Law Trump issues EO to reclassify social media as publishers, legally liable for user content

[BIKES!]

Reading your attempts at writing the English language is painful.

Yeah, you just killed it with that sentence...

 

[Jack V Savage]

The government shouldn't have to take action. The platforms need to stop censoring, limiting and editorializing other peoples speech.

I think there's just a fundamental difference in values here. Some of us think that people should be free to disagree with the gov't. And we think that the gov't limiting our speech is what censorship is, not the public criticizing the gov't.

Speech infringement is wrong. Whether being done by a "platform" or a state.

This is the government stepping in to stop corporate censorship. It's a good thing.

What we're talking about here is the gov't stepping in to stop people from being able to speak freely. If a corporation or individual says that something said by a gov't official is false, that is not what most of us would consider to be "censorship."

 

[aries]

So let’s unpack this next retarded statement of yours.

My first post was criticizing anyone who thought this was a Choke.
Anyone who has attended a day 1 BJJ class, has experienced peoples reaction to being on the bottom for the first time. They freak out, they think they can’t breathe, they have an adrenaline dump, and then they’re done. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that an older guy in bad health, tussling with the police, is the prime candidate for his heart giving out.


I’m sorry that you have zero understanding of half of what goes on in the sport that you frequent the forum of.



How do you derived Donald Trump from any of that, is truly a reflection of your obsession with the man

So you are saying that the cop did no harm by continuing to kneel on the neck of the unconscious man for several minutes after he blacked out? Why do you think he blacked out in the first place?? Just because the cop was only kneeling against one side of his neck doesn't mean that the other side was unobstructed. I've seen plenty of chokes and I recognise when someone loses consciousness because of one. He was restricting the guy's blood flow to his brain for several minutes after he was unconscious. But yeah let's claim that the officer did nothing wrong and it was the bad guy's fault for getting in trouble with the police SMH.

When he lost consciousness the police officer had an obligation to preserve his life which he did not do (in fact carried on with actions that most likely lead to his death for over 3 minutes) and now a man is dead because of it. Imagine if an MMA competitor held a choke on for 3 minutes and 47 seconds after their opponent had lost consciousness, people would have been calling for the death sentence?!

 

[nostradumbass]

I would like to point out the Retarded Right wing logic here regarding Trump and Twitter. So, you consider fact checking to be censorship. And Twitter should be a utility everyone should have access to. Meanwhile internet access isn't even considered a utility and is required in order to use Twitter. And healthcare isn't even considered important enough to be a human right.

So in order of importance according to Trumptards. 1) Twitter bends over and kisses their poor victimized asses. That should be a human right. But not healthcare.
Lmao you can't make this shit up.

Well you did "make that shit up".

Literally nobody said twitter is a human right. Where did you get that from? He said if they are going to act as a publisher by hand selecting who can use it and what they can say, then they will be treated as a publisher and be held liable for what they do publish, rather than be treated as a neutral platform. The phone company is not allowed to listen in, pick who you can talk to and interject in your conversations.

It's also not "fact checking", it's selectively entering their own opinion piece. It is not universally done with all tweets and all users, they hand pick them based on politics, and they can't even get that right. The first one was that universal mail in voting would give more opportunity for fraud, and they "fact checked" that there isn't voter fraud with mail in voting, which wasn't true when they said it, and that same day a postal worker was brought up on charges of voter fraud.

Twitter cannot be treated like comcast but behave like MSDNC, they can be one or the other.

 

[PEB]

 

[vengeful]

For the love of God, just stop embarrassing yourself. Literally just this past month, Trump played a pivotal role in stabilizing the worlds oil market. We are at like 25K on the Dow in the middle of a fucking pandemic. Obama’s Dow flatlined in July of 2014. It only started going up the day Trump was elected.

Seriously, you are so uninformed and detached from reality, any discussion with you is a waste of time.


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/13/ope...st-and-most-complex-deal-ever-dan-yergin.html

lol @ 40 million people being unemployed and this dolt thinks that the stock market is some sort of reflection on the state of the economy.

 

[bobgeese]

lol @ 40 million people being unemployed and this dolt thinks that the stock market is some sort of reflection on the state of the economy.

Imagine the pandemic during a weak economy.


Things are only going smoothly because we have a nice cushion. Like him or hate him, he played a major part in that.

 

[vengeful]

Imagine the pandemic during a weak economy.


Things are only going smoothly because we have a nice cushion. Like him or hate him, he played a major part in that.

You have record-high unemployment, you have people making more money to NOT work than they would to go to work, so what's the incentive for them to get a job? Small businesses and the restaurant industry have been decimated. But, trillions went back on to Wall Street so you think things are going smoothly?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

You're basically saying that the gov't needs to give people a license (indicating that they are "neutral") to speak freely.

Nonsense. I've bent over backwards saying the opposite. I oppose government regulation of speech. Twitter's ability to say whatever they want on their website or to add editorial guidelines for the content on their website is not being limited by the government in the slightest. Twitter will remain free to censor or to emphasize whatever viewpoints they choose. It's their platform.

 

[CauseImbetta]

I don't think you actually know what free speech means. I think that's the key issue.

In this cas, free speech means not having biased social media giants controlling what people say. They are not an arbitrary. People should be free to say whatever they want. Anything. The left stifle free speech and they have been doing it for a long time.

 

[bobgeese]

You have record-high unemployment, you have people making more money to NOT work than they would to go to work, so what's the incentive for them to get a job? Small businesses and the restaurant industry have been decimated. But, trillions went back on to Wall Street so you think things are going smoothly?

