Trump signs social media executive order

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I fail to see the point.

I see this as a huuuge win for Trump .

With this executive order he’s gained the approval of a very large percentage of anyone right or left that has been banned on social media .

We all know people that have been banned and hold it in their gut . The helplessness and resentment the feel can make many snap . Mainly because whoever bans you is unreachable and doesn’t care what you have to say .

With the stroke of a pen Trump just brought the majority of them under his wing .

Trolls love him anyway because he is their king . 😈

a reply to: Fallingdown

Can you say... 'landslide'?


Now I want to see him take on all insurance companies and debt collectors.


Imagine if he took on property taxes....


Just wow! He could win multiple terms after that.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I posted as a member, not on behalf of anyone but me.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: trollz

The order may alter Section 230, which protects them from litigation.

I fail to see the point. If Twitter becomes liable for the content of 3rd party posts, they're going to censure even more. They're going to have censure President Trump, if they could be held liable for his tweets.

Sounds like a good way to put Twitter out of business or at least loss market share... maybe thats the point?

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

But, ATS is a private business, and they have a right to have human moderators, who are offended by one post, but not another.. and not get sued for it.

Why shouldn't they? I mean, I like ATS but at the same time, I don't believe that censorship should be able to be applied to ANYTHING in the USA. Our laws should trump (no pun) any rules mandated by internet entities. Free speech SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON. Unless it deals with the issues that are not protected under free speech like slander.

If I slander you here, you can sue me. The US laws apply.

If I say mohammed is a P.O.S. You can't do anything to me. The US laws apply.

The exact same should be true about free speech.

So no.. I'm not being hypocritical. This is my stance and always has been. You can go back to one of my first responses or posts around the time I joined and you'll get the same argument from me.

I say more so of Twitter and all big media because their potential for damage is vast! Companies like this, this size and the amount of power they wield is far mightier than the sword and I'm quite certain in some cases, could start a war anywhere in the world.

So what you're saying is, you are obliged to let me use your house to exercise my right to free speech, otherwise it would be an infringement of my rights? Despite the fact that I can go anywhere else?

When you post your "free speech" on social media it goes into persistent storage. That # costs money. When millions of people are committing to your persistent storage, that # starts to cost a lot of money. Throw in a highly available infrastructure, the maintenance on the software, improving the software and you're now talking about insane costs. Why do you think you're entitled to have someone else cover all of those costs just so you can exercise your rights?

If so, where does it end? I have a right to pursue happiness, a McClaren P1 would make me very happy right now. Should McClaren also foot the bill in order to avoid infringing on my right to happiness?

like they saiy, can't beat'em, COntROL tHEm!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neutronflux

So can you file a lawsuit or not?

There is no law stopping me from launching a lawsuit I have no chance in hell of winning.

The argument is why Twitter doesn’t fall under the same limits of the law as normal publishers. That is because they are supposedly neutral.

Do you have evidence that ATS is unfairly applying their rules to you. Hence why you don’t have grounds for a lawsuit.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Did you ever think about electric companies ? They hold all the *power . (*pun not intended)

When you call they couldn’t give two #s what do you have to say just send the money .

If you don’t do everything they say on their schedule they banned you . ( Cut the power off )

If Trump could introduce legislation to make the electric company be flexible with their payment schedules. Everybody from the lower middle class down would be ecstatic .

a reply to: StallionDuck

You're denying service. Your words are the service they are providing you. They're providing you a podium, a place to speak to any and all. When they take that away based on who you follow, it's the same thing as my boss firing me because I think Trump is doing a great job.

There are social media website that will not let you post pro-Trump rhetoric. These are dedicated Democratic sites. There are social media website that will not let you post pro-Trump rhetoric because they are knitting circle social media. You don't have a right to participate in any social media forum. You are always there as a guest of the host, and must agree to and respect the terms and conditions of that site.

Once you post on ATS, ATS become the owner of that post. Past the editing window, it is no longer yours. They choose whether or not that post stands or gets removed, gets quoted...

Lol.
Imagine president Camacho responding this quickly to Coronavirus or let's say corruption and everything else he was elected to do.

