Is this ok with you?

[JasperL]

You just keep getting further and further into the weeds. Social media are exempt from liability for posts of others. But that exempt shouldn't apply when THEY post or alter another's. That's the issue. Passing users' content without change is protected. But adding semantic or blocking it for other than some very specific, e.g. insurrection, threats, etc. is not protected.

Why do you want a bunch of government bureaucrats policing the speech of you and other private property owners? Twitter is big, but it's no different than DP. DP hosts comments, and has a team of moderators who can and do delete posts and kick users off their free platform. How many bureaucrats do you think ought to keep tabs on the moderating decisions of the DP team, and if they mess up should the moderator go to jail, or just expose themselves and/or the DP owners to lawsuits?

I don't think any of you guys have actually thought this through - at all. You're saying Trump flunkies ought to come up with good and bad reasons to block a post or content, and if a private property owner breaks the rules, does something in a way the government doesn't like, suppresses the WRONG speech (supressing speech the government agrees should be suppressed is AOK!!!), then they can and should be sued and possibly bankrupted.

How exactly is that consistent with any notion of freedom when moderators at Twitter or DP have to check in with a bureaucrat in D.C. to see if they can delete porn, or racism, or a questionable link, or a story they think is BS but might be true who knows? Who should DP check with before they ban hammer some racist troll on DP? Should there be a team of bureaucrats and how long must they wait for a response before acting to suppress some racist's free speech rights?

Maybe you're worried about plaintiffs' lawyers having a hard go of it and this is a lawyers' full employment act? I can see the ads now:

Have you been kicked off a platform? Has TWITTER deleted one of your posts for NO REASON? Have you had your account restricted UNFAIRLY because you're a good, red blooded conservative American? Are you angry at the liberal elites censoring you on social media? CALL 999-SUE-THEM!! for a free consultation!! We don't get paid unless YOU get the damages you deserve!!

This is stupid beyond belief.

It's not, you just don't understand the example.... Private property is private property. If Trump bureaucrats can restrict what you allow on your private platform, your own website, that you invite others in to discuss things with you, comment, etc. why can't they do it in your kitchen, or your church, or your club, or your backyard BBQ?

 

[Bullseye]

Your opinion is not going to change the law.

FCC commissioner may think different.

 

[Bullseye]

Why do you want a bunch of government bureaucrats policing the speech of you and other private property owners?

How many times do I have to tell you that isn't the DAMN issue? I don't want the government policing my media content. And I damn sure don't what private citizens like media sites doing it. Can you try and grasp that? That's the point here - social media sites should NOT be able to alter or editorialize on content.

Twitter is big, but it's no different than DP. DP hosts comments, and has a team of moderators who can and do delete posts and kick users off their free platform. How many bureaucrats do you think ought to keep tabs on the moderating decisions of the DP team, and if they mess up should the moderator go to jail, or just expose themselves and/or the DP owners to lawsuits?

I don't think any of you guys have actually thought this through - at all. You're saying Trump flunkies ought to come up with good and bad reasons to block a post or content, and if a private property owner breaks the rules, does something in a way the government doesn't like, suppresses the WRONG speech (supressing speech the government agrees should be suppressed is AOK!!!), then they can and should be sued and possibly bankrupted.

How exactly is that consistent with any notion of freedom when moderators at Twitter or DP have to check in with a bureaucrat in D.C. to see if they can delete porn, or racism, or a questionable link, or a story they think is BS but might be true who knows? Who should DP check with before they ban hammer some racist troll on DP? Should there be a team of bureaucrats and how long must they wait for a response before acting to suppress some racist's free speech rights?



It's not, you just don't understand the example.... Private property is private property. If Trump bureaucrats can restrict what you allow on your private platform, your own website, that you invite others in to discuss things with you, comment, etc. why can't they do it in your kitchen, or your church, or your club, or your backyard BBQ?

There's no "you guys" here or any of the rest of this bullshit. We're talking about MORE freedom of speech, not less. Some wiseass, snot-nosed geek in Silicon Valley shouldn't have the right to alter or delete my posts because HE doesn't agree with him. As I said, there ARE reasons to block a user or delete posts - threatening violence, porn, insurrection, etc. Beyond that they should shut the **** up if they want to continue to enjoy freedom from prosecution.

