Tweet
Gab backed up Trump's entire Twitter account and has it available for reference. 
-
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh -
As I said, Trump has alternatives...
And you still haven't come with what laws that Twitter and others are breaking by removing Trumps accounts for violating their site policies... You claimed they were doing something illegal, but you haven't said what that is. Gee, I wonder why.
Keep on Civin'
RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
They can't try to keep people from criticizing them or the government and say that they have alternatives. They can't do that at all.Originally posted by Ming View PostAs I said, Trump has alternatives...
And you still haven't come with what laws that Twitter and others are breaking by removing Trumps accounts for violating their site policies... You claimed they were doing something illegal, but you haven't said what that is. Gee, I wonder why.
"Facebook and Twitter banned President Trump and numerous supporters after last week’s disgraceful Capitol riot, and Google, Apple and Amazon blocked Twitter alternative Parler—all based on claims of “incitement to violence” and “hate speech.” Silicon Valley titans cite their ever-changing “terms of service,” but their selective enforcement suggests political motives.
Conventional wisdom holds that technology companies are free to regulate content because they are private, and the First Amendment protects only against government censorship. That view is wrong: Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.
It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so.
The justices have long held that the provision of such immunity can turn private action into state action. In Railway Employees’ Department v. Hanson (1956), they found state action in private union-employer closed-shop agreements—which force all employees to join the union—because Congress had passed a statute immunizing such agreements from liability under state law. In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association(1989), the court again found state action in private-party conduct—drug tests for company employees—because federal regulations immunized railroads from liability if they conducted those tests. In both cases, as with Section 230, the federal government didn’t mandate anything; it merely pre-empted state law, protecting certain private parties from lawsuits if they engaged in the conduct Congress was promoting.
Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored. In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very"
You need a subscription to view the rest.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Sounds more like a lot of Legal Opinions to me... but actual law/fact?
If they are breaking the law, why isn't the government demanding they reinstate the accounts, or taking to them court, or arresting them... Gee, I wonder why not.
These companies are within their rights to do as they have so done.Keep on Civin'
RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
Originally posted by Ming View Post Big Tech *is* de facto government. I can't help you Ming. It doesn't register.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Look, 230 has been an issue for over 20 years. It was installed to help promote the growth of the Internet by promoting free speech and diverse viewpoints. The fear was that innovation and expansion would be thwarted if the platform itself was liable. If, say, Twitter could be sued for damages caused by someone who shoots up a pizzeria in DC when motivated by hateful QAnon posts, it's pretty hard to think of that as Twitter's fault. Clearly, the poster and the shooter were the guilty parties. But if Twitter could be sued as part of that, it would have pushed social media into an early grave. Hell, in '96, people carried beepers, texting was nearly nonexistent, and most companies were just thinking about maybe starting a website. "High speed internet" could not handle live-motion video. We didn't have social media; we had internet forums.
Section 230 was all about jobs, the economy, and innovation. It was designed to make sure that tech companies could survive and thrive, even if their customers were Commie Civ players.
Looking at the letter/inquiry from Trump's DOJ on the topic, their very clear goal is to enable government-directed censorship of free speech by declaring its enemies as terrorists. Good for shutting down ISIS; not so good if that kind of power is abused to abridge constitutional rights.
It's clear that what Trump really wants is the right to sue big tech companies for the content their users post. Because after 1/20, he's a private citizen, and he loves nothing more than to sic his lawyers on anyone who has wronged him. With 45, the only question you need to ask about his position on ANY topic is: "What's in it for him?"
That's not to say he doesn't have a point. I have long felt that Section 230 should be looked at with fresh eyes. But it should not be thrown out entirely; the underlying question still needs to be addressed.
Obviously, we live in a different world than the one we had in 1996. What's needed is clear-eyed examination and working toward a compromise that will control the evil without censoring free speech. It's a tough job - one that Trump, quite frankly, has neither the intellect nor the work ethic to do properly.Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-ArmsComment
-
Let me apologize in advance for attempting to have a reasonable discussion and debate relating to a Poly thread's main topic area.Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-ArmsComment
-
Some light regulation might be a good start. Ensure that platforms have policies to reasonably respond to unlawful content (as defined by law) or inappropriate content (as defined by the industry), and to ensure those policies are implemented fairly and consistently across the user base. Complaints can be submitted to the regulator, and injunctive relief sought if upheld.
Probably need some size limitations, such as number of active users or revenues or somesuch.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
We need to stop them from determining the outcome of elections and punishing minority groups. Big Tech is a menace.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Of course they are hypocrites.
"
Twitter condemns Uganda for blocking social media apps and censoring internet before key election
By Andrew Mark Miller
January 12, 2021 - 3:55 PM
Skip Ad
Subscribe to get the latest Examiner videos
Twitter is openly condemning internet service providers blocking social media apps in the run-up to an election in Uganda as it takes criticism for alleged censorship on its own platform.
“Ahead of the Ugandan election, we're hearing reports that Internet service providers are being ordered to block social media and messaging apps,” the social media giant posted in a statement on Tuesday.
“We strongly condemn internet shutdowns – they are hugely harmful, violate basic human rights and the principles of the #OpenInternet,” the statement continued.
The company argued that “access to information and freedom of expression, including the public conversation on Twitter, is never more important than during democratic processes, particularly elections.”
....I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Deplatforming Trump was/is the right move after he incited violence against another branch of gov. Fortunately companies are not required to support terrorism, foreign or domestic. Also fun to see how "Brand Trump" goes downhill now, but that's just a sideeffect. Main thing is to limit his ways to incite others.BlahComment
-
By claiming that the election was stolen? You know that makes no sense. You just keep repeating your stupid opinion.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Ppl posting their own opinion on the internet??! Outrageous.
At least we have free speech heroes like you who mostly repeat Trump's opinion
BlahComment
-
More hypocrisy.Originally posted by BeBro View PostPpl posting their own opinion on the internet??! Outrageous.
At least we have free speech heroes like you who mostly repeat Trump's opinionI drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Big Tech gets power in the government by working for the government.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
Comment