America - The Official Thread

[DesertPenguin]

Or y'know, he could just leave Twitter and publish his messages on some other service. That's the easiest solution. Sounds like Facebook wants to be his new lapdog so let 'em

 

[TexRex]

I bet the same people who insist that a website/platform shouldn't push a certain agenda are onboard with websites like Conservapedia, which was created as a contrast to the "liberal bias" on Wikipedia and which explicitly pushes the birther hoax, homophobia, creationism, young earth creationism, anti-abortion, abortion-breast cancer links and helped to crowdfund a retranslation of the English language Bible to eliminate what it considers, and this is not a joke, "liberal untruths" from the Bible.

I guess it's fine to push an agenda as long as it is your own. Don't let facts get in the way of your distorted view of reality.

Conservapedia also has a page on which they attempt to link atheism to obesity. [the fat ghost of Jerry Falwell enters the chat]

There's even one where they list "the worst liberal movies," at the top of which is a Trump tweet, because of course there is.

Oh and I haven't seen the movie on which Alien is supposed to be based, so I can't comment, but I have seen Them! It's so bad that it's good. It's about giant, killer ants and stars James Whitmore (Brooks who distributes the books in The Shawshank Redemption)...and the notion that Aliens is a ripoff of it is hilarious. The YobTub video linked to in the citation doesn't even make an attempt to justify the notion.

Thankfully I made the conscious decision today to delete Facebook.

I did that about 10 years ago for that very same reason. I have never once regretted it.

I will NEVER stop using Facebook...



...because I won't ever start.

CNN got sued for libel and settled with Nick Sandmann.

Twitter could not be sued even though that is were the whole 'Indian Elder mocked by smirking white teen in MAGA hat' began. They are protected from libel laws because they are supposedly a neutral platform. They are not supposed to editorialize.

Who the hell are they, that they can fact check the opinion of the President of the United States? That mere act was editorializing. They picked the wrong guy to fact check.

I laughed myself hoarse at this post, so thank you. "Shut up and take my 'like'." (That last bit is intended to parody a Fry-from-Futurama meme and isn't actually me telling you to shut up.)

 

[Danoff]

It's a tough problem with no good answers.

What's the problem? Twitter should just get to control their content.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

What's the problem? Twitter should just get to control their content.

I meant from the perspective of one who wants to have their twitter cake (unregulated) and eat it too (regulated to suit only your purposes).

 

[Pupik]

Conservapedia also has a page on which they attempt to link atheism to obesity. [the fat ghost of Jerry Falwell enters the chat]

As a "hey I'm bored at work"-Wikipedian, their wiki formatting makes me cry; but I suppose the need for a photo of everything is for the kids who can't read good and want to learn only slanted things too.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

As a "hey I'm bored at work"-Wikipedian, their wiki formatting makes me cry; but I suppose the need for a photo of everything is for the kids who can't read good and want to learn only slanted things too.

@TexRex
I will say, their photo of Brezhnev is awesome.

That whole article is stunning. It's basically "liberals are fat mmkay!"

 

[Dotini]

What's the problem? Twitter should just get to control their content.

Does the the US postal service have control over content?

 

[Joey D]

Does the the US postal service have control over content?

Yes.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Does the the US postal service have control over content?

Also
The United States Postal Service is an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States federal government.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Also the mailman could steal your ballot.

 

[TB]

As far as I'm aware, Twitter never edited his post, just slapped a fact check link on it for the first time, correct? If so, his executive order is immediately dead as what is spelled out in it (censoring, editing, deleting), much like the Tweet that started it, is inaccurate.

Conversely, if Biden, Pelosi, et al had been fact-check-linked first, I can virtually guarantee Trump would be all over making fun of them and praising Twitter for correcting the misinformation.

Which they should do. To everyone, equally.

It's just a shame it's taken this long.

 

[Dotini]

Yes.

Well, yes, it has control over hazardous content. But can the US postal service control political content? Pornographic content? Racist or sexist content?

 

[TexRex]

Does the the US postal service have control over content?

*braces for obfuscation*

 

[Northstar]

Well, yes, it has control over hazardous content. But can the US postal service control political content? Pornographic content? Racist or sexist content?

