why they don't just give him the boot. He needs them a hell of a lot more than they need him. 

Obvious there is a lot more forethought and planning at twitter than the whitehouse. 

Where are "the best people" now?

I don't think booting Trump would serve twitter in the same way that continuing the dialogue will. A good comparison is: What is more effective torture? Waterboarding someone 145 times, or shooting the prisoner in the head?

A metaphor for Trump and the Whitehouse right now: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Guantanamo.

Why put the man on trial when you can hold him indefinitely?

None of these people a "nice". Whoever's motives are clear presently is losing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech does not mean, and never did mean, freedom from the consequences of that speech. If a customer service employee tells a customer to fuck off, there's a pretty good chance that employee will be fired. That does not mean their freedom of speech was restricted or their constitutional rights were impaired.

However, I don't think that Twitter should be in the business of fact checking. Nor should any social media company. They provide a platform for people to share things, and for other people to view those things (and it should be noted that neither of those groups are their customers).

Just like SA and ED; it's not his job to fact check posts here.

On the flip side, Twitter *should* - and is completely within their right to - remove or filter violence, threatening and hate speech. It's like if you are shopping at Costco and you tell the employee you'll punch them in the face if they don't honour your expired coupon, you should be removed from the store and asked not to come back.

Just like SA and ED; he will rightly boot you if you threaten, incite violence or insinuate peado.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nice! said:

Freedom of speech does not mean, and never did mean, freedom from the consequences of that speech. If a customer service employee tells a customer to fuck off, there's a pretty good chance that employee will be fired. That does not mean their freedom of speech was restricted or their constitutional rights were impaired.

However, I don't think that Twitter should be in the business of fact checking. Nor should any social media company. They provide a platform for people to share things, and for other people to view those things (and it should be noted that neither of those groups are their customers).

Just like SA and ED; it's not his job to fact check posts here.

On the flip side, Twitter *should* - and is completely within their right to - remove or filter violence, threatening and hate speech. It's like if you are shopping at Costco and you tell the employee you'll punch them in the face if they don't honour your expired coupon, you should be removed from the store and asked not to come back.

Just like SA and ED; he will rightly boot you if you threaten, incite violence or insinuate peado.

Twitter is expressing it's opinion with it's "fact check" tag. Any other response is over the top. Filtering, removing, are censorship. Adding a comment is acting like "normal".

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you hold the lives of millions of american lives in your hands , You shall be accountable for all you say and do.

Then again the man that was wrongly elected , not by a majority of the votes , who's NEVER been honest in his whole life, what do expect? He doesn't want anything thing fact check for of things he said , wrote, twittered . You elect a liar you live with a liar, he's divided this country so much , will it ever recover , or is this the end of the USA

Plain Talk: What if Barack Obama had lied like Donald Trump ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think you're missing my point.  Twitter's process for determining what's bullshit and what's not, and their behavior w/r/t that determination is what's at question.   

No one is saying that private individuals can't say what they want, for whatever reasons they want.  Twitter/FB/etc as "social media platforms" have obligations above the individual, if they want to maintain the section 230 protections, don't they?    Those protections insulate them from things that other people say on their platform -  and unless I'm badly mistaken, they don't insulate the social media platforms from things they say/do themselves. 

SO - the act of Twitter in fact censuring a comment, or not censuring a comment, has the potential to put their eligibility for that protection at risk, and as I see it, that determination hinges upon how they select content for scrutiny, and the means by which they validate the content.  

Again - if I'm mistaken in what I'm thinking, I'm open to being squared away. 

 

That's a contractual issue between service provider and user.  See terms of service. 

https://twitter.com/en/tos

Quote

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods now known or later developed (for clarity, these rights include, for example, curating, transforming, and translating). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, Retweet, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, is made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services as the use of the Services by you is hereby agreed as being sufficient compensation for the Content and grant of rights herein.

Twitter has an evolving set of rules for how ecosystem partners can interact with your Content on the Services. These rules exist to enable an open ecosystem with your rights in mind. You understand that we may modify or adapt your Content as it is distributed, syndicated, published, or broadcast by us and our partners and/or make changes to your Content in order to adapt the Content to different media.

In order to use their platform, users have to agree to let them do whatever they want to do with the content posted. 

Twitter also has rules that deal with posting about violence, and specifically about misleading people about elections. 

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules

Quote

Safety

Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. Learn more about our violent threat and glorification of violence policies. 

