Trump asks U.S. judge to force Twitter to restart his account

[OpportunityCost]

Who in Congress accepted their offer on behalf of the entire Congress? When did Congress vote and give that person the authority to act on behalf of the entire Congress? How exactly do a couple of CEOs for some big social media companies make or accept offers on behalf of tens of thousands of CEOs and owners of other internet companies not present at that hearing? How/when did the rest of the internet authorize Jack and Zuck to act on their behalf?

No one needs to accept it. They stated the direction they were taking to satisfy Congress not to take action and for consideration should they chose to do so.

How hard do you think it would be to show bad faith and harm based upon those statements?

 

[JasperL]

Are you seriously confusing 2 neighbors making a verbal agreement with no witnesses to a CEO stating a business directive in front of congress for consideration in changes to section 230?

It was an example to illustrate what's required for an oral contract to be created and enforced. You cannot state what the offer was with any certainty, and you cannot say who accepted this "offer" on behalf of all of Congress, and you cannot tell me how Jack and Zuck can negotiate this offer for themselves and 10s of thousands of other companies not present at this meeting, etc.......

There was no oral contract created. It's just a laughable idea that only reflects what you don't know about the law. None of the three requirements were met.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It was an example to illustrate what's required for an oral contract to be created and enforced. You cannot state what the offer was with any certainty, and you cannot say who accepted this "offer" on behalf of all of Congress, and you cannot tell me how Jack and Zuck can negotiate this offer for themselves and 10s of thousands of other companies not present at this meeting, etc.......

There was no oral contract created. It's just a laughable idea that only reflects what you don't know about the law. None of the three requirements were met.

FFS I already stated such----commitment to free expression on their platforms in order to be more in line with American ideals of free expression----their own words!

A stated commitment to company direction that was ignored and never intended to followed is acting in bad faith and doing the opposite can show harm.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

No one needs to accept it. They stated the direction they were taking to satisfy Congress not to take action and for consideration should they chose to do so.

If no one accepted it, no contract was formed.

This is pretty basic stuff - 1st week of 1L.

How hard do you think it would be to show bad faith and harm based upon those statements?

Harm to who?

In your scenario, Congress appears to be the other party to this supposed "contract". How have they been harmed?

 

[OpportunityCost]

If no one accepted it, no contract was formed.

This is pretty basic stuff - 1st week of 1L.



Harm to who?

In your scenario, Congress appears to be the other party to this supposed "contract". How have they been harmed?

Sigh....this is just sad. People will act based on promises made before Congress assuming the promises are made in good faith. Dorsey and Zuck stated corporate direction for their companies going forward.

 

[JasperL]

No one needs to accept it. They stated the direction they were taking to satisfy Congress not to take action and for consideration should they chose to do so.

How hard do you think it would be to show bad faith and harm based upon those statements?

Of course they do. Look up 'oral contract' with the Google and see what's required for an enforceable contract. I quoted the basics...... Offer, acceptance, consideration. You need all three to create a contract, oral or written. And the offer needs to be specific enough so that the parties, and any court, can all agree on the exact terms, what's required of the parties. And if "Congress" agrees not to act if Twitter does X then someone has to have the authority to bind Congress, and that person does not exist. Votes of Congress bind congress, not promises of one or 12 or even 50 of 435 members. And Jack of Twitter cannot bind the rest of the internet, only Jack, but the legislation if any would affect all of the internet, and the "internet" would have to agree to the terms Jack did, and no one authorized Jack to bind them in this agreement with "Congress."

I'll quit responding on this because you just don't know what you're talking about, and are asserting things that are provably false with about 1 minute of research. If you believe there was an oral contract created, that's fine. You'd be wrong, but that's OK.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Of course they do. Look up 'oral contract' with the Google and see what's required for an enforceable contract. I quoted the basics...... Offer, acceptance, consideration. You need all three to create a contract, oral or written. And the offer needs to be specific enough so that the parties, and any court, can all agree on the exact terms, what's required of the parties. And if "Congress" agrees not to act if Twitter does X then someone has to have the authority to bind Congress, and that person does not exist. Votes of Congress bind congress, not promises of one or 12 or even 50 of 435 members. And Jack of Twitter cannot bind the rest of the internet, only Jack, but the legislation if any would affect all of the internet, and the "internet" would have to agree to the terms Jack did, and no one authorized Jack to bind them in this agreement with "Congress."

