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

[Lursa]

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?

Before or after they banned The Donald? Altho as written, I believe they were well within the original one when they banned him. It's been posted here and even you agreed it's subjective.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Before or after they banned The Donald? Altho as written, I believe they were well within the original one when they banned him. It's been posted here and even you agreed it's subjective.

Subjective isn't factual in nature its based in bias and feelings on the matter at hand. I mean objective is what you shoot for, fact based.

 

[Lursa]

I don’t use Twitter or FB but here in Latin America WhatsApp is used by everyone. It is not really social media. They can string me to a palm tree and put army ants on me before I sub to FB or Twitter.

I read the NYTs for the general semi-Maoist “American struggle-session’ outline of what the hysterical lunatic NY intellectual establishment is concocting. I’ve only been paying attention to the Times for 7 years now. It has transformed itself into a semi-revolutionary organ of The New America.

Many many content-creators I subbed to on YouTube were banned in The Purges. I could be described as being a beneficiary of YT’s old algorithm system!

One of the best things YouTube did for me is bring Jonathan Bowden to my attention — and then The European New Right.

I still use YouTube as a research tool (it is amazing to be able to see old debates, news programs, and contemporary reports about events well before my birth). And it really helped me to understand the Culture Wars in America.

Thank you

All I would say is that Twitter is a communication tool for Donald Trump and many others. Apparently it is important to him and his many followers.

That's a damn shame then, he shouldnt have abuse the privilege of posting on it. He ended up being treated like the tantrum-throwing, spiteful toddler he is.

 

[Athanasius68]

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.

It isn't a question of forcing a company to make a political Association.
It's a question of qualifying for a government benefit.

Right now, a company has an exemption from being liable for what appears on their site.

And this is because the law is written in that fashion that let's then determine eligibility based upon, among others, "community" standards.
That's how they qualify for the exemption.

Change that piece of the law-- make it 'illegal' acts or some such similar verbage.
Then if Twitter et. al. can decide if they want to qualify for the benefit of not.

 

[reflechissez]

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.

Good grief. Your posts are getting sillier and sillier.

 

[Athanasius68]

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

Actually, right now they operate under an exemption specifically crafted by politicians.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Good grief. Your posts are getting sillier and sillier.

Good grief you contributed ****ing nothing....again.

 

[reflechissez]

Did you read the testimony at all? They pledged to be committed to free expression while stating they expected to have input into changes to section 230. Please tell me where you don't understand/

And they kept their word. You just don't agree. How many more times do you have to tell us?

 

[tres borrachos]

This idiot is still whining and carrying on that he got banned from Twitter?

@Mycroft I thought you told us he didn't care at all. Did you lie?

 

[Lursa]

Subjective isn't factual in nature its based in bias and feelings on the matter at hand. I mean objective is what you shoot for, fact based.

Yes I know the meaning of the word. And I read the TOS and felt that they ruled on it correctly. There can still be shaded areas...why do you think we have lawyers and judges if everything is black and white?

Factually, I see the decision compliant with the TOS. If you dont, that's subjective. I read the same thing...and believe differently than you. Subjective.

 

[reflechissez]

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?

Well, when you put it that way....

 

[reflechissez]

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.

More opinion.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes I know the meaning of the word. And I read the TOS and felt that they ruled on it correctly. There can still be shaded areas...why do you think we have lawyers and judges if everything is black and white?

Factually, I see the decision compliant with the TOS. If you dont, that's subjective. I read the same thing...and believe differently than you. Subjective.

Subjective is opinion based. Here we have pages and pages and pages of people saying its cut and dried---cut and dried isn't subjective. Admitting to decisions rooted in bias? You think that is a good look?

 

[OpportunityCost]

More opinion.

Yay, no contributions----again. Please do something to spur discussion in a meaningful way.

 

[reflechissez]

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.

More opinion.

 

[Mycroft]

This idiot is still whining and carrying on that he got banned from Twitter?

@Mycroft I thought you told us he didn't care at all. Did you lie?

I never lie.

And what makes you think he cares? I think this is a tactic that the time has come to use.

 

[MrWonka]

Trump is arguing his case on first amendment grounds.

But, if that is his argument, then Twitter's first amendment rights would dictate they have a right to exclude him for TOS violations. Or is that a commerce argument?

Yep, basically what Trump and Republicans are arguing for is to have the U.S. Government take away Twitter's right to free speech.

 

[reflechissez]

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.

You can keep repeating this. Opportunity Cost will just continue to argue that trump was banned because he's a republican, totally ignoring the amount of right-wing crap that is all over FB, Twitter, etc.

 

[tres borrachos]

I never lie.

And what makes you think he cares? I think this is a tactic that the time has come to use.

So you lied when you said he didn't care. Obviously. Since he's still whining about it months later.

 

[reflechissez]

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

 

[ClaraD]

I understand all that.

so, then you realize you have no argument based on constitutional grounds...Trump is going to lose....I hope eventually someone slaps him hard financially for trying to bring all these frivolous suits.

 

[Master Debator]

Actually, right now they operate under an exemption specifically crafted by politicians.

All laws, regulations, and exceptions are ostensibly, crafted by politicians. It's sort of the defining feature of representative government. What I haven't seen you do yet is present any reason businesses such as Twittter shouldn't have this exception other than as apparent political retaliation by asshurt politicians. Now maybe you just aren't bright enough to realize that you were arguing on behalf of literal political correctness or maybe that is absolutely what you were advocating for, I am curious which one it is.

 

[MrWonka]

I never lie.

So you just can't tell the difference?

 

[Amelia]

Subjective is opinion based. Here we have pages and pages and pages of people saying its cut and dried---cut and dried isn't subjective. Admitting to decisions rooted in bias? You think that is a good look?

Cut and dried is not required.

Most of life is not cut and dried.

Judgment calls have to be made.

That is life.

It is legal. It is necessary. It simply is the way things are.

 

[reflechissez]

Good grief you contributed ****ing nothing....again.

Why do you think saying "nuh uh" in response to numerous posters who have articulated why your opinon is bunk represents "something?" Your "argument" is so laughingly weak. But, somehow, you think your posts are a contribution. Think again.