 

Quote

Election integrity: You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections. This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress voter turnout or mislead people about when, where, or how to vote. 

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/election-integrity-policy

 

Quote

 

Civic integrity policy

Overview

May 2020

You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes. This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress participation or mislead people about when, where, or how to participate in a civic process. 

 

 

That last bit is what has the Trump Campaign's attention, I suspect. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I don't know why they don't just give him the boot. He needs them a hell of a lot more than they need him. 

I have no great insight into Jack Dorsey. I have some insight into other SV mucks in the same way that you know FLA politics better than I would. Well, I will offer that Dorsey and Zuckerberg don't exactly like each other. With that proviso provided ...

Dorsey can drop the ban hammer on Shitstain anytime he wants for any reason he wants. Or not. It is his call whether and also, very importantly, when. As we saw with Pelosi impeaching Shitstain, the elk did not rise up and start singing Ding Dong The Bitch Is Burned To The Ground and embrace fiscal conservatism. They defended him tooth and nail then just as they do now. Similarly, Twitter banning Shitstain will change nothing.

Shitstain is #8 on the most followed list with 80 million and some aren't even Russian. The Kenyan is #1 and I completely agree that Shitstain needs Twitter much more than they need him, need being the operative word.

Twitter does ban people. They banned David Horowitz who is a minor nobody at this point for reasons unclear. But David Horowitz happens to be the father of Ben Horowitz, co-founder of A16Z and one of the original investors in Twitter. Ben Horowitz is a raging Dem but he pays for security at his father's appearances and is well included in his extensive social life. As a parallel,  Peter Thiel was an original investor in Facebook and sits on its board.

So Dorsey/Twitter can drop the ban hammer whenever they want. Shitstain has already dropped his maniacal EO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Well, that didn't take long to answer. Twitter flagged Trump this morn for "glorifying violence". 

 https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-hides-trump-tweet-for-glorifying-violence-11590743851?mod=djemalertNEWS

Twitter's response to the executive order is an unequivocal "Fuck you".  As Yoda might put it: "On like Donkey Kong, it is."  

Yep, I had thought you already saw that when I responded to your post. Frankly, I don't think they have any other viable options. The alternative is essentially letting him dictate how Twitter is run, at which point they are no longer really an independent company. Trump is a bully, and continuing to give in to him would only mean he will demand more and more. At the point where their top people are getting death threats, they had to take a stand.

At this point, I truly believe Trump's only chance at being in power next year would essentially be a coup, whether bloodless or bloody. His chances at winning a legitimate election are approaching zero. If that happened, media companies in general cease to be viable as independent entities, and all become creatures of the non-legitimate govt. I don't believe we will see a coup, but it would still be more likely than a legitimate reelection. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not quoting to save space, but, I had missed the "modify" portion of the TOS.   Given that - it seems to me that we'd all be well informed to remember that anything posted on social media has a strong likelihood of being bullshit.   

But that's not the important part I see from those citations.  The election integrity policy has very real implications for the upcoming election, that apply to a great many users other than the Pride of the GOP, whether or not those users are humans or bots.

Much of what we are discussing is the difference between fact and opinion, so here is my opinion. It is that policy that has Trump riled up, not the application of it to one tweet. It has very big ramifications for his campaign. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I don't know why they don't just give him the boot. He needs them a hell of a lot more than they need him. 

It wouldn't solve anything. It would rile up the base, and armed militia idiots would probably surround the Twitter offices. The elk would incorrectly claim that the president is being censored. What Twitter is doing is much better.

But you are correct. He needs them more than they need him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
0
 Advanced issue found
 
 
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

, that's how I see things at the moment. 

Of course you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think you're missing my point.  Twitter's process for determining what's bullshit and what's not, and their behavior w/r/t that determination is what's at question.   

No one is saying that private individuals can't say what they want, for whatever reasons they want.  Twitter/FB/etc as "social media platforms" have obligations above the individual, if they want to maintain the section 230 protections, don't they?    Those protections insulate them from things that other people say on their platform -  and unless I'm badly mistaken, they don't insulate the social media platforms from things they say/do themselves. 

SO - the act of Twitter in fact censuring a comment, or not censuring a comment, has the potential to put their eligibility for that protection at risk, and as I see it, that determination hinges upon how they select content for scrutiny, and the means by which they validate the content.  

Again - if I'm mistaken in what I'm thinking, I'm open to being squared away. 

 

They didn't censure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jhc said:

Twitter is expressing it's opinion with it's "fact check" tag. Any other response is over the top. Filtering, removing, are censorship. Adding a comment is acting like "normal".

