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

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, TopDeadSenter said:

From lannarebirths link above

 

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

 

I believe this is the part where Trump's argument has merit. Now that Twitter is actively "fact checking" Trump's account and letting others(liberals) write whatever garbage they want they have crossed the line. They have weaponized and created an official bias, and thus are now publishers not merely a forum. Kathy Griffin and her death threats to Trump are fine, the President warning about electoral fraud is not. Tough sell. No wonder Twitter stock crashed 5% yesterday.

What's utterly hilarious is the comments supporting the travesty of Jack Dorsey and those owners of Facebook, YouTube and other platforms cherry picking what content gets subjected to some form of censorship or demonetization based on their personal politically biased whims.  Their entire rationalization is that long as it's done to the people they don't like it's acceptable.  In other words, any means to achieve their ends is O.K. with them.

 

Samuel Adams, 1749 - "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

 

What they are arguing for, in essence, is a willingness to corrupt the laws in order to achieve their ends.  At this point they fit Adams' description of "a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

 

I ain't an American but I sure seem to understand the founders of America much better than some of the posters here.

[simple1]

6 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Kathy Griffin and her death threats to Trump 

Griffin apologised and the video was removed from YouTube yet she still receives death threats from trump supporters. Has trump demanded his supporters cease their death threats? So far as I know trump has never apologised for his defamatory & insulting comments against individuals. There is no doubt whatsoever trump is trying to legalise censorship of right of reply to his disinformation and lies contrary to his Oath of Office to defend the Constitution i.e. "Free Speech"

[Sujo]

Wont this result in all of trumps tweets being deleted?

 

Im all for it then.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

This is a huge subject.  On line media platforms should not be arbiters of truth for the opinions their platforms host.  Especially when their "truth" is hopelessly biased and even false.  At that point they become publishers in which case they rightfully lose their protections under Section 230.

 

Your belief that Trump is the cause of and responsible for Wuhan virus deaths in America is about as biased and untruthful an opinion one as one could have.  Laughable . . . and sad to see people so easily duped by their own beliefs.

If you can point to one post of mine that suggests that Trump is the cause of SARS C0V-2 I will surrender my membership to this platform. That his actions have contributed to a marginally higher death toll is not quantifiable but he does feed those ignorants that are not taking responsibility for themselves or others and that is unforgivable IMO.

 

My own belief is that Americans have elected for the past 3 or more decades, leaders that have made the country a laggard in all things for the benefit of a very few. Medicine, education, governance, critical thinking, all in decline in America. My own opinion is that Trump is not better or worse than Biden who would also lead America on that steady downslope. Trump at least is useful in making a change, as long as he doesn't defund whichever agency is charged with protecting us from near Earth astroids, at which point the issue will become moot. 

Can you understand what you read?  "Your belief that Trump is the cause of and responsible for Wuhan virus deaths in America . . ."  Where am I asserting that you believe Trump was the cause of the Chinese Wuhan virus?

 

I think you give too much credit for any demise in any country to the "leaders."  It's the people who elect their leaders (except in dictatorships, of course).  If any given peoples' leaders are stupid and incompetent it is only because the people themselves, as a whole, are stupid and incompetent.

 

As to alluding to the WHO, if they are a corrupt organization then why on earth would you protest their defunding?  Reread my last paragraph above for an explanation.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Can you understand what you read?  "Your belief that Trump is the cause of and responsible for Wuhan virus deaths in America . . ."  Where am I asserting that you believe Trump was the cause of the Chinese Wuhan virus?

 

I think you give too much credit for any demise in any country to the "leaders."  It's the people who elect their leaders (except in dictatorships, of course).  If any given peoples' leaders are stupid and incompetent it is only because the people themselves, as a whole, are stupid and incompetent.

 

As to alluding to the WHO, if they are a corrupt organization then why on earth would you protest their defunding?  Reread my last paragraph above for an explanation.

 

Where did I mention the WHO? Wherever you are on Earth it is too early in the day to start drinking.

[Tippaporn]

19 minutes ago, simple1 said:

<snip>

There is no doubt whatsoever trump is trying to legalise censorship of right of reply to his disinformation and lies contrary to his Oath of Office to defend the Constitution i.e. "Free Speech"

You're showing a lack of understanding as to the law.  Media platforms are either that or publishers.  Once they choose to become publishers rather than platforms they lose their protections of liability as to their content.  You're twisting the entire issue to conform with your own biased beliefs about and hatred for Trump.  Plain and simple.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Where did I mention the WHO? Wherever you are on Earth it is too early in the day to start drinking.

