Trump has late night Twitter meltdown and moves to censor free speech on the Internet

This is your President ladies and gentlemen.

Donald Trump has angrily declared Twitter a national security threat after #DiaperDon went viral following a news conference in which he repeatedly complained about perceived injustices. “Twitter is sending out totally false ‘Trends’ that have absolutely nothing to do with what is really trending in the world. They make it up, and only negative ‘stuff’,” the US president tweeted without providing evidence in the early hours of Friday morning.

“For purposes of National Security, Section 230 must be immediately terminated!!!” Mr Trump added, in reference to part of a 1996 law which protects websites from lawsuits over content posted by users. Any changes to these protections would fundamentally change how the internet works.

Link

What is section 230? If you read my comments on ATS you may have seen me chastise another user for refusing to call it out after he went on a huge spiel about freedom. In essence, it says that website owners are not liable for the content an individual posts on their website. Which enables places like ATS and others to have a free flowing exchange of information without fear of litigation.

Take that away, as Mr. Trump is calling for, and websites can be sued for what individuals post. Which means that all you right wing, freedom of speech people who like to bathe in liberal tears can now have your comments removed if someone complains and threatens the website. Taking it further, if this is repealed, you probably won’t even get a chance to make such a comment. Because all websites will probably start self-censoring themselves so they don’t run afoul of this change.

And there we have it, a completely censored internet. Brought to you by Donald Trump and the GOP. Because it was also the Senate who voted almost unanimously in support of a repeal of Section 230. Say goodbye to ATS and anywhere like it.

Information about Section 230:

Electronic Frontier Foundation

What Is Section 230 and why does Trump want it revoked

So Republicans, right wingers, Trump followers, help me figure this out. If you guys are the party of free speech, and believe in it in it’s entirety why are your leaders, Senate and President moving to allow you to be sued for it online?

ETA: 4 pages in and this is definitely a thread to watch if you want to see who here actually has principles. And who here is just blindly following what politicians tell them.

a reply to: underwerks

We know what section 230 is, and we also know that if it happens, the Big Tech platforms have brought it on themselves. THey want to hide behind it while acting like publishers in the matter of policing content as if they are publishers. They cannot act as publishers on the one hand and throw up their hands and claim platform on the other when called on it.

Section 230 gives them the legal protection to continue like they are - lopsided and openly biased.

Repealing it, while not ideal, at least forces them to own up to their own new standards for everyone or face legal consequences.

a reply to: underwerks

Sounds like what that f***tard Devin Nunes wanted to do when his cow became a very popular Instagram and Twitter star. Suck it up mary pants.

Change the title: An idiot from the left is Melting down over Trumps threat to finally end 230 protections from companies who have not been following 230 provisions.

Long overdue IMO.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

We know what section 230 is, and we also know that if it happens, the Big Tech platforms have brought it on themselves. THey want to hide behind it while acting like publishers in the matter of policing content as if they are publishers. They cannot act as publishers on the one hand and throw up their hands and claim platform on the other when called on it.

Section 230 gives them the legal protection to continue like they are - lopsided and openly biased.

Repealing it, while not ideal, at least forces them to own up to their own new standards for everyone or face legal consequences.

Ah, so it’s the fault of big tech platforms for not censoring people. You’re literally saying that you have no problem with censorship as long as it applies to the left and right at the same time.

This above, everyone, is how freedom of speech dies.

This attitude. Not caring if there’s censorship as long as everyone is censored equally.

Welcome to the Chinese States of America.

originally posted by: pianopraze
Change the title: An idiot from the left is Melting down over Trumps threat to finally end 230 protections from companies who have not been following 230 provisions.

Long overdue IMO.

What made you turn against freedom of speech?

Section 230 empowers private corporations.

Corporations should have no political power whatsoever.

a reply to: underwerks

I think your being a bit over literal, it's not about shutting these sites down, it's about gaining some control over disinformation and the responsibility the owners have to help in this matter.

Why would he shut sites down that have aided him so much. They've hurt him also, but half of what we know, wouldn't be known without these outlets.

Jumping the gun a bit I think........ just saying.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

We know what section 230 is, and we also know that if it happens, the Big Tech platforms have brought it on themselves. THey want to hide behind it while acting like publishers in the matter of policing content as if they are publishers. They cannot act as publishers on the one hand and throw up their hands and claim platform on the other when called on it.

Section 230 gives them the legal protection to continue like they are - lopsided and openly biased.

Repealing it, while not ideal, at least forces them to own up to their own new standards for everyone or face legal consequences.

Ah, so it’s the fault of big tech platforms for not censoring people. You’re literally saying that you have no problem with censorship as long as it applies to the left and right at the same time.

This above, everyone, is how freedom of speech dies.

This attitude. Not caring if there’s censorship as long as everyone is censored equally.

Welcome to the Chinese States of America.

You clearly were not paying attention when the Senate had the Big Tech CEOs on the carpet.

Republicans constantly questioned them for their censorious actions asking them why they should continue to receive protections under 230 when they took those actions.

Democrats constantly praised their censorious actions and only asked them why didn't do more, sooner.

Who wants to censor again, and who wants Big Tech to be able to?

Repealing 230 requires them to apply their actions evenly. So, in that sense, yes, if they censor conservative views, then they would have to apply those same standards to progressives too. I understand you don't like it when your own chickens come home to roost, but there it is.

originally posted by: underwerks
Taking it further, if this is repealed, you probably won’t even get a chance to make such a comment. Because all websites will probably start self-censoring themselves so they don’t run afoul of this change.

