Trump to sign executive order on social media amid Twitter furor

[Vanoi]

I prefer Twitter and ATT being the arbiters of free speech no more than I do the government. If twitter is incapable of being a neutral party, they do not deserve the protections of one.

Free speech does not apply to private companies and never has.

Not one platform is required to be neutral. Newspapers, radio, tv, ect. None of them are required to be neutral.

Just like BW's source American Thinker. Its allowed to post the content it wants. It does not have to be neutral.

So if all of these other platforms aren't required to be neutral why should social media be?

You don't want neutral platforms. You want platforms that cater to your bias.

[tgoodenow]

Free speech does not apply to private companies and never has.

Not one platform is required to be neutral. Newspapers, radio, tv, ect. None of them are required to be neutral.

Just like BW's source American Thinker. Its allowed to post the content it wants. It does not have to be neutral.

So if all of these other platforms aren't required to be neutral why should social media?

You don't want neutral platforms. You want platforms that cater to your bias.

Nope. I want people to be able to upvote refuted comments to Trump's twitter handle in the comments and the people decide what should be read.
Not this guy:



Using 230 as a pretext to Explain to me why I need to read these linked Washington Post/CNN articles.

Edit: If you disagree with Trump's posts about the dangers of vote harvesting, you should refute them with facts, knowledge, and up votes, not Yoel Roth using 230 to cite CNN articles.

[Pontifex Maximus]

It doesn't need to be.

They do if they want to be treated as a forum and not a publisher. Decrying that they can't be treated as a forum when they publish opinions you agree with is the definition of self service and hypocrisy.

[Vanoi]

They do if they want to be treated as a forum and not a publisher. Decrying that they can't be treated as a forum when they publish opinions you agree with is the definition of self service and hypocrisy.

Except that public forums already have legal definition in the US and these companies don't fit it. Besides, depending on the type of forum, content and speech can still be restricted. So no, they don't.

Nope. I want people to be able to upvote refuted comments to Trump's twitter handle in the comments and the people decide what should be read.
Not this guy:



Using 230 as a pretext to Explain to me why I need to read these linked Washington Post/CNN articles.

Edit: If you disagree with Trump's posts about the dangers of vote harvesting, you should refute them with facts, knowledge, and up votes, not Yoel Roth using 230 to cite CNN articles.

Its their platform and thus they control the content you will see. If you don't like seeing WaP or CNN, don't use Twitter.

You didn't answer my question. Why should social media be required to be neutral when other platforms are not?

[Cope]

It turns out that Biden wants - or at least very recently wanted - to revoke Section 230 too.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Except that public forums already have legal definition in the US and these companies don't fit it. Besides, depending on the type of forum, content and speech can still be restricted. So no, they don't.

I respect your right to be wrong, but maybe I should petition TWC to add a fact checking popup to your post so people aren't misinformed about the law.

[Vanoi]

I respect your right to be wrong, but maybe I should petition TWC to add a fact checking popup to your post so people aren't misinformed about the law.

Misinformed? Sorry but its you who is misinformed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)

Feel free to educate yourself about law since you definitely don't know it.

[tgoodenow]

Except that public forums already have legal definition in the US and these companies don't fit it. Besides, depending on the type of forum, content and speech can still be restricted. So no, they don't.


Its their platform and thus they control the content you will see. If you don't like seeing WaP or CNN, don't use Twitter.

You didn't answer my question. Why should social media be required to be neutral when other platforms are not?

Section 230 has a simple, sensible goal: to free internet companies from the responsibilities of traditional publishers. Sites like Facebook and Twitter host comments and commentary that they don’t produce, edit, or even screen themselves, and Section 230 of the act ensures that those companies can’t be sued for content they host for which they haven’t assumed responsibility.

https://slate.com/technology/2019/02...-congress.html

Twitter and social media companies were not intended to be arbiters of speech when the law was written. By cherry picking this information to provide instead of allowing the users to do it, they are partnering with traditional publishers and thus have become one themselves.

When I see articles like "400 pound Man breaks into Burger King to drink the used fryer oil", that is something that can be objectively fact checked. It either happened or it didn't. Twitter is providing me their corporate opinion and the opinion of their partners on Mail in voting.

Now if underneath Trump's tweet they were to add an option that says "get the facts on mail in ballots" that allowed anyone to submit articles related and people can discuss and interact underneath and the CNN/WaPo articles happened to be one and two in upvotes so are the first two linked articles; go ahead. People come to twitter because it's supposed to be checking content for falsehoods, not Roth's opinion.


Why does twitter need to be any different than it was before this happened?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Misinformed? Sorry but its you who is misinformed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)

Feel free to educate yourself about law since you definitely don't know it.

I find it is usually the sort of people who claim to know the law perfectly that really don't. This isn't how law functions, in some sort of unnuanced partisan vacuum you insist it must exist in. If you're incapable of engaging with the counterargument (outlined in the post right above this) then you've lost by default. Citing a legal definition is certainly not a legal argument, though sometimes I really wish it was.

[Vanoi]

I find it is usually the sort of people who claim to know the law perfectly that really don't. This isn't how law functions, in some sort of unnuanced partisan vacuum you insist it must exist in. If you're incapable of engaging with the counterargument (outlined in the post right above this) then you've lost by default. Citing a legal definition is certainly not a legal argument, though sometimes I really wish it was.