Just to remind folks, twitter ain't congress, so the the 1st doesn't apply.

This little law limiting liability is all that's in question.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not quoting to save space, but, I had missed the "modify" portion of the TOS.   Given that - it seems to me that we'd all be well informed to remember that anything posted on social media has a strong likelihood of being bullshit.   

Duh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Yeah, Twitter censured (expressed severe disapproval of) but they didn't censor (examine officially and suppress) Shitstain.

fair, thanks for correcting.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

I am fine with the following:

 

“We fact check posts made by the President of the United States because he is the President of the United States currently a malignant shitfunnel.”

Truthier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not quoting to save space, but, I had missed the "modify" portion of the TOS.   Given that - it seems to me that we'd all be well informed to remember that anything posted on social media has a strong likelihood of being bullshit.   

And we'd be smart to remember that clicking "I Agree" on a TOS is signing a contract that is no less enforceable than a purchase agreement on a house.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jhc said:

 Filtering, removing, are censorship. 

Not quite.  When you sign up for Twitter, you sign a contract that expressly permits Twitter to do whatever it wants with your words, including filtering and removing.  The end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a federal, state, or local government entity in the United States using the Services in your official capacity and legally unable to accept the controlling law, jurisdiction or venue clauses above, then those clauses do not apply to you. For such U.S. federal government entities, these Terms and any action related thereto will be governed by the laws of the United States of America (without reference to conflict of laws) and, in the absence of federal law and to the extent permitted under federal law, the laws of the State of California (excluding choice of law).

Does the above clause have any impact?  It seems to allow Trump an uncomfortable amount of power, in so far as he can control the various alphabet agencies.   It prevents Trump from having to use a court where he did not appoint the judges.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lark said:

If you are a federal, state, or local government entity in the United States using the Services in your official capacity and legally unable to accept the controlling law, jurisdiction or venue clauses above, then those clauses do not apply to you. For such U.S. federal government entities, these Terms and any action related thereto will be governed by the laws of the United States of America (without reference to conflict of laws) and, in the absence of federal law and to the extent permitted under federal law, the laws of the State of California (excluding choice of law).

Does the above clause have any impact?  It seems to allow Trump an uncomfortable amount of power, in so far as he can control the various alphabet agencies.   It prevents Trump from having to use a court where he did not appoint the judges.  

 

depends on which Twitter account he is using to spread his bullshit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

How would things change if Twitter moved its head office out of the US, to somewhere out of reach of the Trump/Barr axis of evil?

Welcome to Canada? 

Except we don't have freedom of speech here.  Canada has Freedom of Expression with reasonable limits. Sort of like our gun laws.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think you're missing my point.  Twitter's process for determining what's bullshit and what's not, and their behavior w/r/t that determination is what's at question.   

 I'm open to being squared away. 

Square away this: The ONLY times that the Reich has the slightest interest in freedom of expression, is when someone calls them on their lying hateful bullshit. 

They lie about everything and everyone all the time; and libel good people up one side and down the other; and they incite violence. 

And now someone finally has the stones to call them on it; and they are just so hurt. 

They deserve zero sympathy from any quarter, in any form, from anyone. 

I refer here to both Trump and his sycophants as the "Reich". 

You got a problem with that? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

People who deal in facts do not need, or object to, fact-checkers.

People who deal in facts welcome challenges to “fact checkers”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

People who deal in facts do not need, or object to, fact-checkers.

People who deal in facts welcome challenges to “fact checkers”.

Does your statement negate my statement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

"Freedom of speech" is a contrived gov't given liberty, according to our staunch liberals here.  And what gov't gives, gov't can take away.  

I didn't think I would have an "I told you so" example so quickly.  But here it is.  

We the people agreed that the government we form for ourselves shall not take away those rights.

This about the fifteenth time I've tried to explain this, and the shortest.

- DSK

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

We the people agreed that the government we form for ourselves shall not take away those rights.

This about the fifteenth time I've tried to explain this, and the shortest.

- DSK

 

I agree.  We agreed (via the Big C Bill of Rights) to not TAKE AWAY those rights.  Where did they come from in the first place?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

“Congress shall make no law...”

Concur.  Now finish the passage, counselor, and flesh that out to its logical conclusion.  Congress shall make no law abridging those rights.  Who gave us those rights in the first place?  What document gives those rights to us that Congress can't abridge or restrict?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Concur.  Now finish the passage, counselor, and flesh that out to its logical conclusion.  Congress shall make no law abridging those rights.  Who gave us those rights in the first place?  What document gives those rights to us that Congress can't abridge or restrict?  