Yes.

https://pe.usps.com/BusinessMail101?ViewName=WhatIsMailable

 

[Joey D]

Well, yes, it has control over hazardous content. But can the US postal service control political content? Pornographic content? Racist or sexist content?

Yes, followed by an additional yes.

 

[Pupik]

USPS has been embroiled with making these difficult decisions ever since the Flat Stanley publicity stunt of 1964.

I once knew an America where we could go to California with our egg salad sandwich for just a dime!

 

[Dotini]

Yes.

https://pe.usps.com/BusinessMail101?ViewName=WhatIsMailable

Well, okay, if the US mail can be controlled for political content, then other media platforms can also be controlled or curated for political content. So then Twitter would be perfectly justified in fact-checking content.

Is there any such thing as a neutral media platform?

 

[TexRex]

*braces for obfuscation*

[sing-songy] Nailed it!

 

[Chrunch Houston]

You're advocating for Twitter having no control over what's published by their users? Snuff films & Child Porn is ok too? You won't get there by revoking section 230. You'll just end up with no Twitter. You want twitter to not fact check trump but also remain how it is? Too bad, there is no legal basis for doing so, unless you were to revoke section 230. And if you do that, again, no more Twitter. It's a tough problem with no good answers.

There are laws against child porn, and making snuff films. I've never seen a snuff film here on gtplanet. In fact there are plenty of rules here, but I have never seen anyone censored for expressing an opinion.

There is hard core porn on Twitter, but so far as I know that is against the rules at Facebook. Rules are fine.

I don't think anyone would have had a problem with @Jack replying to Trump and calling him a lying, dog-faced pony soldier. But that is not what happened. They edited his tweet and add a link that contradicted it.

No one has said anything about abolishing section 230. But if these companies are going to edit user content, then they own it, all of it. They are just like the editorial board at CNN except instead of a few hundred contributors (reporters) they have millions, they should not be protected by 230. If a truly harmful tweet gets past their censors and harms someone they are responsible.

They expect to be treated merely as a platform, but they want to control the content. They can't have it both ways.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

There are laws against child porn, and making snuff films. I've never seen a snuff film here on gtplanet. In fact there are plenty of rules here, but I have never seen anyone censored for expressing an opinion.

GTPlanet could censor anything they want. Not sure why you are under the impression they couldn't.

There is hard core porn on Twitter, but so far as I know that is against the rules at Facebook. Rules are fine.

I don't think anyone would have had a problem with @Jack replying to Trump and calling him a lying, dog-faced pony soldier. But that is not what happened. They edited his tweet and add a link that contradicted it.

No one has said anything about abolishing section 230. But if these companies are going to edit user content, then they own it, all of it. They are just like the editorial board at CNN except instead of a few hundred contributors (reporters) they have millions, they should not be protected by 230. If a truly harmful tweet gets past their censors and harms someone they are responsible.

They expect to be treated merely as a platform, but they want to control the content. They can't have it both ways.

Legally speaking, they can while they are classified under section 230. If those protections are taken away, Twitter & Facebook would cease to exist. It's actually Trump that can't have it both ways. He needs his megaphone, but he also wants to punish it - He presumably, wants to revoke section 230 protection for Twitter which would ultimately cause Twitter to no longer be a neutral publisher and simultaneously wants them to be an unbiased neutral publisher. Those two things can't be true at the same time. Trump will, eventually, realize that he can't have his way on this issue because it doesn't logically work - the only thing he can try to do is seem so scary that Twitter elects to be more un-biased, but I think Mr. Dorsey will call his bluff.

 

[TexRex]

Trump will, eventually, realize that he can't have his way on this issue because it doesn't logically work

Who are you talking about?

 

[TB]

They edited his tweet and add a link that contradicted it.

This might be semantics and we'll never see it the same way but I don't see it as them editing his Tweet. The didn't remove any content, its exactly the same as it was when he posted it.

The same link to the same content could have been posted by anyone. This time it was done by the content provider, just like countless people have done in the past. Personally, I don't see a difference.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

The same link to the same content could have been posted by anyone.

Yes it could have and maybe it should have, but the platform is supposed to be the platform, not some editorializing body.

 

[Dotini]

Given them an inch and they'll take a mile. Commercial operations should take advantage of every loophole or other opportunity provided in law.