For a global pandemic, yes.

Though I do think they need to put more money directly in people’s hands.

 

[AndroidRage]

Their value in 2016, was $14 genius.

There is zero argument, Trump is their golden goose.

Trump is only the 9th most popular twitter user. Obama is the most popular on the website. They will be just fine without the fat fuck.

 

[AndroidRage]

Imagine the pandemic during a weak economy.


Things are only going smoothly because we have a nice cushion. Like him or hate him, he played a major part in that.

Things aren't going smoothly and any recovery we are seeing is only because Trillions of dollars have been handed out to Wallstreet like candy on Halloween.

 

[usmctanker242]

True but when Trump says injecting disinfectant could help your body resist Covid-19 and be proven to be factually false, and Trump denied that he ever said it in that context when video proves he did, he shouldn't go into a hissy fit when everyone and their mom calls him for his bullshit.

Edit : He asks a question about the possibility of injection...never says that it would help with Covid..simply asking questions.

 

[heloder]

Imagine the pandemic during a weak economy.


Things are only going smoothly because we have a nice cushion. Like him or hate him, he played a major part in that.

And here we see a "Conservative" calling a $25,000,000,000,000 debt "a nice cushion".

 

[vengeful]

Well you did "make that shit up".

Literally nobody said twitter is a human right. Where did you get that from? He said if they are going to act as a publisher by hand selecting who can use it and what they can say, then they will be treated as a publisher and be held liable for what they do publish, rather than be treated as a neutral platform. The phone company is not allowed to listen in, pick who you can talk to and interject in your conversations.

It's also not "fact checking", it's selectively entering their own opinion piece. It is not universally done with all tweets and all users, they hand pick them based on politics, and they can't even get that right. The first one was that universal mail in voting would give more opportunity for fraud, and they "fact checked" that there isn't voter fraud with mail in voting, which wasn't true when they said it, and that same day a postal worker was brought up on charges of voter fraud.

Twitter cannot be treated like comcast but behave like MSDNC, they can be one or the other.

So in your expert opinion, is Sherdog a publisher of your posts? Since Sherdog decides to delete posts that are against their rules, by allowing posts to stay up then they are "hand selecting" as you say who can and can't use it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Nonsense. I've bent over backwards saying the opposite. I oppose government regulation of speech.

You say that, but then you support the idea that the gov't has to determine that an entity is "neutral" or it can impose nuisance regulations to shut it down. And you support the imposition of those regs in response to a fact check. So you say "I oppose gov't regulation of speech" but when it comes to a real-world situation where the gov't is trying to suppress criticism, you're supporting it.

Twitter's ability to say whatever they want on their website or to add editorial guidelines for the content on their website is not being limited by the government in the slightest. Twitter will remain free to censor or to emphasize whatever viewpoints they choose. It's their platform.

Trump has not yet succeeded in stopping free speech. Agreed. But he is trying to (which likely already has a chilling effect--see how FB has capitulated), and he has the backing of a disturbing portion of Republicans in the effort, you among them.

 

[nostradumbass]

So in your expert opinion, is Sherdog a publisher of your posts? Since Sherdog decides to delete posts that are against their rules, by allowing posts to stay up then they are "hand selecting" as you say who can and can't use it.

Lol, did you not know that sherdog is an MMA site? Yes, they are publishers with employees, reporters, articles, interviews and rules for their user forum. No, it is not a neutral social media platform and I don't think it ever claimed to be nor was it treated like one. The rules of the forum specifically, which is a comment section in addition to the published articles, is still content neutral though, so their rules, for example, don't state that you can bash Stipe Miocic but not Robert Whittaker, or that you can post porn, but only if it's certain porn stars and you can. The people are the content on social media, it's not a comment section of a news publisher.

A primary cause for concern is that social media can often elicit controversial and emotional discourse, which can quickly devolve into name calling, shaming, meme-ing, or much worse. As such, it makes sense that a government official or department would be able to restrict speech, or even access, to some individuals in the public forum. However, doing so requires careful thought and application of content neutral restrictions in order to not violate the First Amendment.

For example, a constituent yelling obscenities into the microphone at a public town hall meeting, or on social media, is likely to be removed. However, an unpopular opinion posted on a city government's social media page in response to a new city project cannot be deleted or censored without violating the First Amendment, unless it violates content neutral restrictions. In most cases, of course, this is pretty obvious stuff.

 

[BossRootin]

And here we see a "Conservative" calling a $25,000,000,000,000 debt "a nice cushion".

The national debt is meaningless as most of it is owed to private US investors and our monetary system requires an increasing debt if we wish our economy to grow.

For every dollar the FED lends the US, $1.05 must be paid back, therefore there is always more debt than money available.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

You say that, but then you support the idea that the gov't has to determine that an entity is "neutral" or it can impose nuisance regulations to shut it down. And you support the imposition of those regs in response to a fact check. So you say "I oppose gov't regulation of speech" but when it comes to a real-world situation where the gov't is trying to suppress criticism, you're supporting it.

Yes, when it comes to libelous speech, the government has to determine many things. I understand and sympathize with the criticism of the new policy as laying the groundwork for an expansion of government bureaucracy in this area. But that's all we are talking about here. Nothing is happening to Twitter that isn't already the case with the Wall Street Journal or the NYT. Given the strength of libel protections in the US, I don't think there's likely to be much effect.

And no, I don't support such regs because of a fact check. I don't even know the facts about the fact check, as I don't usually follow such stories. I've supported treating Twitter and other social media entities like publishers for years now.