So help me understand how to describe what Twitter, Facebook, & other social media sites are doing right now. They are removing content, "de-platforming" users and throttling access to posts based on their subjective interpretation of "terms of service", which is code speak for how well-aligned a given post is with the company's own political views. In what world is that not already considered "self-censorship"?

a reply to: Catch_a_Fire

Jumping the gun a bit I think........ just saying.

Not at all.

And I’m not saying all sites will shut down. A lot will. Because when a website can be sued for what it’s users post it’s left with two options. Censor posts in alignment with the government laws that regulate what they can be sued for, or shut down.

So you have a heavily censored internet where anyone who doesn’t self censor can be sued out of existence.

I just thought of something else. This helps big tech in their control of the internet. Because now they will be able to lobby government for whatever changes they want and no one will be able to publicly speak out about it on the internet.

a reply to: underwerks

There is a simple solution:

They go back to being the platforms they advertise themselves as meaning they allow users to post what they think, even if it does not conform to the progressive orthodoxy of the company line.

Otherwise, if they pick and choose which types of thought and expression are allowed, they are publishers and do not deserve section 230 protection like no other publishers have.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

We know what section 230 is, and we also know that if it happens, the Big Tech platforms have brought it on themselves. THey want to hide behind it while acting like publishers in the matter of policing content as if they are publishers. They cannot act as publishers on the one hand and throw up their hands and claim platform on the other when called on it.

Section 230 gives them the legal protection to continue like they are - lopsided and openly biased.

Repealing it, while not ideal, at least forces them to own up to their own new standards for everyone or face legal consequences.

Ah, so it’s the fault of big tech platforms for not censoring people. You’re literally saying that you have no problem with censorship as long as it applies to the left and right at the same time.

This above, everyone, is how freedom of speech dies.

This attitude. Not caring if there’s censorship as long as everyone is censored equally.

Welcome to the Chinese States of America.

You clearly were not paying attention when the Senate had the Big Tech CEOs on the carpet.

Republicans constantly questioned them for their censorious actions asking them why they should continue to receive protections under 230 when they took those actions.

Democrats constantly praised their censorious actions and only asked them why didn't do more, sooner.

Who wants to censor again, and who wants Big Tech to be able to?

Repealing 230 requires them to apply their actions evenly. So, in that sense, yes, if they censor conservative views, then they would have to apply those same standards to progressives too. I understand you don't like it when your own chickens come home to roost, but there it is.

Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce you to the party of free speech. Where as long as all of us are censored, it’s ok.

Censoring the internet to own the libs.

Do the rest of you conservatives support a censored internet as long as it applies equally or is it just this one poster?

a reply to: underwerks

That's what anti-trust suits are for. Google is facing one even now although, thanks you lot and your voting, there is every chance a Biden DoJ drops it in order to continue allowing companies friendly to them to exercise supreme control over the internet like they do.

Thanks.

a reply to: underwerks

I endorse fairness - You know Equal Protection Under the Law (something I thought y'all were about, but apparently only when it benefits you).

I do not endorse censorship for me but not for thee which is the current situation. I already posted the simple solution, but you won't like it because it means letting me and mine speak freely again.

It’s not complicated.
Like Ketsuko said, If you want to act as a publisher, you forfeit special protections given to you as a “platform”.

Removing that protection isn’t “censorship”.
He’s not telling anyone what they can or can’t say. They can continue to act as a publisher by censoring and editorializing political opinions in a biased manner but, by doing so, they no longer qualify for special protections under 230.

a reply to: underwerks

NOW you evil leftists want free speech?

Pathetic.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

We know what section 230 is, and we also know that if it happens, the Big Tech platforms have brought it on themselves. THey want to hide behind it while acting like publishers in the matter of policing content as if they are publishers. They cannot act as publishers on the one hand and throw up their hands and claim platform on the other when called on it.

Section 230 gives them the legal protection to continue like they are - lopsided and openly biased.

Repealing it, while not ideal, at least forces them to own up to their own new standards for everyone or face legal consequences.

Section 230 grants big tech immunity, if you remove it they will simply double their censorship and delete Anything that somebody could sue over.of you think that youtube is bad now over fears of advertisers pulling out over Conservative content, you should see it when it's afraid of legal action over it as well.

Getting rid of 230 will end any form of free speech that isn't super pc and straight down the middle politically on line.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: underwerks

NOW you evil leftists was free speech?

Pathetic.

It's like a microcosm of the Berkeley Free Speech movement which was all about communists demanding the right to speak freely.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

We know what section 230 is, and we also know that if it happens, the Big Tech platforms have brought it on themselves. THey want to hide behind it while acting like publishers in the matter of policing content as if they are publishers. They cannot act as publishers on the one hand and throw up their hands and claim platform on the other when called on it.

Section 230 gives them the legal protection to continue like they are - lopsided and openly biased.

Repealing it, while not ideal, at least forces them to own up to their own new standards for everyone or face legal consequences.

Section 230 grants big tech immunity, if you remove it they will simply double their censorship and delete Anything that somebody could sue over.of you think that youtube is bad now over fears of advertisers pulling out over Conservative content, you should see it when it's afraid of legal action over it as well.

Getting rid of 230 will end any form of free speech that isn't super pc and straight down the middle politically on line.

And right now, Big Tech is using that immunity to control the narrative by applying selective censorship. They do it with political thought, but they've also done it in the matter of COVID too.