Might makes right and ends justify the means. Top-dogs Twitter and Facebook seem to be wildly successful. How could section 230 possibly change that?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Given them an inch and they'll take a mile. Commercial operations should take advantage of every loophole or other opportunity provided in law.

Might makes right and ends justify the means. Top-dogs Twitter and Facebook seem to be wildly successful. How could section 230 possibly change that?

Dotini..I don't know what you're trying to say.

 

[Dotini]

Dotini..I don't know what you're trying to say.

I'm trying to ask how section 230 can affect Twitter and Facebook.

 

[Joey D]

In fact there are plenty of rules here, but I have never seen anyone censored for expressing an opinion.

GTPlanet is able to do that if it so wishes. I doubt Jordan or the Mod Team would, but it's within the terms of using the site that it can be done:

Section 9: User Comments, Feedback, and Other Submissions
If, at our request, you send certain specific submissions (for example contest entries) or without a request from us you send creative ideas, suggestions, proposals, plans, or other materials, whether online, by email, by postal mail, or otherwise (collectively, ‘comments’), you agree that we may, at any time, without restriction, edit, copy, publish, distribute, translate and otherwise use in any medium any comments that you forward to us. We are and shall be under no obligation (1) to maintain any comments in confidence; (2) to pay compensation for any comments; or (3) to respond to any comments.

We may, but have no obligation to, monitor, edit or remove content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party’s intellectual property or these Terms of Service.

I'm not going to read Twitter's TOS, but I can almost assure you there's something in there similar to that, and Trump had to agree to those terms when he signed up for an account. Or if those terms came after the fact, he would've been notified and had a certain amount of time to either agree or terminate his account. If Trump didn't read the TOS, then it's on him.

Yes it could have and maybe it should have, but the platform is supposed to be the platform, not some editorializing body.

Twitter wasn't being an editorial body. Twitter, and social media in general, have faced scrutiny for allowing false and misleading stories to run rampant. It's within their right to allow those false stories, but they're doing something about it. What Trump said was misleading and there's very little evidence that voting by mail causes fraud. He's pulling stuff out of his backside and passing it as fact, or to put it another way, flat out lying to his millions of followers. Twitter doesn't want to come under fire for allowing this sort of false information to run rampant on its site, so it's doing something about it.

If Trump enacts a law against social media platforms, then he's no different than Winnie the Pooh Xi Jinping.

I mean I've told you before Trump is a Soviet loving, red-blooded, Commie but you didn't believe me. Now he's pulling this crap which would be right at home with all the world's greatest despots. Any American, especially Republicans, should be all over Trump's ass for doing this. It's a violation of the found principals of our country. Thankfully, his nonsense shouldn't hold up in the Supreme Court.

 

[Dotini]

Thankfully, his nonsense shouldn't hold up in the Supreme Court.

Well, he's appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, and now there's a conservative majority. But how does section 230 affect Twitter and Facebook?

 

[Joey D]

Well, he's appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, and now there's a conservative majority. But how does section 230 affect Twitter and Facebook?

They can be conservative all they want, but their first duty is to uphold the Constitution, not pander to the president's asinine and illegal orders.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm trying to ask how section 230 can affect Twitter and Facebook.

Like honestly or for rhetorical effect? If Twitter and Facebook (for example) are no longer immune from litigation for the content posted on their site, they will be inundated (billions of posts are probably made every day) with unknowable amounts of law suits. Even if they are not held liable, the amount of money tied up in fighting the suits would wreck the companies. The other option is that they do manage to moderate all of their content (however improbable) but it would have to be either an enormously slow, expensive process (human moderators) or a sloppy process (algorithmic moderators) or probably slow, expensive and sloppy. Either eventuality would cause their business models to be untenable. They are publicly traded companies and a lot of red ink doesn't look good for the shareholders...who will bail. The added moderation would also likely reduce user interaction with the site - so advertisers will bail.

Even aside from that, how many days until twitter bans Trump if they lose section 230 protection? I'd give it about 15 seconds. Do conservatives move to another platform that is more friendly to them? That option is open to them sure, but I think they know that it wouldn't have the universal credibility that Twitter, however toxic it is, possesses. A post on a right wing equivalent twitter would be immediately relegated as spin/partisan/biased. Posts on Twitter have the allusion of neutrality that a made-for-Trump Twitter could never have. That's why Trump NEEDS Twitter, why he cannot possibly let it die.