 

[BlueTex]

FCC commissioner may think different.

Where in the ACTUAL LAW does it say the court has to consult with the FCC commissioner?

 

[BlueTex]

There's no "you guys" here or any of the rest of this bullshit. We're talking about MORE freedom of speech, not less. Some wiseass, snot-nosed geek in Silicon Valley shouldn't have the right to alter or delete my posts because HE doesn't agree with him. As I said, there ARE reasons to block a user or delete posts - threatening violence, porn, insurrection, etc. Beyond that they should shut the **** up if they want to continue to enjoy freedom from prosecution.

Complete BS and a demonstration of the ignorance of what changing the law would bring. Companies would censor MORE content to avoid be sued, not less..

 

[Hamish Howl]

Censorship. Twitter. Facebook. Banning, removing, blocking posts exposing Bidens involvement in corruption, specific knowledge and involvement of his sons cash for access to Joe incidents, Bidens knowledge and involvement in illegal election tampering and spying, and more and more. Serious allegations. Seemingly with proof. And then blocking content, posts, that are pro Trump.
Look. Im not a Trump freak. I AM someone who VALUES MY FREEDOM AND YOURS!!!!
The easy response is the "theyre private companies" response. Dont cut it anymore. Social media has become too integrated into our lives. If the phone company cut you off if you were talking about something they didnt like, would you defend that? If we dont have access to ALL the information, ESPECIALLY at this level, we are in REAL trouble. And its only a matter of time to where it effects YOU!!! Not just those you may or may not support.
So.........
Do you support media...on line, in print, broadcast...blocking SERIOUS content harmful to one, but not the other.
Is this the America YOU want?

So private companies do have to care about people's feelings now?

My, how times change.

 

[Bullseye]

Complete BS and a demonstration of the ignorance of what changing the law would bring. Companies would censor MORE content to avoid be sued, not less..

Not true. The laws as it stands prevents that. The only question is when they stop being an impartial service provide and comment/edit content do they forsake that protection.

 

[Bullseye]

Where in the ACTUAL LAW does it say the court has to consult with the FCC commissioner?

FCC enforces the code.

 

[JasperL]

How many times do I have to tell you that isn't the DAMN issue? I don't want the government policing my media content. And I damn sure don't what private citizens like media sites doing it. Can you try and grasp that? That's the point here - social media sites should NOT be able to alter or editorialize on content.

OK, so I should be able to post a video of porn right on this website or on Facebook? Child porn? How about a video of a graphic killing? If any "social media" have a policy banning that, those policies should be voided? What if I start finding any black person on those websites and flood their mentions with racist garbage? Should Twitter be able to "alter" my posts calling every black person I encounter the n word?

There's no "you guys" here or any of the rest of this bullshit. We're talking about MORE freedom of speech, not less. Some wiseass, snot-nosed geek in Silicon Valley shouldn't have the right to alter or delete my posts because HE doesn't agree with him. As I said, there ARE reasons to block a user or delete posts - threatening violence, porn, insurrection, etc. Beyond that they should shut the **** up if they want to continue to enjoy freedom from prosecution.

You're really not getting it. If some "snot-nosed geek" in CA shouldn't have the right to alter or delete your posts because HE doesn't agree with them, then who decides when that snot-nosed geek can delete them? Trump? Our future president and glorious queen AOC?

What if AOC decides that a highly appropriate reason to ban and delete posts is disagreeing with the 100% of scientists who agree AGW is an existential threat (it will be 100% when she's queen)? obviously, in that case, if your website deletes posts agreeing with the consensus on AGW, then you should be sued, for deleting comments the government does not agree should be deleted!!

You OK with that? You should be. That's what freedom looks like in this new regime.

 

[Bullseye]

OK, so I should be able to post a video of porn right on this website or on Facebook? Child porn? How about a video of a graphic killing? If any "social media" have a policy banning that, those policies should be voided? What if I start finding any black person on those websites and flood their mentions with racist garbage? Should Twitter be able to "alter" my posts calling every black person I encounter the n word?

Did I not say there were exceptions?