I'll quit responding on this because you just don't know what you're talking about, and are asserting things that are provably false with about 1 minute of research. If you believe there was an oral contract created, that's fine. You'd be wrong, but that's OK.

They made a statement of policy and then ignored the statement and took action of the opposite direction. Its why big tech doesn't want to get before Congress unless they feel their paychecks are on the line, because everything they state they will do becomes an obligation to actually do so.

 

[Amelia]

OC, I did read the sections you highlighted in the transcript, and I didn't see the promises that you claimed were there.

Mark Zuckerberg & Jack Dorsey Testimony Transcript Senate Tech Hearing November 17

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 11/17. Read the transcript here.

www.rev.com

24:38 and 28:32 in particular discuss free expression and free speech that others here are saying they don't have to abide by but they give plenty of lip service to when they want to control the changes or updates to 230.

Then Dorsey at 30:04 and 31:01. Either they will allow free speech or they are lying bastards who openly acted in bad faith.

If promises were made, there would still be much wiggle room in the execution of the promises. Just because you would consider the speech "political" and therefore might expect it to be protected, that wouldn't prevent it from being against reasonable Terms of Service. However, I simply did not see the promises.

I saw two CEO's speaking in general terms of trying to find a good balance between freedom and between the actions that they feel they will still have to take against problematic posters.


Mr. Zuckerberg: (24:38)
Thank you Chairman Graham, ranking member Blumenthal and members of the committee. At last year’s hearing, or last months hearing and I spoke about the role internet platforms play in supporting democracy, keeping people safe and upholding fundamental values like free expression. People have deeply held beliefs about these issues and can reach very different conclusions about the right balance. We try to do what’s best for our community and the world, acknowledging that there are difficult trade-offs. I believe that some of these trade-offs and decisions would be better made through a democratic process and I look forward to discussing that today. But first I want to update you on our efforts during the election. At Facebook, we took our responsibility to protect the integrity of this selection very seriously. In 2016, we began to face new kinds of threats and after years of preparation, we were ready to defend against them.


Mr. Zuckerberg: (28:32)
Now, I believe that the full story is not only how we handle bad behavior on our platforms, but also how we encourage civic engagement more broadly. I’m proud of the work we’ve done to support our democracy and I look forward to discussing this. I also welcome the opportunity to discuss internet regulation. I believe we are well overdue to update the rules for the internet around content, elections, privacy, and data portability. There are important questions here, including who should be responsible for what people say online. For any system to work, I believe there needs to be a transparent process that people feel they can trust. And this will be difficult, especially since our country is so divided, but I believe it’s the only way to address these issues for the longterm. The challenges that we face are deeper than any one platform. They’re about how we want to balance basic social equities that we all care about like free expression, public safety and privacy. This is why I believe we would benefit from clearer guidance from elected officials and I look forward to discussing this today.


(cont.)

 

[Master Debator]

Yes-- Trump will lose the lawsuit.
But Twitter is playing games here and should not be permitted to do so.

Why not? You think their rights should be beholden to how pleased politicians are with their actions? How refreshingly honest in your authoritarianism.

 

[Amelia]

Continued from post 458:

Mr. Dorsey: (30:04)
Well, I think you pointed out that we are facing something that feels impossible. We are required to help increase the health of the public conversation while at the same time, ensuring that as many people as possible can participate. And in order to do so, we need to make policies so that people feel safe and they feel free to express themselves. To minimize threats of abuse, of harassment, of misleading information, of organized campaigns to artificially amplify or influence a particular conversation. And that policy creation, that enforcement is challenging, but also it is more or less opaque to the public. And that’s where I think we have a gap. We have transparency around our policies.


Mr. Dorsey: (31:01)
We do not have transparency around how we operate content moderation, the rationale behind it, the reasoning. And as we look forward, we have more and more of our decisions, of our operations, moving to algorithms, which have a difficult time explaining why they make decisions, bringing transparency around those decisions. And that is why we believe that we should have more choice in how these algorithms are applied to our content, whether we use them at all so we can turn them on or off and have clarity around the outcomes that they are projecting and how they affect our experience.




