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 signs social media executive order

page: 16
59
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2020 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.


No, I think it would force them to NOT censor, and only remove content that's illegal. Taking the action of deciding what content gets to be posted or not turns them into a publisher rather than a service or something like that, and therefore makes them responsible for the content. So in other words, unless they want to be liable for what gets posted, don't censor what gets posted unless it's illegal.


What about the clearly illegal Trump tweets that are defamation? I hate Joe Scarborough but Trump's tweets about him are textbook examples of defamation which means Twitter will be forced to remove them in order to protect themselves from litigation.

How is this a victory at all?



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog
That story about a healthy intern suddenly suffering a cardiac episode and then impacting her head is more likely to be a case of attempted sexual assault that resulted in death while tryi g to resist. Not only have cases as such been prosecured before, you see them every year reproduced in popular media.

Why shouldnt such a questionable circumstance be investigated versus these random women who made vague statements about other reps/senators and appointees about sexual harassment and assault from as far back as the sixties and seventies??



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: kyosuke

How did Trump lie about mail fraud? It can happen which is what he is arguing. Also, it has happened. There is an investigation in Patterson New Jersey right now for the very thing. www.nbcnewyork.com...

Also, you can't fact check an opinion with an opinion which is what twitter was doing.



So Twitter Fact Check the President with a CNN op/ed piece that is full of incorrect information, and then flagged his tweet as false based on that, lol WTH

If they want to stop being a platform then so be it, but they then own all the words and would be libel... I'm sure that isn't what they want, but they want to have the power to own all the words without also owning the responsibility of those words.

It would be funny for the President to sue them for labeling his tweet as false by using false information to suggest it.
edit on 30-5-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: kyosuke

How did Trump lie about mail fraud? It can happen which is what he is arguing. Also, it has happened. There is an investigation in Patterson New Jersey right now for the very thing. www.nbcnewyork.com...

Also, you can't fact check an opinion with an opinion which is what twitter was doing.



So Twitter Fact Check the President with a CNN op/ed piece that is full of incorrect information, and then flagged his tweet as false based on that, lol WTH

If they want to stop being a platform then so be it, but they then own all the words and would be libel... I'm sure that isn't what they want, but they want to have the power to own all the words without also owning the responsibility of those words.


Twitter is a private owned piece of cyberspace that they pay for. They can do whatever the hell they want on it.
Isn't that fair?

BTW. Us court has already ruled that YouTube is not a public forum

www.bbc.com...

Don't like it don't use it.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: XCrycek

Twitter is a private owned piece of cyberspace that they pay for. They can do whatever the hell they want on it.
Isn't that fair?

BTW. Us court has already ruled that YouTube is not a public forum

Don't like it don't use it.


I don't think you understand the point. Even Zuckerberg says they are platforms for others to put their words on and not arbiters of truth, or editors.

Being platforms they are protected from liabilities of what others write, but if they get in the game of editing etc then they are no longer a platform and have become a editorial company in now owning the words and then they can be libel, so yes I agree they can do what they want, BUT they can't say they are a protected platform, agree?



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl




To qualify for Section 230 protections, they are not allowed to make editorial decisions. None.


They are. It's right in their Terms and Conditions of Service. It says they have the right to remove posts at will. It even says they might remove your post, but not someone else's that you think is a violation of their TOS, that they're under no responsibility to apply their rules equally, although, in good faith they try to.

The FFC Section 203 code requires social media to act "in good faith" when they enforce their TOS.

It is section 230, not 203, and the meaning of 'good faith' apparently escapes you.

Anyone who suggests they are acting in good faith right now has serious mental issues they should be addressing.


It is not for you to determine whether or not Twitter acted in good faith. That would be the purview of the courts. It's not up to you to determine the mental state of anyone who disagrees with you, either.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

They won't have the means to censor everything, so they will prob go back to the past and not censor anything unless it is illegal. They can then claim they are a platform not a publisher like they are doing now by editing and inserting fact checks.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I don't think it really matters because his EO doesn't seem to have any teeth.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: trollz
This is the USA, not communist China or North Korea, and these companies better remember that!


What the hell are you on about?
In US corporations have more power over citizens than any other country and sometimes even the government.
But that isn't the case in China and NK
Your comment is completely backwards



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I'm somewhat a leftist and I never really liked Trump but he is doing some good things sometimes. I'll give him that.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 11:15 PM
link   


I'm sorry, did you not agree to the TOS of the things you are using ? Maybe read them more carefully.
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied



Nope. Humans don't currently live long enough to read TOS for everything they do. Besides... Majority of the human population doesn't understand lawyer speak.