Sorry, I don’t do requests. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I agree.  We agreed (via the Big C Bill of Rights) to not TAKE AWAY those rights.  Where did they come from in the first place?

Thin air and wishful thinking, IMHO

There are people who will tell you that there is a benevolent wise old man with a long white beard up in the clouds, smiling down on us and granting our wishes by magic. The funny thing, the BWOM didn't get around to mentioning these rights for hundreds of thousands years. It took a bunch of rebellious lawyers to codify them.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think you're missing my point.  Twitter's process for determining what's bullshit and what's not, and their behavior w/r/t that determination is what's at question.   

No one is saying that private individuals can't say what they want, for whatever reasons they want.  Twitter/FB/etc as "social media platforms" have obligations above the individual, if they want to maintain the section 230 protections, don't they?    Those protections insulate them from things that other people say on their platform -  and unless I'm badly mistaken, they don't insulate the social media platforms from things they say/do themselves. 

SO - the act of Twitter in fact censuring a comment, or not censuring a comment, has the potential to put their eligibility for that protection at risk, and as I see it, that determination hinges upon how they select content for scrutiny, and the means by which they validate the content.  

Again - if I'm mistaken in what I'm thinking, I'm open to being squared away. 

 

IMHO, this ^^ is the operative issue at stake here.  I'm going on record as saying what Twatter did was laudable and I'm cheering deep down in my heart that they did it.  I'm simply sick and fucking tired of the blatant lies the POTUS says daily and I'm embarrassed as an American to have to hear that crap and I cringe each time stuff like this comes out.  I will also go on record as saying that Twatter, as a private company, is NOT bound by the 1st Am and they can do pretty much whatever they want that is consistent with their TOS.  Even the POTUS is not above having to comply with them.

HOWEVER, and this is a big butt...... by doing what they are doing, they do not deserve their Section 230 protections.  They can't have their cake and eat it too.  They are either a neutral platform that provides people the ability to say stupid shit, even lies, or they are a publishing house that is making editorial decisions on content.  Choose one, but they can't have it both ways.  

Furthermore, if we both censure or censor every politician's words for accuracy and truthfulness - the airwaves would literally be silent.  It's what politicians do.  It's a feature, not a bug, to them.  I wish it were not so, but it is.  The problem is the malignant shitfunnel (props to gouv for that term) just does it so damn much and in such volume, that it becomes hard to ignore.  The problem is that if twatter/FB, etc don't consistently censure or censor all content equally, then they no longer should enjoy those Section 230 protections.  And I'm here to tell you that it is 100% impossible to moderate all content equally.  They would need literally millions of content moderators, an army of lawyers and such and even then they will not catch everything.  For instance, does twatter slap down Bull Gaytor aka @Fakenews when he brags (lies) about banging hot chicks on his yacht when in fact he was at his mother's home eating meatloaf because all the gay bars are shut down and the few that are open are too far to ride across town on his Vespa???  

I think what Twatter did was grease themselves up with 5W30 synthetic motor oil, spray down the side of the hill with industrial grade aircraft grease and take a running jump down that slope face first.  It will not end well for them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Sorry, I don’t do requests. 

But yet you request people like Dog to back up their words all the time.  Why are you special?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Concur.  Now finish the passage, counselor, and flesh that out to its logical conclusion.  Congress shall make no law abridging those rights.  Who gave us those rights in the first place?  What document gives those rights to us that Congress can't abridge or restrict?  

Document?  You haven't heard of "inherent rights" that arise from being a member of the human race (welll, with some modifications according to place of birth, and possibly colour of skin)?

I don't know about the USA, and I may be misquoting this slightly, but I remember the gist - from Halsbury's Laws of Australia - "Ours is a law of liberty - a man can do whatever has not been forbidden by Parliament".

A "document" would have to be conferred by God - an argument I'm not getting into!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

But yet you request people like Dog to back up their words all the time.  Why are you special?

What words of mine are you wanting me to back up? If you think I have posted something inaccurate, by all means, state your case and I will respond. If you have something to say, say it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Recidivist said:

Document?  You haven't heard of "inherent rights" that arise from being a member of the human race (welll, with some modifications according to place of birth, and possibly colour of skin)?