And yet you have still not explained at all how these companies could be classified as forums nor have you actually presented a counter-argument at all. Ponti you don't have to keep talking out of your ass. Since i don't know how the law works, please do inform me.

https://slate.com/technology/2019/02...-congress.html

Twitter and social media companies were not intended to be arbiters of speech when the law was written. By cherry picking this information to provide instead of allowing the users to do it, they are partnering with traditional publishers and thus have become one themselves.

And we've been over this. Publishers aren't required to be neutral. No platform is. Controlling content on their platform is not becoming the arbiter of speech.

When I see articles like "400 pound Man breaks into Burger King to drink the used fryer oil", that is something that can be objectively fact checked. It either happened or it didn't. Twitter is providing me their corporate opinion and the opinion of their partners on Mail in voting.

Now if underneath they were to add an option that says "get the facts on mail in ballots" that allowed anyone to submit articles related and people can discuss and interact underneath and the CNN/WaPo articles happened to be one and two in upvotes so are the first two linked articles; go ahead. People come to twitter because it's supposed to be checking content for falsehoods, not Roth's opinion.


Why does twitter need to be any different than it was before this happened?

You are still avoiding my question. Why should social media be required to be neutral when other platforms are not?

[Pontifex Maximus]

And yet you have still not explained at all how these companies could be classified as forums nor have you actually presented a counter-argument at all. Ponti you don't have to keep talking out of your ass. Since i don't know how the law works, please do inform me.

Oops, you bungled your own argument. I literally don't have to do anything, all I have to do is make you try to articulate your position, apparently. In any event, my ass is my best feature.

[Vanoi]

Oops, you bungled your own argument. I literally don't have to do anything, all I have to do is make you try to articulate your position, apparently. In any event, my ass is my best feature.

So you admit you don't have an argument and can't explain how these companies can be classified as forums? Still piss poor at debating as usual.

[tgoodenow]

You are still avoiding my question. Why should social media be required to be neutral when other platforms are not?

230 was put into law so these internet companies didn't have to act as publishers because they were small and incapable of it.
By linking to traditional publishers they have become publishers.
230 no longer applies just like it doesn't apply to traditional publishers.

[Vanoi]

230 was put into law so these internet companies didn't have to act as publishers because they were small and incapable of it.
By linking to traditional publishers they have become publishers.

Section 230 was included to protect these companies so they could grow, not so they would be forced to be neutral.
You only think of the big platforms without taking into consideration that this would affect all platforms regardless of size.

230 no longer applies just like it doesn't apply to traditional publishers.

230 is still very relevant to many platforms on the internet including this one we are posting on.

[Pontifex Maximus]

So you admit you don't have an argument and can't explain how these companies can be classified as forums? Still piss poor at debating as usual.

I am acutely aware of my exact skill level at everything, it's part of what make me so uniquely me. I agree with your contention that these companies cannot be classified as forums, and are instead publishers due to their obvious efforts to participate on their own boards. A better informed argument would be to argue against the means rather than the substance of Trump's move. But my ass puppetry is more concerning to you I guess.

[tgoodenow]

Section 230 was included to protect these companies so they could grow, not so they would be forced to be neutral.


230 is still very relevant to many platforms on the internet including this one we are posting on.

They have grown to the point that they have become a traditional publisher. Now, as a traditional publisher, they will follow traditional publisher rules.

Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against Internet service providers in the early 1990s that had different interpretations of whether the service providers should be treated as publishers or distributors of content created by its users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectio...ns_Decency_Act

They are no longer just distributors of content created by their users.

[Vanoi]

They have grown to the point that they have become a traditional publisher. Now, as a traditional publisher, they will follow traditional publisher rules.

Traditional publishers don't have to be neutral. You only open them to lawsuits which makes it more likely they'll restrict content further to prevent those lawsuits.

[antaeus]

I'm fairly certain that Twitter are well within their rights to remove Trump's account if he breaches the guidelines that he signed up to when he created his account.

But then Twitter suckle from the Trump teat as much as any of his sycophantic acolytes.

While I think that Trump is a crybaby who really should be held to account at every opportunity for the record setting untruths or half truths he offers up every time he talks, I don't think it is up to Twitter to flag something is untrue.

That is the moment where they crossover from open mic to editorial newspaper. For the life of me I don't see why Twitter would want to start fact checking politicians. I'm not keen on transferring policing of freedom of expression and belief over to large corporations. When people see Twitter posting a "might not be true" warning on something they agree with, it just emphasises and exaggerates the perception of culture war conspiracy.

People literally sign up to terms and conditions. Those terms don't say "I shall not lie"

[Cope]

I'm not sure what the argument here is. Trump's executive order attempts to remove S230 protections from politicized social media platforms. Supposing that the order isn't found to be unconstitutional, that means that certain platforms will no longer be treated as information service providers with liability exemptions, but as publishers/speakers. The order doesn't force social media platforms to do anything (they are at leisure to curate their own websites as they see fit), it merely seeks to make them choose between being neutral venues with S230 protections or partial venues without. Most of this was outlined by an article Sumkilz posted at the beginning of the thread.

[tgoodenow]

Traditional publishers don't have to be neutral. You only open them to lawsuits which makes it more likely they'll restrict content further to prevent those lawsuits.

You're right, traditional publishers don't have to be neutral and clearly twitter isn't. Why should I care if a tradtional publisher faces lawsuits? When we got to the point of leftists with open contempt of their opponents are linking me articles because they can, I could care less what happens to twitter.