Jump to content

Trump considering legislation that may scrap law that protects social media companies


webfact

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

If that were the case you'd be agreeing with him. The Democrats and Republicans only pass laws that Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of and fail to pass the laws that they overwhelmingly desire to be passed. You'd think they were serving a different master than the electorate. And if you did think that way, you'd be right.

 

I'd like to share your fatalistic attitude but I won't.  Things will never change if people don't believe they can.  Yours seems to be a world without hope for improvement.  Not my belief nor my style.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Emdog said:

How about a ratings system similar to film and TV?

And those deciding ratings should be of the sort that run politifact. Washington Post or New York Times should not be involved (I subscribe to NYT, if that matters).

Imperfect? Sure. There should be some way to allow Trump to continue posting unfounded nonsense, but posting of warning (which may be ignored) seems reasonable.

How about letting people figure things out for themselves?  They are capable, you know.  I have no problem.

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

What is setting Trump and his supporters off is that somebody finally stood up to him and called him the liar that he is now Trump and his supporters are behaving like the petulant children that they are. Trump has been shown to lie thousands of times during his presidency. His supporters follow a liar and like to repeat the lies themselves.

 

And you'll vote for Biden?  LOL

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

Read Section 230, moderation of content is permitted by law for a social media provider.  As to the rest of your post, just an echo chamber of trump's efforts to suppress criticism. 

LOL.  You'd make for a poor attorney.

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

So you think a 26 year old law written before the existence of Facebook, Twitter, and much else does not need updating to reflect the world we now live in?  I disagree.  However nothing in the law as I read it prevents Twitter from identifying tweets of dubious accuracy, which is what has Trump outraged.

 

I agree that everyone must decide for themselves what they think is true.  However that doesn't preclude the service that transmits messages from identifying those messages that it considers suspect.

 

Finally, remember that Trump is free to choose what messaging services he uses.  If he doesn't like Twitter, he doesn't have to use it.

Censorship in whatever form does not work.  The founding fathers understood that point well enough to incorporate freedom of speech into the Constitution.  People have forgotten what the founding fathers knew and now that the subject reemerges people put very little thought into it.  They're mostly driven by emotion, which makes for a very poor decision maker.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

One last time for those at the back of the room and for the hard of hearing; THIS IS NOT CENSORSHIP.  

Trump is free to post whatever drivel he wants but from now on Twitter is putting a little sign at the bottom of his rantings saying things like  'Get the facts about mail-in ballots'.

He is still free to post. He has not been supressed, he has not be prohibited from posting. 

 

Of the approx. 1000 proven instances of voter fraud out of a total voter turnout of some 138 million people who voted in 2016 (https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/post-election-2016/voter-turnout) you get to a whopping 0.0006%. In other words it's a non-issue but one that Trump and the GOP are keen to flog as it does not bode well for either him nor the GOP if there is a large voter turnout. The GOP have benefitted for years through gerrymandering, voter suppression and no/limited mail-in voting so the idea of this happening (and it looks more likely in the midst of a pandemic) fills them with absolute dread and is why Trump is punting this stance whilst also providing no evidence to back his claim. This is why it was rightly fact checked and flagged 'unsubstantiated'.

The background of checkers is irrelavant as it's seldom just one person and well, a facts, a fact is a fact despite what Trump and his fans will try and make you beleive.

 

And getting back to the main point, Trump hasn't been censored, he's been flagged for 'unsubstantiated' claims. He is still free to post on his media outlet of choice (including Twitter), he just can't keep spreading false information like he has done for many, many years without getting called out on it. This has got to be a step in the right direction.   

The statement I made to censorship was not in reference to Trump being fact checked.  LOL  It's astounding how many people can't understand what they read.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:
Twitter CEO Responds to Trump: "We’ll Continue to Point Out Incorrect or Disputed Information About Elections"

Dorsey is pushing his luck.  I doubt it ends well for him.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I'd like to share your fatalistic attitude but I won't.  Things will never change if people don't believe they can.  Yours seems to be a world without hope for improvement.  Not my belief nor my style.

Oh, I think things will get better, but more selfish old people will need to die first IMO.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"Censorship in whatever form does not work."

 

Spell it out for us:  Are you claiming that terrorist recruitment videos, child pornography, illegal scams, and outright lies should not be censored or even identified for what they are?

Freedom of speech with consequences for the words you use. 

Therefore subversion, pornography, lies etc. would be not only censored but prosecuted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, DoctorG said:

It is really simple. They are being forced to choose between being a publisher or a platform. They have been fortunate to be able to get away with being a publisher but hanging on to the immunity of pretending to be a platform. This really is not all that difficult to understand.

Why not just simply put the responsibility/culpability right back to the user(s) who post lies and rubbish?