I don't know about the USA, and I may be misquoting this slightly, but I remember the gist - from Halsbury's Laws of Australia - "Ours is a law of liberty - a man can do whatever has not been forbidden by Parliament".

A "document" would have to be conferred by God - an argument I'm not getting into!

 

Oh wow, you are late to the party......  Didn't you get the memo that there are no such things as "inherent rights"??? 

Start here and here for some interesting reading.  

I've been asking that question in PA these past couple of weeks and the liberal answer (which surprises me) is that there are no inherent rights.  Which is why I'm asking them which document those rights come from.  Because if they are not "inherent", they must come from somewhere.  And what is given by man can be taken away by man.  Correct?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

What words of mine are you wanting me to back up? If you think I have posted something inaccurate, by all means, state your case and I will respond. If you have something to say, say it. 

Nevermind.  It's not worth the dance.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

Oh wow, you are late to the party......  Didn't you get the memo that there are no such things as "inherent rights"??? 

Start here and here for some interesting reading.  

I've been asking that question in PA these past couple of weeks and the liberal answer (which surprises me) is that there are no inherent rights.  Which is why I'm asking them which document those rights come from.  Because if they are not "inherent", they must come from somewhere.  And what is given by man can be taken away by man.  Correct?  

Clearly your law and ours differ.  I'll stick with ours.  You may carry on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Nevermind.  It's not worth the dance.....

I’m trying to figure out what in the hell you are cranky about, because this is not like you. Is this about a conversation from another thread that you are Tom-ing into this one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I agree.  We agreed (via the Big C Bill of Rights) to not TAKE AWAY those rights.  Where did they come from in the first place?

By the guys who wrote the doc. Duh. Do you think they had freedom of speech before they took power from the Brits?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

Clearly your law and ours differ.  I'll stick with ours.  You may carry on.

No no no.... you're obviously missing my sarcasm here.  I fully agree with you and our laws here are exactly the same as yours.  I'm just taking the piss out of the folks who say there are no inherent rights and I'm trying to get them to 'splain themselves as to why they think this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

By the guys who wrote the doc. Duh. Do you think they had freedom of speech before they took power from the Brits?

Yes, they had freedom of speech before they took power from the Poms.  They just were not able to exercise it.  Hence why they revolted in the first place.  But the freedom existed whether they got to use it or not.  It's not a "use or lose" sort of thing.  

And where in the Big C document does it say anywhere that the big C confers or "gives" the right of free speech, assembly, religion, press, RKBA, Privacy, Due process, or any of the other BoRs?  I'll save you some typing..... it doesn't.  Because the BoR assumes the people already are entitled to those rights because those rights are inherent in man.  All the Big C does is guarantee and protect those rights which already existed.  As sol said:  Congress shall make no law (1st).....  No soldier shall (3rd).....  Shall not be infringed (2nd).......  Shall not be violated (4th)....

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

We revolted from Australia? I did not know that.

No we did not.  

Quote

The terms Pommy, Pommie and Pom, in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand usually denotes an English person (or, less commonly, people from other parts of the UK). ... According to this explanation, "pomegranate" was Australian rhyming slang for "immigrant" ("Jimmy Grant").

You are most welcome, dumbass.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that I'm totally in favor of gutting Section 230. Rescind 230 altogether, don't rewrite or 'fix' it. Hawley's catastrophe is ten times worse than 230 itself. Just absolutely gut it. Joe Biden said the same thing. We've reached peak social media and social media ain't nothing fundamental. It doesn't deserve an immunity we never gave other media. Liability is not censorship.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/29/21274812/joe-biden-donald-trump-twitter-facebook-section-230-moderation-revoke

Shitstain is still Shitstain. His approach to this is un-Constitutional, and it will go nowhere which shouldn't at all be surprising. He's only doing this out pique.

Our resident Fakebertarians will be by shortly to bemoan their beloved corporate persons' loss of freedom.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

We revolted from Australia? I did not know that.

No.... I think the idea is that many Australians are revolting..... Or something like that....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

IMHO, this ^^ is the operative issue at stake here.  I'm going on record as saying what Twatter did was laudable and I'm cheering deep down in my heart that they did it.  I'm simply sick and fucking tired of the blatant lies the POTUS says daily and I'm embarrassed as an American to have to hear that crap and I cringe each time stuff like this comes out.  I will also go on record as saying that Twatter, as a private company, is NOT bound by the 1st Am and they can do pretty much whatever they want that is consistent with their TOS.  Even the POTUS is not above having to comply with them.