You seemed to be alluding to the WHO in your example of defunding an agency whose responsibility is to avert world destruction from asteroids.  Trump defunded no such organization but he did defund the WHO.  I think my assumption as to your allusion is spot on.  FYI, I don't imbibe at all and I'm located in Thailand.

[charmonman]

So he is now supposedly going to force the social media companies to do the very kind of thing that has made him angry at twitter in the first place; that is to take responsibility as a "publisher" rather than just as a "platform". So they will now be responsible for being the "publisher" of the kind of disinformation he himself likes to spread constantly, discouraging them from "publishing" it in the first place. Have I got that right or not? Polite feedback welcome.

 

Twitter could just simply ban him, something many have been calling on them to do for a few years now. Then what would he do?

[TopDeadSenter]

32 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Griffin apologised and the video was removed from YouTube yet she still receives death threats from trump supporters. Has trump demanded his supporters cease their death threats? So far as I know trump has never apologised for his defamatory & insulting comments against individuals. There is no doubt whatsoever trump is trying to legalise censorship of right of reply to his disinformation and lies contrary to his Oath of Office to defend the Constitution i.e. "Free Speech"

I don't think that is true. She did the severed head thing in 2017 and deleted that. Now she wants to inject Trump with a syringe of air (to kill him). This happened just yesterday. IMO making death threats to a President is worse than a President trying to set the record straight against a barrage of fake and biased news.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/kathy-griffin-donald-trump_uk_5ecf5af6c5b60f293c9505f1?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHQTNP1pWQviN7dpWk91LayVz74h2WsAEvigMKtkCBix6v2W_NNstCMB7pD0YgmUjiUTK60ksTxt8VrojBhSJVDA302Ax5GZmsMfnELY34DWiPvabR4UFHyN_DJ0U8gckSbVVy9cw43krTt1x_1res06hbTHP-T5-Sy_JpRtd2Wx

[charmonman]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You're showing a lack of understanding as to the law.  Media platforms are either that or publishers.  Once they choose to become publishers rather than platforms they lose their protections of liability as to their content.  You're twisting the entire issue to conform with your own biased beliefs about and hatred for Trump.  Plain and simple.

The man who has accused a TV host of murder on twitter, now wants twitter to be liable for publishing his own very likely false accusation agains the man. Like most other things coming out of the whitehouse these days, this is absurd.

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You seemed to be alluding to the WHO in your example of defunding an agency whose responsibility is to avert world destruction from asteroids.  Trump defunded no such organization but he did defund the WHO.  I think my assumption as to your allusion is spot on.  FYI, I don't imbibe at all and I'm located in Thailand.

 

I did not say he defunded it. I said I don't care who wins so long as they don't defund it. For your edification, the agency charged with that is The Center For Near Earth Object Studies, a collaboration between NASA and the JPL.

[charmonman]

40 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What's utterly hilarious is the comments supporting the travesty of Jack Dorsey and those owners of Facebook, YouTube and other platforms cherry picking what content gets subjected to some form of censorship or demonetization based on their personal politically biased whims.  Their entire rationalization is that long as it's done to the people they don't like it's acceptable.  In other words, any means to achieve their ends is O.K. with them.

 

Samuel Adams, 1749 - "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

 

What they are arguing for, in essence, is a willingness to corrupt the laws in order to achieve their ends.  At this point they fit Adams' description of "a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

 

I ain't an American but I sure seem to understand the founders of America much better than some of the posters here.

When has twitter ever censored the weird s&^t that Trump himself spews out on his twitter? I actually agree with what Trump is trying to do the social media companies here. It would force them to take responsibility as the "publisher" of his insane rantings.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Almost every post one reads in this forum is based on little knowledge and is a pavlovian response colored by personal biases. I encourage everyone to actually read Section 230 before commenting.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

I agree it's worthwhile reading the law.  It's also worth noting that the law was written in 1996 with the goal of offering some protection for new internet services.

 

In view of how much the internet and these no-longer new services have expanded, it is worthwhile to consider updating the law.  However the update should not prevent the services from identifying questionable or false information, it should encourage it.

Edited May 29, 2020 by heybruce

[TopDeadSenter]

4 minutes ago, charmonman said:

I actually agree with what Trump is trying to do the social media companies here. It would force them to take responsibility as the "publisher" of his insane rantings.

No it wouldn't. It would give them the choice to let ALL the users have free speech (without inciting violence), and be classed as a forum, or they can keep weaponizing the censorship by only targeting and silencing conservatives in the electoral run-up and thus be classed as a publisher and having to take responsibility for the lopsided content they created. A straightforward concept.