-----

I do not see any promises which would prevent the action that Twitter took against Trump.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Am still wondering why you'd commit to voting for him again....based on anything but the same. Explain?

I thought Trump was doing a good job. Everything seemed well until the pandemic. I am interested in seeing what develops in 2022 and the mid-elections. If you are interested in a fuller description of my view of things let me know.

As to The Big Lie of election fraud -- I do not know how to resolve this.

 

[JasperL]

FFS I already stated such----commitment to free expression on their platforms in order to be more in line with American ideals of free expression----their own words!

A stated commitment to company direction that was ignored and never intended to followed is acting in bad faith and doing the opposite can show harm.

None of the elements of a contract were met.

They made a statement of policy and then ignored the statement and took action of the opposite direction. Its why big tech doesn't want to get before Congress unless they feel their paychecks are on the line, because everything they state they will do becomes an obligation to actually do so.

Obligation? Or else what? The consequences do not include anyone suing "big tech" for breach of contract!!

Who is "they" and what companies comprise "big tech?"

 

[OpportunityCost]

OC, I did read the sections you highlighted in the transcript, and I didn't see the promises that you claimed were there.






If promises were made, there would still be much wiggle room in the execution of the promises. Just because you would consider the speech "political" and therefore might expect it to be protected, that wouldn't prevent it from being against reasonable Terms of Service. However, I simply did not see the promises.

I saw two CEO's speaking in general terms of trying to find a good balance between freedom and between the actions that they feel they will still have to take against problematic posters.


Mr. Zuckerberg: (24:38)
Thank you Chairman Graham, ranking member Blumenthal and members of the committee. At last year’s hearing, or last months hearing and I spoke about the role internet platforms play in supporting democracy, keeping people safe and upholding fundamental values like free expression. People have deeply held beliefs about these issues and can reach very different conclusions about the right balance. We try to do what’s best for our community and the world, acknowledging that there are difficult trade-offs. I believe that some of these trade-offs and decisions would be better made through a democratic process and I look forward to discussing that today. But first I want to update you on our efforts during the election. At Facebook, we took our responsibility to protect the integrity of this selection very seriously. In 2016, we began to face new kinds of threats and after years of preparation, we were ready to defend against them.


Mr. Zuckerberg: (28:32)
Now, I believe that the full story is not only how we handle bad behavior on our platforms, but also how we encourage civic engagement more broadly. I’m proud of the work we’ve done to support our democracy and I look forward to discussing this. I also welcome the opportunity to discuss internet regulation. I believe we are well overdue to update the rules for the internet around content, elections, privacy, and data portability. There are important questions here, including who should be responsible for what people say online. For any system to work, I believe there needs to be a transparent process that people feel they can trust. And this will be difficult, especially since our country is so divided, but I believe it’s the only way to address these issues for the longterm. The challenges that we face are deeper than any one platform. They’re about how we want to balance basic social equities that we all care about like free expression, public safety and privacy. This is why I believe we would benefit from clearer guidance from elected officials and I look forward to discussing this today.


(cont.)

I spoke about the role internet platforms play in supporting democracy, keeping people safe and upholding fundamental values like free expression.

 

[pamak]

Reforming sec 230 wouldn't be targeting Twitter specifically.

Tell us how the section can be reformed in a way that forces a company to make political associations. Such law will not respect 1A and will not survive legal challenge.

 

[Amelia]

I spoke about the role internet platforms play in supporting democracy, keeping people safe and upholding fundamental values like free expression.

Oh. Well, yes, and you note the "keeping people safe" part.

In my opinion, the measured statements from Zuckerberg and Dorsey stopped far short of implying that all political speech would be allowed.

They spoke of trying to welcome a wide range of views while still maintaining the freedom to deal with problematic behavior.



Trump's behavior was deemed highly problematic. Dorsey clearly retained the option of dealing with what Twitter deemed to be harmful posting.


Trump was not banned for the political nature of his speech. He was banned for speech which was interpreted as encouraging criminal behavior.