HOWEVER, and this is a big butt...... by doing what they are doing, they do not deserve their Section 230 protections.  They can't have their cake and eat it too.  They are either a neutral platform that provides people the ability to say stupid shit, even lies, or they are a publishing house that is making editorial decisions on content.  Choose one, but they can't have it both ways.  

Furthermore, if we both censure or censor every politician's words for accuracy and truthfulness - the airwaves would literally be silent.  It's what politicians do.  It's a feature, not a bug, to them.  I wish it were not so, but it is.  The problem is the malignant shitfunnel (props to gouv for that term) just does it so damn much and in such volume, that it becomes hard to ignore.  The problem is that if twatter/FB, etc don't consistently censure or censor all content equally, then they no longer should enjoy those Section 230 protections.  And I'm here to tell you that it is 100% impossible to moderate all content equally.  They would need literally millions of content moderators, an army of lawyers and such and even then they will not catch everything.  For instance, does twatter slap down Bull Gaytor aka @Fakenews when he brags (lies) about banging hot chicks on his yacht when in fact he was at his mother's home eating meatloaf because all the gay bars are shut down and the few that are open are too far to ride across town on his Vespa???  

I think what Twatter did was grease themselves up with 5W30 synthetic motor oil, spray down the side of the hill with industrial grade aircraft grease and take a running jump down that slope face first.  It will not end well for them.

 

Olsen wants to burn down Section 230.  I'm ok with that too.  Anyone else?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Olsen wants to burn down Section 230.  I'm ok with that too.  Anyone else?

Y'all funny. Being a pragmatist, I'll go along with whatever the Corporate Overlords of the Internet decide for us peons. "Profit is the Product": they and their public servants will know what is best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have allowed the dumb-ass Reich to once again totally hijack a thread. 

The OP concerned whether the Drumph and the Reich had the right to lie and libel 

on social media without anyone being allowed to call them out. 

@Burning Man has got you in a nonsense tither 

Yeah, an "inherent right" to deflect 

Link to post
Share on other sites

NEW YORK TIMES’ STYLE GUIDE SUBSTITUTIONS FOR “THE PRESIDENT LIED”
by MICKEY McCAULEY
 
“The president, offering no evidence, insisted upon his version of the story.”

“The president extemporized with a blithe disregard for established fact.”

“Confounding experts and antagonizing the historical record, the president painted his own, rosier portrait of events.”

“The president, perhaps inadvertently, wound up smudging the line between empirical verification and his own boundless optimism.”

“The president once again found himself galloping ahead of reality’s leisurely pace.”

“The president dabbled anew in the shallow pond of misrepresentation, filling his beak with succulent morsels hidden among the reeds.”

“The president’s most recent encounter with the specter of honesty caught him wrong-footed.”

“Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and the president? The president took the one less truthful.”

“Quantum physicists posit the existence of infinite universes, so it is entirely within reason that one or more such contained the timeline described by the president, and we look forward to seeing it.”

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

NEW YORK TIMES’ STYLE GUIDE SUBSTITUTIONS FOR “THE PRESIDENT LIED”
by MICKEY McCAULEY
 
“The president, offering no evidence, insisted upon his version of the story.”

“The president extemporized with a blithe disregard for established fact.”

“Confounding experts and antagonizing the historical record, the president painted his own, rosier portrait of events.”

“The president, perhaps inadvertently, wound up smudging the line between empirical verification and his own boundless optimism.”

“The president once again found himself galloping ahead of reality’s leisurely pace.”

“The president dabbled anew in the shallow pond of misrepresentation, filling his beak with succulent morsels hidden among the reeds.”

“The president’s most recent encounter with the specter of honesty caught him wrong-footed.”

“Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and the president? The president took the one less truthful.”

“Quantum physicists posit the existence of infinite universes, so it is entirely within reason that one or more such contained the timeline described by the president, and we look forward to seeing it.”

That part is way wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
20 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

"The Congreff shall make no" is kinda broad without the sixth word, don't you think?

Too bad you state things with such authority. Especially those things about which you are wrong. 

AF6FF689-2243-480A-A27B-C1D18A222C59.jpeg

And, because you are you, and will likely want to argue, I recommend you do so with these folks. 

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2020 at 1:05 PM, Bus Driver said:

The Freedom of Speech does not mean you are free from the consequences of what you say. 

I wish someone would teach the Trumpkins the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment.

 

Personal Responsibility?

thats for teenage moms and black lives. 

Link to post
Share on other sites