You're really not getting it. If some "snot-nosed geek" in CA shouldn't have the right to alter or delete your posts because HE doesn't agree with them, then who decides when that snot-nosed geek can delete them? Trump? Our future president and glorious queen AOC?

ONCE a-****ing-gain - there are clear guidelines as to what is allowed - the geek doesn't get to arbitrarily cut anything he does like IF it doesn't meet FCC guidelines.

What if AOC decides that a highly appropriate reason to ban and delete posts is disagreeing with the 100% of scientists who agree AGW is an existential threat (it will be 100% when she's queen)? obviously, in that case, if your website deletes posts agreeing with the consensus on AGW, then you should be sued, for deleting comments the government does not agree should be deleted!!

AOC doesn't get a vote - the FCC decency guidelines do.

You OK with that? You should be. That's what freedom looks like in this new regime.

[/quote]

 

[BlueTex]

FCC enforces the code.

LMAO.. Enforces code but not the actual law.. Can you name one case regarding section 230 where the FCC has testified?

 

[Bullseye]

LMAO.. Enforces code but not the actual law.. Can you name one case regarding section 230 where the FCC has testified?

LOL, Hasn't been a need up to now. That's we the FCC Commissioner has asked his general counsel to look into it.

 

[BlueTex]

LOL, Hasn't been a need up to now. That's we the FCC Commissioner has asked his general counsel to look into it.

You think the courts are suddenly going to recognize the FCC as an interested party in a lawsuit? Good luck... sounds like fantasy law to me...

 

[Bullseye]

You think the courts are suddenly going to recognize the FCC as an interested party in a lawsuit? Good luck... sounds like fantasy law to me...

You understand what" . . .look into it" means, right? It's not what I think, it's what FCC general counsel finds.

 

[BlueTex]

You understand what" . . .look into it" means, right? It's not what I think, it's what FCC general counsel finds.

LOL... Are the courts going to suddenly recognize the FCC general counsel as an interested party? Very unlikely... Either get the law changed or live with it...

 

[JasperL]

Did I not say there were exceptions?

Sure, and I look forward to Glorious Queen AOC determining what can and can't be posted in the Fox News comment section!! The exceptions as determined by Queen AOC!!

ONCE a-****ing-gain - there are clear guidelines as to what is allowed - the geek doesn't get to arbitrarily cut anything he does like IF it doesn't meet FCC guidelines.
AOC doesn't get a vote - the FCC decency guidelines do.

That's my point - bureaucrats at FCC with a minister of proper language appointed by AOC will determine what speech is allowed and what can be banned. I cannot wait for the AOC FCC servants making up those rules when they come to power! It's FREEDOM when the government tells you want to do with your private property!!

And you'll have to point me to where the current FCC guidelines say 'no posts that might be racist' or even 'no porn' or 'no mean Tweets about Trump or that might hurt his reelection' etc...

 

[Bullseye]

Sure, and I look forward to Glorious Queen AOC determining what can and can't be posted in the Fox News comment section!! The exceptions as determined by Queen AOC!!



That's my point - bureaucrats at FCC with a minister of proper language appointed by AOC will determine what speech is allowed and what can be banned. I cannot wait for the AOC FCC servants making up those rules when they come to power! It's FREEDOM when the government tells you want to do with your private property!!

And you'll have to point me to where the current FCC guidelines say 'no posts that might be racist' or even 'no porn' or 'no mean Tweets about Trump or that might hurt his reelection' etc...

You're talking absolute idiocy. I'm done with this shit.

 

[JasperL]

You're talking absolute idiocy. I'm done with this shit.

The idiocy is in you right wingers seeing someone act in a way that is MEAN to Dear Leader abandon everything you used to hold dear about property rights and the free market and free association and actual FREEDOM and demanding the government come in and make those liberals not be MEAN to Dear Leader any more.

It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Twitter has no obligation at all to host its platform in a way you prefer. If you don't like it there is a solution - do not use Twitter! Walk Away!! Tell them you're mad! Tell other people how mean they're being to you and Trump! What you want is for the nanny state to dictate Twitter be nicer to Trump! IMO, Facebook is a force for evil. What I do is deleted it from all my devices, and haven't given them a click in years. That's what happens in a FREE society. I don't sit around and whine that they're not RUNNING IT LIKE I WANT THEM TOO!! MOMMY TRUMP!! MAKE THEM STOP!!!