How some of you still can support this clown is beyond me.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

I identify as a rich person, please send me money.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I posted as a member, not on behalf of anyone but me.

And my post addressed you as member, posting as a 3rd party, who just happens to understand the irony of calling ATS a publisher because of admin notes. Nothing personal. But ATS is a microcosm of the issue that Trump's EO invokes.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

So let me twist it up a bit like you did.


So when a business spends billions of dollars so you can enjoy yourself, they should be immune to all laws governing the country in which they reside?

I guess if it's good enough for politicians, it's good enough for zucker-nerd.

a reply to: neutronflux

Hence why you don’t have grounds for a lawsuit.

I don't have grounds because ATS has the right to censor my speech as they see fit, regardless of my personal perception. I agreed to the T&Cs when I signed up.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

So let me twist it up a bit like you did.


So when a business spends billions of dollars so you can enjoy yourself, they should be immune to all laws governing the country in which they reside?

I guess if it's good enough for politicians, it's good enough for zucker-nerd.

Nope. Now go ahead a cite a law where anyone is entitled to use someone else's #.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

So let me twist it up a bit like you did.


So when a business spends billions of dollars so you can enjoy yourself, they should be immune to all laws governing the country in which they reside?

I guess if it's good enough for politicians, it's good enough for zucker-nerd.

Twitter is a private forum, not a public one. Every discussion about free speech on social media ends there.

a reply to: Fallingdown

No doubt!

I've already got beef with those bas-tards. I use maybe 50$ worth of electricity in my apt. They charge me for the 50 which is cool. Then they charge me for upkeep on the lines. They ALSO charge me for sending that electricity to me. Final bill... $164

WTF

And this is a customer owned company - supposedly.



I'm nowhere near socialist but I think some 'necessities' should be free, governed by lawmakers or down right zero profit companies. Electric companies should not be made private when you only have 1 option available.

Furthermore... No electric company should be able to charge me for usage or tax me when I'm 100% on solar. They should be able to dictate the money that they are losing to tax me so they don't go under. Sign of the times, right?

Don't get me started. I loathe to the 9 hells - this idiotic bureaucracy and lobbyist that plagues this country.


Man... They wouldn't want me to be president. I'd lock them all up.... If you can shut down a hospital or an apartment for terrible conditions... You should be able to do it to government too.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neutronflux

Hence why you don’t have grounds for a lawsuit.

I don't have grounds because ATS has the right to censor my speech as they see fit, regardless of my personal perception. I agreed to the T&Cs when I signed up.

So they can censor you solely because you might be a women?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
ATS has a HOAX bin they dump lies and falsehood in. What standard do you hold ATS staff and mods to?

Why are you trying to make this about ATS?

Red Herring much? If you don't like it here you know what to do.
Plus apples to oranges.

The simple fact is Twitter has no proof to offer in it's
so called "fact checking". This will all come out in the wash,
as I am sure this is not going to be the end of the story.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
At first, I was angry at Trump, until I read the actual EO.

It's not removing Section 230 protections. It's more tightly defining them to better reflect modern reality.

The Executive Order

The idea here is that when social media decides to comment on peoples posts, they then become authors rather than hosts. It will have no impact at all on the opinions of people posting. It will only hold the company responsible for their own speech.

As always Blaine, you're a refreshing cup of education and netiquette, thanks for the clarity in your post.

As for the rest of ATS, I called it back a couple days ago, during a back in forth with Gryphon on the possibility that this may result in a change to section 230 via Executive order.

As usual, in typical partisan fashion, users either reacted to buzzwords or partisan bias through misinterpretation of what actually happened.

People, section 230 was a bipartisan issue that was to eventually come full circle as a result of social media censorship, it's ironic that Twitter would be the one to force Trumps hand in its attempt at testing the waters, I say that because they didn't remove the tweet or any of his tweets, that would have been way worse, rather, fact check it with biased sources like CNN, nevermind the fact that the twitter guy who runs that "fact check" is an absolute leftist loon as the Dailycaller has found out, so yeah.