 

[BlueTex]

Yes-- Trump will lose the lawsuit.
But Twitter is playing games here and should not be permitted to do so.

Playing games with their first amendment rights. How would you propose we keep them from utilizing those first amendment rights?

 

[BlueTex]

The context is also the statements made before Congress by Zuckerberg and Dorsey. FYI, this is all civil, if you make obligations publicly known then do not follow through, expect to get a tort filed. Its not about breaking a law, its about breaking your word on a publicly made pledge. I'm truly mystified that you don't think FB and Twitter are in any way obligated to follow through on things they state they will do, when not doing so demonstrates bad faith.

LMAO… we got us another Perry Mason folks..

 

[MTAtech]

Congress has already passed laws abridging freedom of speech and press.
A person can cannot be defamed in the press; that person can seek a redress in court for what a publisher chooses to print.

I think you are conflating laws with court rulings. Defamation is decided by torts cases. In many instances the press is immune from defamation.

 

[OpportunityCost]

LMAO… we got us another Perry Mason folks..

Besides baiting and trolling what did you hope to accomplish with that post?

 

[AGENT J]

Besides baiting and trolling what did you hope to accomplish with that post?

It accomplished the fact that you havent supported your argument in factual/legal-based way whatsoever lol
Many of your claims are factually wrong and at best the rest are your meaningless feelings hence why poster after poster has been destroying and exposing them

do you have anything based on facts/legality that is actually relevant?

 

[Athanasius68]

Who in Congress accepted their offer on behalf of the entire Congress? When did Congress vote and give that person the authority to act on behalf of the entire Congress? How exactly do a couple of CEOs for some big social media companies make or accept offers on behalf of tens of thousands of CEOs and owners of other internet companies not present at that hearing? How/when did the rest of the internet authorize Jack and Zuck to act on their behalf?

The idea behind Sec 230 was that Congress agreed that the internet was good for America. That the ability to gather tremendous amounts of information and to learn things was a positive.
They also agreed that treating internet like a publisher could restrict what Americans can do, discover etc.
So that exemption from liability from appears on their sites was carved out.

Obviously, if the sites are busy restricting what Americans can access, they are working against the basis for that exemption under the law

 

[Lursa]

Except they go in front of congress and the entire US and state they are neutral and entirely committed to political speech. So in which part are they lying? Which argument is subjective and which objective?

Its objective to say that Dorsey and Zuck made promises they NEVER intended to keep or they would have altered their ToS.

My goodness, we know, you've written it many times. People have explained their opinions on this to you also, over and over. You choose to continue to believe there was some malice or intent to mislead. Obviously you arent going to believe anyone else but at least you were shown it was not any legal statement.

Again, IMO they had no idea how far it would go...what rational, reasonable person would? Who could ever imagine a POTUS getting down in the gutter so often? Being so petty and nasty...and very spiteful? That was his pattern all along. Then to start and continually reinforce the Big Lie? That's continually distributing false info. That's lying...and it turned dangerous.

So I think their statement to Congress was made in good faith and they really had no idea how bad it would get.

 

[Athanasius68]

Playing games with their first amendment rights. How would you propose we keep them from utilizing those first amendment rights?

They can utilize them however they wish.
They should not however expect the special benefits of the law that sec 230 grants.

 

[OpportunityCost]

My goodness, we know, you've written it many times. People have explained their opinions on this to you also, over and over. You choose to continue to believe there was some malice or intent to mislead. Obviously you arent going to believe anyone else but at least you were shown it was not any legal statement.

Again, IMO they had no idea how far it would go...what rational, reasonable person would? Who could ever imagine a POTUS getting down in the gutter so often? Being so petty and nasty...and very spiteful? That was his pattern all along. Then to start and continually reinforce the Big Lie? That's continually distributing false info. That's lying...and it turned dangerous.

So I think their statement to Congress was made in good faith and they really had no idea how bad it would get.

We know their statement wasn't made in good faith as they never took any action to reflect such. Were there any ToS changes made to infer that freedom of expression would be respected?

 

[Plasmaball]

That statement needs one thing above all others, a mirror.

Nah.