Here's all the reason Twitter needs to ban links to the NYP article or anything else posted on their site - THEY DON'T WANNA ALLOW IT!! That's it. It's their playground, and they set the rules, and the law doesn't care how they do it. That's a GOOD THING! Those are the same rules that work for your kitchen and for Fox News and Hannity's website, and every conservative outlets comment section, and here at DP.

It's pretty great that DP gets to run this place without checking in with the FCC regulators about who it can ban, when, for what reason, which posts they can delete, who they can censor. They just run it like THEY want to run it, to make it a good place for us and for them. That's ALL they have to worry about. You want to form some nanny state government body, that gets its instructions from Congress, that tells DP and all the fishing forums, and dog forums, and religious forums what they can do! Can a religious forum ban anti-religion trolls? Well, today they can! They can ban anyone and the only reason they need to ban them is because they WANT TO DO IT. In the brave new conservative free market free speech world, they'd have to check in with FCC before they can ban some troll, or delete his posts.

 

[Bullseye]

The idiocy is in you right wingers seeing someone act in a way that is MEAN to Dear Leader abandon everything you used to hold dear about property rights and the free market and free association and actual FREEDOM and demanding the government come in and make those liberals not be MEAN to Dear Leader any more.

It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Twitter has no obligation at all to host its platform in a way you prefer. If you don't like it there is a solution - do not use Twitter! Walk Away!! Tell them you're mad! Tell other people how mean they're being to you and Trump! What you want is for the nanny state to dictate Twitter be nicer to Trump! IMO, Facebook is a force for evil. What I do is deleted it from all my devices, and haven't given them a click in years. That's what happens in a FREE society. I don't sit around and whine that they're not RUNNING IT LIKE I WANT THEM TOO!! MOMMY TRUMP!! MAKE THEM STOP!!!

Here's all the reason Twitter needs to ban links to the NYP article or anything else posted on their site - THEY DON'T WANNA ALLOW IT!! That's it. It's their playground, and they set the rules, and the law doesn't care how they do it. That's a GOOD THING! Those are the same rules that work for your kitchen and for Fox News and Hannity's website, and every conservative outlets comment section, and here at DP.

It's pretty great that DP gets to run this place without checking in with the FCC regulators about who it can ban, when, for what reason, which posts they can delete, who they can censor. They just run it like THEY want to run it, to make it a good place for us and for them. That's ALL they have to worry about. You want to form some nanny state government body, that gets its instructions from Congress, that tells DP and all the fishing forums, and dog forums, and religious forums what they can do! Can a religious forum ban anti-religion trolls? Well, today they can! They can ban anyone and the only reason they need to ban them is because they WANT TO DO IT. In the brave new conservative free market free speech world, they'd have to check in with FCC before they can ban some troll, or delete his posts.

And now you go all in on lunacy.

 

[JasperL]

And now you go all in on lunacy.

Sorry if you don't understand the policies you're supporting. And to cover for your lack of understanding you dismiss what's obvious about the new right wing position here.

If you disagree, what part did I get wrong? Just for example, if you run a religious forum, when can the moderators kick someone off the platform? If they show up every day talking about the FSM and post images of 'him' and how their FSM will kick the asses of the Christian God, is that OK to delete and ban the trolls if they're ruining the experience for the members that forum wants to attract?

Now it is OK, but in your world they'd need to check in with FCC or whoever to see if banning them fits in with the rules of Trump's or AOC's flunkies, or those written by the liberals in Congress. Only if Congress or FCC allow it can the owners of a private platform enforce rules against trolls or others, and if the religious forum fails to enforce them as you prefer, they should be open to lawsuits. Apparently "free speech" to the new right wing means we all have a right to say anything we want, wherever we want, including on private property, so long as government agrees, and if not then the government can allow censorship, but we need to check with government before we censor anyone on our private property. FREEDOM! Etc.....

 

[Bullseye]

Sorry if you don't understand the policies you're supporting. And to cover for your lack of understanding you dismiss what's obvious about the new right wing position here.

