• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Department Proposes Weakening Social Media's Legal Shield

Glitch said:
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?
Click to expand...

The legal concept of "corporate personhood" predates Citizen's United by thousands of years.
 
trouble13 said:
I'm not a legal expert either. I'm voicing my unprofessional opinion only.
What i think they are responsible for is following the terms of service that they entered into with their users.
The allegations that I have heard seem to be violating their contractual obligation to certain users. If their policy is that they censor conservative speech, that should be clearly included in the tos
Click to expand...

TOS are a legal shield, not a way to placate users. If users feel that they're getting the short end of the stick, they probably have no option but to stick it out or leave.
 
BlueTex said:
Go do a google search using the following search terms: "section 230 ics"
Click to expand...
I don't use Google but I used BING because I was curious to see if you would prolong this.
None of the links used your own personal acronym confection "ICS".
You should have realized that if a term like "interactive computer service" is used without caps then it's not likely to be considered a formal enough expression to warrant its own formal acronym.
After all, there are well over 200 possible meanings for your acronym.
But if you want to use it as a shortcut rather than typing out all 3 words go right ahead but don't expect everyone to suss what it stands for in your mind.
 
BlueTex said:
DP makes judgements every day with their obscenity filter... Should they face possible consequences for bad judgement?
Click to expand...

Not the same issue-- the law recognizes questions of obscenity.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Again, are they?

I don't use much social media, but I'd be utterly shocked if every single one of them didn't had a clause like the following (taken from this site TOS):

We may remove or modify any Content submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We may terminate your access to all or any part of the Service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice.
Click to expand...
Im sure some very hood lawyers write their tos and it will take an equally savvy lawyer to break their argument.
My opinion only but I think they are violating their own tos
 
BlueTex said:
Why is that a problem? Do the owners of sites have a right to allow or not allow their preference of content?
Click to expand...

Yes they do.
But when they do that, it means they are taking responsibility for what appears on their cite. Which means they are liable for what appears.
That is all that is being said.
Surely, you do not support an owner to have immunity from liability from the impact of his or her product?
 
Phys251 said:
TOS are a legal shield, not a way to placate users. If users feel that they're getting the short end of the stick, they probably have no option but to stick it out or leave.
Click to expand...
I see a big problem with your position. The company has already accepted payment from you. Once value is exchanged, damages can be claimed. The company has to show that the user breeched the contract first. They have been very secretive in many cases about why people are banned aka shadow banning
 
trouble13 said:
I see a big problem with your position. The company has already accepted payment from you. Once value is exchanged, damages can be claimed. The company has to show that the user breeched the contract first. They have been very secretive in many cases about why people are banned aka shadow banning
Click to expand...

Twitter is free. What payment are you referring to?
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
The legal concept of "corporate personhood" predates Citizen's United by thousands of years.
Click to expand...
You are confusing the freedom of association with corporations. If a group of people wish to donate to a political candidate they have that right under the First Amendment. It is both their right as a matter of free speech and free association. It doesn't matter if that group of people are a corporation, a union, or any other organization. It is still an individual right. There is no such thing as "corporation" rights, only individual rights.
 
trouble13 said:
Twitter is not free. They monetize your personal data. They are receiving something of value from their users
Click to expand...

They are certainly monetizing your data. But that is not a payment from the user - and cannot be damages, because the user is in no way damaged by Twitter's monetization of their data.
 
Glitch said:
You are confusing the freedom of association with corporations. If a group of people wish to donate to a political candidate they have that right under the First Amendment. It is both their right as a matter of free speech and free association. It doesn't matter if that group of people are a corporation, a union, or any other organization. It is still an individual right. There is no such thing as "corporation" rights, only individual rights.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I'm not talking about Citizen's United.

The concept of corporate personhood has little to do with Citizen's United.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
They’re not exempt. If it’s found, for instance, that they participated in a crime using the website in some manner, they would be held liable same as any private business owne
Click to expand...
r.

That's already against the law. It has nothing to do with what the DOJ is talking about.