Edited May 29, 2020 by TopDeadSenter

[DoctorG]

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.

[Heppinger]

2 hours ago, Slip said:

The sooner this fragile wannabe king is in prison the better for the world and the good ol' U S of A.

You do realize his replacement, democrat or republican, will not deviate from the course America has been on since ww2

[KarenBravo]

2 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Almost every post one reads in this forum is based on little knowledge and is a pavlovian response colored by personal biases. I encourage everyone to actually read Section 230 before commenting.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Yet, it's just a coincidence that he does this after Twitter slap a couple of fact-checking warnings on his obviously incorrect Tweets?

 

Just king mango the first, throwing his toys out of the pram.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, KarenBravo said:

Yet, it's just a coincidence that he does this after Twitter slap a couple of fact-checking warnings on his obviously incorrect Tweets?

 

Just king mango the first, throwing his toys out of the pram.

 

Right. Hardly worth mentioning. It must be Friday.

[Boon Mee]

Excellent news. This sort of legislation has been way over due. The left censoring speech has grown to extreme levels especially in an election year. 

[lannarebirth]

26 minutes ago, Heppinger said:

You do realize his replacement, democrat or republican, will not deviate from the course America has been on since ww2

 

It's like they don't know that the Democrat led House has signed off on everything he has signed into law. Take a look at the jump in military spending the Democrats backed Trump on.

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Excellent news. This sort of legislation has been way over due. The left censoring speech has grown to extreme levels especially in an election year. 

What censorship are you referring to?

 

What set Trump off was Twitter identifying his unsubstantiated claim about election fraud.  That's not censorship, that's informing the public.

[Heppinger]

3 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It's like they don't know that the Democrat led House has signed off on everything he has signed into law. Take a look at the jump in military spending the Democrats backed Trump on.

Correct. I don't understand how the majority of the people can not see the scam.  The political parasites even joke and mock the American people for not being able to see it,  I guess sport and other circuses are more important then what is said at the dinners the politicians attend. 

[Dumbastheycome]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

In his defense one can say that what has started as a platform of free speech and good intentions has been hijacked by all sorts of people/groups with agendas and nefarious intentions to do harm to people of all kind and all nations, and now it has turned to be grossly misused and misinterpreted of what are the boundaries of said free speech and how to use thees tools for the betterment of man kind rather than use it for everything other that what it was intended for...

Hardly in his defense but I agree otherwise with  your post.

The original principle of protecting the right to free speech was to facilitate truth.

That has been corrupted by  forms of media turning that principle into a method to attract "views" regardless of any substantiated "truth" content.

This  US Code 230 IMO is devoid of anything  similar to "consumer protection" rights against the known dissemination of informational "lies" or as with other "products" false or misleading claims.

If the Providers  of a "platform"  can deny responsibility for community public content without control other than that which they deem necessary for their own purposes then consider the contradiction of that in the case of MegaUpload and Kim.com.

" Truth" has become a dangerous commodity.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Almost every post one reads in this forum is based on little knowledge and is a pavlovian response colored by personal biases. I encourage everyone to actually read Section 230 before commenting.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

The point at issue is not what the current legislation says, it’s Trump’s psychotic response to having his lies challenged.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The point at issue is not what the current legislation says, it’s Trump’s psychotic response to having his lies challenged.

And your reaction to his reaction and my reaction to your reaction to his reaction? Yeah, that's gonna move the needle.

[mrfill]

Looks like someone has been looking up the Schriftleitergesetz (Editor's Law).

[tomazbodner]

That's what happens when you take candy away from the baby...

[wombat]

bring back editors that fact check before publication...free speech where words have consequence instead of free speech where words have no consequence.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

I agree it's worthwhile reading the law.  It's also worth noting that the law was written in 1996 with the goal of offering some protection for new internet services.

 

In view of how much the internet and these no-longer new services have expanded, it is worthwhile to consider updating the law.  However the update should not prevent the services from identifying questionable or false information, it should encourage it.

You either understand the value and importance of free speech or you do not.  If you understand and value it then you would never consider amending the law.

 

As to identifying questionable or false information then you have to consider who the arbiter of truth shall be.  No man was born for that job.  It is up to each individual to be his or her own judge as to what the truth is.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Heppinger said:

You do realize his replacement, democrat or republican, will not deviate from the course America has been on since ww2

That's a fatalistic attitude.  I choose idealism and to work towards that idealism.