If you disagree, what part did I get wrong? Just for example, if you run a religious forum, when can the moderators kick someone off the platform? If they show up every day talking about the FSM and post images of 'him' and how their FSM will kick the asses of the Christian God, is that OK to delete and ban the trolls if they're ruining the experience for the members that forum wants to attract?

Now it is OK, but in your world they'd need to check in with FCC or whoever to see if banning them fits in with the rules these owners of a private platform want to enforce, and if the religious forum fails to enforce them as you prefer, they should be open to lawsuits.

Not me with the misunderstandings, You've been confused from the beginning. This has got nothing to do what "right wing policies" It's got to do with free speech and theuse of public resources.

 

[JasperL]

Not me with the misunderstandings, You've been confused from the beginning. This has got nothing to do what "right wing policies" It's got to do with free speech and theuse of public resources.

Right, so when can that Christian religious forum kick off trolls pushing the FSM? Those who believe in the FSM have free speech rights!! So if a Christian forum gets tired of their act, it must tolerate them as they ruin the experience of those the forum wants to attract - to discuss issues involving Christianity?

And Twitter isn't a public resource. It's like your kitchen in that regard, and you need no excuse to kick some asshole out of your kitchen other than you don't want him in your kitchen anymore. DP is like that - they decide what they want this place to look like and the moderators use their (benevolent and effective IMO) jack boots to trample on our "free speech" in doing it. I'm not "free" to call you names or be an open racist or post links to that garbage, but I have a 'free speech RIGHT' to do all of that. DP doesn't care - they want people on here to behave as they prefer, and I post here understanding their rules and understanding if they kick me off I have no recourse. Why the right wing wants to mess with that is a mystery.

 

[BlueTex]

Not me with the misunderstandings, You've been confused from the beginning. This has got nothing to do what "right wing policies" It's got to do with free speech and theuse of public resources.

What public resources does twitter use?

 

[Bullseye]

Right, so when can that Christian religious forum kick off trolls pushing the FSM? Those who believe in the FSM have free speech rights!! So if a Christian forum gets tired of their act, it must tolerate them as they ruin the experience of those the forum wants to attract - to discuss issues involving Christianity?

And Twitter isn't a public resource. It's like your kitchen in that regard, and you need no excuse to kick some asshole out of your kitchen other than you don't want him in your kitchen anymore. DP is like that - they decide what they want this place to look like and the moderators use their (benevolent and effective IMO) jack boots to trample on our "free speech" in doing it. I'm not "free" to call you names or be an open racist or post links to that garbage, but I have a 'free speech RIGHT' to do all of that. DP doesn't care - they want people on here to behave as they prefer, and I post here understanding their rules and understanding if they kick me off I have no recourse. Why the right wing wants to mess with that is a mystery.

DP is a good example - they don't arbitrarily or intentionally silence options and posts that that meet the rules. Twitter, FB etc could learn a lot from DP's restraint and fairness (except of course when the give ME a warning). Look at the Huer Biden laptop issue. All kinds of discussion on DP - Twitter suspended the New York Post account.

 

[JasperL]

DP is a good example - they don't arbitrarily or intentionally silence options and posts that that meet the rules. Twitter, FB etc could learn a lot from DP's restraint and fairness (except of course when the give ME a warning). Look at the Huer Biden laptop issue. All kinds of discussion on DP - Twitter suspended the New York Post account.

You keep ignoring the point. When can that religious forum ban FSM trolls or delete their posts? If they are just advocating for FSM and 'his' ability to kick the ass of the Christian God, that's free speech, religious free speech! Why should a religious forum get away with trampling on those sacred rights? Or maybe they shouldn't? Who know - it's your plan to put the FCC and Trump for now, AOC when our Glorious Queen is elected, in charge of deciding that for that forum.

And DP's rules are 'arbitrary' in the eyes of the law. Why not allow me to call you names? It is FREE SPEECH and the mods have their jack boots on our necks infringing on our FREE SPEECH right to hurl insults at other people. I'm good with them trampling all over my FREE SPEECH rights, because it's their place, their rules and I enjoy what they have created. If I'm banned 'unfairly' should I sue them? Sue the moderator who did it and the owners since they arbitrarily denied me my free speech right to be a racist troll who insults other DP members?