Do you know all of the laws for every state you visit? All government, business, home owner, and more.. laws that govern over you? Doubt it. You don't have enough years of life to be able to. It's an impossibility.

When I buy a cell phone. Is that information in the contract? Nope. Happens anyways.

Play devils advocate if you want. FYI, FB and Google take your information EVEN IF YOU DONT HAVE AN ACCOUNT.

You really should brush up on wth is going on these days.



posted on May, 31 2020 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"Anyone who suggests they are acting in good faith right now has serious mental issues they should be addressing."

It is not for you to determine whether or not Twitter acted in good faith. That would be the purview of the courts.

No, that would be up to the purview of those who enforce the laws - in this case, the Executive branch of the US Govt. Let's see... who is the Chief Executive?


It's not up to you to determine the mental state of anyone who disagrees with you, either.

On this you are completely wrong. I do it all the time, as I have done with you.



posted on May, 31 2020 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I don't know why anyone thinks they are over top the Federal government....your not going to get away with criminal stuff even when you become larger than life on a social media platform...Do you think Russia and China is not spying on the U.S. playing the same dangerous games with their government.You cannot let social media run like the wild wild west..One could argue it is the reason Trump got spied on.....Because democrats where reckless on social media when they spied on Trump.This is getting very very very dangerous..



posted on May, 31 2020 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Trump went about this in the wrng way.
What he should have done is defined the quite clear national security issue and used that as his framework for breaking up Twitter or other social media companies.



posted on Jun, 1 2020 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Amazing how pro free speech you all are until it's not YOUR free speech.

Anyone with half a brain cell knows this is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

This dimwitted fool is seemingly unaware that his only option would be to start his own govt-run news outlet with heavily censored editing continuously if public comments are allowed.

Wait what am I saying? That's his dream. Just like his buddy Kim.

Those of you backing him on this are backing even greater restrictions on free speech, press freedoms, and your own constitutional rights.

You're volunteering to help him shut down your own freedoms.

Twitter is a private platform. There are plenty of others available.

I hope you all wake up from your right-wing media programming soon.
edit on 1-6-2020 by fencesitter85 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2020 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Double
edit on 2-6-2020 by fencesitter85 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2020 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Perhaps the best place to start is for you to explain exactly why it's not Twitter's choice to "intentionally apply discriminatory practices in the form of punitive disciplinary actions against speech targeted against a group of people who have a difference in belief on expectations of governance."

They don;t force anyone to use their platform.
Why should they not be allowed to be biased?

You are completely missing the point.

Trump isn't trying to censor anyone, and isn't even saying they should be forced to let these posts stand.

What he is saying is, if they do engage in such acts, they will lose serious legal protections they have been enjoying for a very long time against being sued - yes, being held accountable for posts they decide to leave up.

Why are you against them being able to be held accountable?



posted on Jun, 8 2020 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
What about the clearly illegal Trump tweets that are defamation?

I haven't seen any outright defamatory comments. I've seen him asking serious questions - and whether you like it or not, there are serious questions about the death of the girl in his office.



posted on Jun, 8 2020 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck
Do you know all of the laws for every state you visit? All government, business, home owner, and more.. laws that govern over you? Doubt it. You don't have enough years of life to be able to. It's an impossibility.


Guess what happens when you break one of those laws? That's right, you'll quickly find that your ignorance towards doesn't matter, you're gonna get punished.


originally posted by: StallionDuck
When I buy a cell phone. Is that information in the contract? Nope. Happens anyways.


Cell phones don't require a contract to purchase. Using a cellular providers services often do. You consent to that. When you fire up your newly bought device there's also terms that you consent to to use the software running on the device. So yes, the information is there. Your laziness is the reason you're ignorant towards it.




originally posted by: StallionDuck
Play devils advocate if you want. FYI, FB and Google take your information EVEN IF YOU DONT HAVE AN ACCOUNT.


This is true. I'm aware. I also know how to stop it from happening. You want the government to take responsibility for you ? How much information you wager Facebook and Google gathers from you every time you visit ATS? Have you read ATS's privacy policy? Doubtful, yet here you are complaining that they have your information.

Information is valuable today, yet any attempt to pass legislation that gets rid of unethical behavior and you people scream "SOCIALISM COMMUNISM HURR DURRR!", unless of course you think it somehow hurts your political "opponent".



originally posted by: StallionDuck
You really should brush up on wth is going on these days.


The irony.







 
59
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join