As for what content goes on the site, I’m sorry - you keep framing this as though you and I have a right to tell them how they can run their private business. You’re not asking me questions, you’re telling me to accept your misunderstanding of how teh free market works. If *you* want to change the free market, then *you* can make that argument. But don’t couch it in Twitter’s responsibility. And do understand: you are arguing for less spaces online for citizens to engage and be heard. YOur right wing sites will not be exempt. I know you have told yourself that what they do is legal and good, TWitter is mean.
Click to expand...

If Twitter wishes to evaluate and comment upon certain content on their site, that is fine.

If Twitter followed your worldview, Trump‘s account gets banned from day one because they do not need the headaches that he will cause. And there is no talkaround that point. If you make it so these sites are now “liable”, they are businesses first and foremost and will unliable themselves with no regard for how much you enjoyed their service that you thought should be controlled by the government.
Click to expand...

It works like this:

Trump tweets "blank (fill in with whatever) is a hoax."
Blank (fill in any name) tweets "Aunt Antifa once did blank (fill in whatever heinous and false allegation you wish).
Twitter is a forum. Under the law, they are not responsible for what is posted about Aunt Antifa or about the hoax.

And if Twitter wants to offer up editorial comments upon the tweets of Trump, maybe add links to dispute to assertion that blank is a hoax, they can do that.
But what about Aunt Antifa? What about those comments directed toward her? Presently under the law, you can't sue Twitter over what could be slander and libel.
And since Twitter is now choosing to get involved with its members postings, it would be rather unjust if they can pick and choose what part of their private business for which they are legally responsible.
Click to expand...
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
They are certainly monetizing your data. But that is not a payment from the user - and cannot be damages, because the user is in no way damaged by Twitter's monetization of their data.
Click to expand...
They are damaged if say twitter isnt allowing them to use their platform. Its fraud by twitter. The user is entitled to be compensated for what they gave to twitter. A refund in a sense
 
trouble13 said:
They are damaged if say twitter isnt allowing them to use their platform. Its fraud by twitter. The user is entitled to be compensated for what they gave to twitter. A refund in a sense
Click to expand...

Your data, by itself, is worthless.

The value is in the aggregate - millions of individual's data.

Contract damages are very specific in how they are calculated, even if you could get a judge to accept the premise that Twitter's TOS is a mutually-enforcable contract.
 
trouble13 said:
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.
Just as an example say i am a gay guy and i unknowingly go into an anti gay bakery because the bakery has signs up saying we serve everyone. I order a cake and they take my money for it but dont give me the cake. When i ask where my cake is they tell me i violated their terms of service (without even explaining that the violation is that they don't serve gays) so go away and they wont give me a refund either. That is essentially how these companies are conducting business with conservatives.
Click to expand...


You should learn to read contracts more closely... Under Section 3 of the Twitter terms of service agreement they reference the policies outlined in their help center..... For instance, this policy:

help.twitter.com

Public-interest exceptions to enforcement of Twitter rules

Learn why we make certain exceptions, under what circumstances, and how we balance risk of harm vs. the public interest.
help.twitter.com help.twitter.com
 
bubbabgone said:
I don't use Google but I used BING because I was curious to see if you would prolong this.
None of the links used your own personal acronym confection "ICS".
You should have realized that if a term like "interactive computer service" is used without caps then it's not likely to be considered a formal enough expression to warrant its own formal acronym.
After all, there are well over 200 possible meanings for your acronym.
But if you want to use it as a shortcut rather than typing out all 3 words go right ahead but don't expect everyone to suss what it stands for in your mind.
Click to expand...


Good lord...

Screen Shot 2020-09-24 at 8.07.23 PM.png
 
Athanasius68 said:
Yes they do.
But when they do that, it means they are taking responsibility for what appears on their cite. Which means they are liable for what appears.
That is all that is being said.
Surely, you do not support an owner to have immunity from liability from the impact of his or her product?
Click to expand...

Only in conservative fantasy land...
 
Ikari said:
Including Corporations, yes?
Click to expand...
Yes, including corporations. It is the individual shareholders who have the rights, not the corporation. Even though those shareholders can use corporate funds to support candidates of their choice, it is still the individual right of the shareholders, not the corporation. The same thing is true with unions, 501(c), or any other organization. It is the individual right of the members of the organization, not the organization itself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom