It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Threatens "Big Action" Against Twitter After 'Fact-Check', Political Bias Exposed

page: 12
43
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2020 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Depends on your gubbermint, I'd guess. I think we should hand out the World Presidency to South Korea, they handled this like absolute pros with quick support for everyone. I'm done with most of Germany as well. Hey, at least the car producers got their handouts and opened shops first to rip off more Krauts ASAP, right? Pathetic.




posted on May, 29 2020 @ 10:15 AM
link   
What ever happened to Net Neutrality ? ⭕



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: DBCowboy




ATS doesn’t ban based on ideology so your comparison sucks.


But they do CENSURE.

And no one is talking about a ban. It's a fact check.

The Holy Water to the Republican party's falsifications.


They censure but not with a lady justice mindset but a partisan hack mindset. NEXT!



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7

originally posted by: briantaylor
He's literally saying he's gonna end free speech in order to protect free speech.
Baby idiot...



Trump isn't the only one coming after free speech. Check out these guys.
link

Pretty creepy times.


They break the rules of being a legal platform and got called out on it?

DJT isnt after free speech he is after the biased CENCORSHIP that is politically charged pretending to be a "FAIR" opportunity for free speech. Nothing fair about those rules they use, shadow banning tweets or review just who can get away with what violation and still not be banned. Farakhan can call Jews vicious names, even call for murder and he never gets banned. Rules are not applied in a fair manner if "fact checking" is being used. That is not like a "Platform" is required to do.



edit on 29-5-2020 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Michigan72
Twitter has a right to freedom of expression. They should be able censor whatever they want for any reason they want. They have the right to have biases.

Nobody is forcing Trump to use twitter. He could move to any number of platforms. Or even host his own. Nobody has a right to a specific platform.


Ok all that happens is they NOW have the right to be sued for slander by you when they could not be before when they were considered a "Platform". Now they are officially Publisher and editor that platforms can't legally allow and be free of lawsuits for slander.



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 04:30 PM
link   
This will be cut and dried.

Do you edit the content in any way yes or no?


YES, then you are an Editor and subject to Publishing laws

NO, then you are a platform that allows independent free speech unhindered and my not be sued for comments made by members in good standing.

This is about the rules being stretched to the edge of the reason, a platform for free speech, being edited.

Terms of agreements should be across the board and blind to political party, religious affiliation, and the race of the member or it is Publishing. Therefore not platform hosting the site would be performing if it was true to the concept.


originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: 727Sky

I am no scholar, but I'll be interested in what the Supremes say about this.



Their last ruling was that social media is definitively private, and not subject to the 1st.

This will most likely pit Trump directly against Kavanaugh, ironically enough.

edit on 29-5-2020 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

First time dealing with US legal system?

No such thing as cut & dried. Always a lot of issues.



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: Justoneman

First time dealing with US legal system?

No such thing as cut & dried. Always a lot of issues.


No but i can read.

It clearly is about if they choose to edit or not. That is easily discerned.

Cut and dried when they shadow ban and when they give Farakhan a break but James Woods gets edited out.
edit on 29-5-2020 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: merka



" Which doesnt really matter "


Yo Dude , LIFE is Not a Metallica Song , this Sheit is REAL . Eff with My First Amendment Rights ? Somebody is Gonna Get Hurt ! It's All the " Common Man " has Left these Days ............




Wheres my Cane Martha ? Get me my Gun too while your at it Good Women !...............)
edit on 29-5-2020 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




Ok all that happens is they NOW have the right to be sued for slander by you when they could not be before when they were considered a "Platform". Now they are officially Publisher and editor that platforms can't legally allow and be free of lawsuits for slander.


That's not true. All this executive order does is ask the relevant federal government office to look into reevaluating the meaning of FCC Section 203, which allows social media companies to enforce their Terms and Conditions "in good faith". Trump alleges in his EO that because he asserts they are not enforcing their rules in good faith, they should be disqualified from the legal protection the section provides.



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Justoneman




Ok all that happens is they NOW have the right to be sued for slander by you when they could not be before when they were considered a "Platform". Now they are officially Publisher and editor that platforms can't legally allow and be free of lawsuits for slander.


That's not true. All this executive order does is ask the relevant federal government office to look into reevaluating the meaning of FCC Section 203, which allows social media companies to enforce their Terms and Conditions "in good faith". Trump alleges in his EO that because he asserts they are not enforcing their rules in good faith, they should be disqualified from the legal protection the section provides.




Geez , you Think to Much Bro , Maybe " Forget " about Politics here for a Minute and just Try and Chill to some Insightful Tunes . ?






edit on 29-5-2020 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: CraftyArrow

And its possible on ATS to violate rules and have your post or account removed from the platform.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
This will be cut and dried.

Do you edit the content in any way yes or no?


YES, then you are an Editor and subject to Publishing laws

NO, then you are a platform that allows independent free speech unhindered and my not be sued for comments made by members in good standing.

This is about the rules being stretched to the edge of the reason, a platform for free speech, being edited.

Except... service providers have to edit content to follow the law. The perfect example would be Youtube DMCA blocking videos to keep their safe harbor provision. Does that fact make Youtube a publisher?

Still cut and dry?
edit on 30-5-2020 by merka because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ElGoobero
gummint to SO to back off.
they went from 90 to 64 percent
not enough. gummint stepped in to really break it up.


The government's action were unnecessary, like most government actions, as the free market was eroding Standard Oil's market share with innovation and better service.

Only tools want the government involved in the free market.


yes so POTUS 45 just made it where the gov protection of those no longer Platforms seems right up a Libertarian alley!

They can fend for themselves now. Let the shadowbanning end. If it is bad for one person to do it is bad for all, or no one. Free market says they fend for themselves. I am cool with the protections ending now.




edit on 30-5-2020 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
yes so POTUS 45 just made it where the gov protection of those no longer Platforms seems right up a Libertarian alley!


What it actually does is opens the door for frivolous lawsuits. It's the equivalent of letting someone sue me because I can't erase all the magic marker in the bathroom stalls that say, 'Xxxx's mother is a whore', fast enough.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's a bad analogy, because it's not magic markers lol... it's political abuse.

I can't wait to see Twatter get it's pants sued off.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Justoneman
yes so POTUS 45 just made it where the gov protection of those no longer Platforms seems right up a Libertarian alley!


What it actually does is opens the door for frivolous lawsuits. It's the equivalent of letting someone sue me because I can't erase all the magic marker in the bathroom stalls that say, 'Xxxx's mother is a whore', fast enough.


ONLY when they let one get away with something others don't will there be any need for concern. The News all operate with this everyday. No big deal if you are honest. I have nothing against honest.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: merka

originally posted by: Justoneman
This will be cut and dried.

Do you edit the content in any way yes or no?


YES, then you are an Editor and subject to Publishing laws

NO, then you are a platform that allows independent free speech unhindered and my not be sued for comments made by members in good standing.

This is about the rules being stretched to the edge of the reason, a platform for free speech, being edited.

Except... service providers have to edit content to follow the law. The perfect example would be Youtube DMCA blocking videos to keep their safe harbor provision. Does that fact make Youtube a publisher?

Still cut and dry?


They don't get to have it both ways, so yes it is cut and dried.
edit on 30-5-2020 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: CraftyArrow
That's a bad analogy, because it's not magic markers lol... it's political abuse.


No, it's just butthurt. Don't like the platform, don't use it.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
ONLY when they let one get away with something others don't will there be any need for concern.


The government getting involved is the concern, people applauding government intervention need their heads checked.




top topics



 
43
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join