 

If every user had to be verified with I.D, and actually held personally responsible for their own comments, all the rubbish would end tomorrow.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

if  truth is false does it them mean that lies are true? ????

 

 It's incredible how trump supporters suddenly became familiar with "Section 230"  of the Communications Decency Act . of course I know that they are all legal scholars that spend most of their day studying such mundane subjects, but a more suspicious than me person might thing that they are parroting Fox news entertainment shows. 

 So I invite such legal  scholars to enlighten me on the following. Does it then mean that TVF's moderation of posts make them publishers and as such should be legally responsible for everything Tippaporn  posts.?  Please be polite answering or i will be calling my lawyer. 

 Another question. If then Twitter is  a publisher ,  and legally responsible for their content, would they not then have the right, to remove inaccurate twits by trump? or be held liable for publishing falsehoods. 

 

Truth can be made to be lies and lies can be made to be truth.  That is self evident.

 

I've been aware of Section 230 for a long time.  In my view it was only a matter of time before the social media platforms crossed the line.  The law is the law.  Trying to argue that it says differently than it does is not only futile but foolish.  And the law has nothing to do with Fox News.  Fox News may be reporting on the law though.  To suggest that Fox News, by reporting on the law, is somehow creating the law on it's own is either a twisted rationale or simply dishonest.  It can be both, too.

 

TVF operates in Thailand where the laws on free speech are different from those in the U.S.  You can't compare apples to oranges and use it as a logical argument.

 

If Twitter becomes a publisher then they have every right to refuse any or all of Trump's tweets.  Even as an on-line platform they have every right to ban Trump and remove his account for any reason they choose.  They don't even have to be fair in the application of their rules.  That choice might give them other nonlegal problems though.  The market would find a solution.

 

Edited by Tippaporn
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Yesterday I did put him on ignore but will answer your point. Yes it is amazing how each day goes by having to come up with todays reason to support his everyday BS from this man

Though you won't be reading this, thank you.  People are free to use the site's ignore function but in my opinion by doing so they are merely admitting that they can't handle what another person says so they just shut them out rather than debate them.  Isn't that the entire point of this thread?  Libs can't handle Trump's tweets so they simply want to either shut him out entirely or "fact check" him as a way of giving themselves the final word on an issue he reaises . . . no debate required any longer?  Not a workable solution but you're free to try it.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, pookondee said:

Why not just simply put the responsibility/culpability right back to the user(s) who post lies and rubbish?

 

If every user had to be verified with I.D, and actually held personally responsible for their own comments, all the rubbish would end tomorrow.

 

If a site allows lies to be posted, and they are deemed to be a publisher, then they too are liable. eg. A NYT reporter writes something libelous, the offended person can sue both the reporter and the paper.

As to your second point, social media would disappear if we could not write rubbish anonymously ????

Edited by DoctorG
spelling error
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Oh, I think things will get better, but more selfish old people will need to die first IMO.

LOL.  That's not the solution to the problem because selfish old people aren't the real problem.  The problems you speak of, in my opinion, have their true origins elsewhere.  It's a question of being able to identify the true origins.  If not then solutions will be attempted to "fix" that which is not "wrong."  To your chagrin not only will the problem still be there but a false solution will only exacerbate the original problem for in fixing something that is not wrong you will have only broken something that was perfectly right.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

"Censorship in whatever form does not work."

 

Spell it out for us:  Are you claiming that terrorist recruitment videos, child pornography, illegal scams, and outright lies should not be censored or even identified for what they are?

Here's a fact no one can deny.  From the most noble acts man is capable of to the most vilest all is allowed in this world.  Why?  That's a short answer to your question.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, simple1 said:

  

51 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's true.  Nothing will ever move you from biased opinion to actual truth.  As I said before, the truth can be made a lie and a lie can be made the truth.  And some people have the most difficult time distinguishing between the two.  In my opinion, mainly because they're blind to their own bias.

Obviously you're talking about trump and his followers, so thanks for finally acknowledging some facts - it's a beginning...

Obviously I'm talking about you and the rest of the libs here.  Don't try and spin my answer.  LOL

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2020 at 5:45 AM, Gumballl said:

I could care less if he goes to prison. I just want his name erased from all history books.

I think his name should forever be in the history books together with the likes of Nixon and Bush to show those half interested future generations just exactly what is wrong with American Republicans!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

I think his name should forever be in the history books together with the likes of Nixon and Bush to show those half interested future generations just exactly what is wrong with American Republicans!

Why would you want to elevate this failed reality star / businessman to the same stature as real politicians !

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Obviously I'm talking about you and the rest of the libs here.  Don't try and spin my answer.  LOL

No. Don't even TRY to say Trump isn't the biggest liar of all presidents, and his followers give him a pass. EVERYONE knows it - even Twitter. ESPECIALLY Twitter!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...