twitter.com
Im not seeing what point you are trying to make and i suspect you are just giving me the run around and wasting my time but I am going to humor you for now.Let's use twitter as an example... Here are the terms of service... What part of the agreement is Twitter violating?
X Terms of Service
Read X's Terms of Service to understand the rules governing your access of all Twitter services.
Even twitter acknowledges that they are entering into a contractual agreement with their users.
The user is consenting to an exchange of value between the parties. They want your data and we want their platform. Thats the deal being made.
They are removing political content based on their own partisan beliefs which is not in their terms of service as a condition of the service and after they have already been compensated by the user.
You had a Point? Hmmmm, Nope.
The concept of what a debate is eludes you
They would too, if the ideologies were reversed. The know it, too. They just cannot be honest when it comes to their ideology.
You know that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was held to be unconstitutional, right?
Trump Warns Social Media As Justice Department Aims To Weaken Tech's Legal Shield
The Justice Department's proposal would hold Facebook and Twitter more accountable for users' posts. One critic says the Trump administration is "trying to work the refs ahead of the election."www.npr.org
Looks like Trump is getting upset that private companies were able to set rules and limits for what they allow to be posted on their apps. I don't think this is a good move, it's clearly just reactionary nonsense and Trump's desire to bring the hammer of government against the free exercise of rights.
Give me a second to review.....Nope didn't say any of that. We had freedom of speech and freedom of association long before the internet. It was actually in the constitution. Before telegraph, telephone, television or the web. We will have it when social media is gone. That it finds a way to filter people inciting violence and politicians telling outright lies. Eventually if politicians can't tweet without sticking closer to the truth, well then maybe they'll learn to behave. Once they take public office, they take a responsibility to those they serve. All of them. Not just the ones who voted for them.
I have no trouble addressing your arguments, when they stay on topic and don't get too personal, hence why you have never been added to a list of those I need to simply ignore, heck occasionally you still say something I believe to be spot on. We have history, and believe it or not I respect your opinion, though I may not agree with it often.
So what was taking jabs at me about?
Oh my Wilderness Friend you missed the boat, let me help, You will LOVE the ending:
That is a fair question. It is a very common complaint and these companies have been guarded with their explanations. The lack of disclosure on their end is another problem, i just had not touched on yet. The entirety of the problem is a deep rabbit hole. IMO this fight needs to take place in the courts where the question your asking will get answered truthfully
Not my best analogy but don't call it terrible, show some compassion, lol.
You ask great questions.
No, they haven't, but I understand that is the leftist spin taken from their misunderstanding and mischaracterization of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Why is that leftists always feel the need to deliberately lie?
I'm not a legal expert either. I'm voicing my unprofessional opinion only.
I am no expert on social media and the law, but I can't imagine social media sites being held responsible for every single post there, as long as they can demonstrate a clear and effective plan for immediately getting rid of the worst posts.