Trump signs social media executive order

a reply to: Blaine91555

The idea here is that when social media decides to comment on peoples posts, they then become authors rather than hosts.

What is a "comment"?

When an ATS moderator removes a 3rd party post and leaves behind a comment like "Removed for political trolling" or "Removed to prevent thread drift", isn't that pretty much the same thing as Twitter did by posting a fact check alert?

Listen .... when Twitter EDITS a second party tweet it does NOT make them (Twitter) a third party.

When Twitter edits a tweet by making any changes INCLUDING additions they should be held liable if what the edit is biased or untrue.

How is it that you do not understand this?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DeathSlayer

This EO has NOTHING to do with third parties.

Yes it does. Because Twitter added a disclaimer to Trump's 3rd party post, he's accusing them of acting like publishers, and therefore aren't entitled to their legal liability shield against being sued for 3rd party content...since Trump now deems them publishers...because they published a disclaimer below his post.

a reply to: UKTruth
Oh don't mind me, I have been discreetly proposing first amendment edits for years. I am one of those fanatics that wants to see internet porn banished to its own opt in domains. I just want to see the internet communication return to the global pub like it used to be.

People just wrote whatever, and things were fine.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Blaine91555

The idea here is that when social media decides to comment on peoples posts, they then become authors rather than hosts.

What is a "comment"?

When an ATS moderator removes a 3rd party post and leaves behind a comment like "Removed for political trolling" or "Removed to prevent thread drift", isn't that pretty much the same thing as Twitter did by posting a fact check alert?

Does ATS single out only some people while leaving others to break the same rules? No...

Besides... ATS isn't anywhere as big or as influential as Twitter, FB and Google... ATS isn't even a drop in a sea in comparison. (Sorry ATS - truth hurts but...)

Massive media like this can influence anything they want, given the chance. I see this as taking away their ability. It's the right thing to do.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

When Twitter edits a tweet by making any changes INCLUDING additions they should be held liable if what the edit is biased or untrue.

How is it that you do not understand this?

So, when an ATS moderator removes a post of mine, and leaves behind a opinion/comment about the post being off topic or trolling, and I disagree, ATS should be held liable?

How is it that you don't understand that Twitter and ATS are both private business social media platforms that are protected by the same laws and practice similar policies. Bring it closer to home, and you'll the folly of this EO.

Twitter says President Trump is lying about mail-in ballot voter fraud, when in fact, there have been numerous convictions for voter fraud over the past for years.

justthenews.com...

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: UKTruth
Oh don't mind me, I have been discreetly proposing first amendment edits for years. I am one of those fanatics that wants to see internet porn banished to its own opt in domains. I just want to see the internet communication return to the global pub like it used to be.

People just wrote whatever, and things were fine.

Aye, the good old days.

The days before all the half wits got "smart phones".

a reply to: StallionDuck

Does ATS single out only some people while leaving others to break the same rules? No...

One could argue that their group has been singled out and treated meanly, even meaner than Abraham Lincoln was treated. They could show mean posts to them, that were not deleted, and a list of their own, really good posts, that did get deleted.

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.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: UKTruth
Oh don't mind me, I have been discreetly proposing first amendment edits for years. I am one of those fanatics that wants to see internet porn banished to its own opt in domains. I just want to see the internet communication return to the global pub like it used to be.

People just wrote whatever, and things were fine.

I'm with you and I dig porn. Especially midget *cough* little peo.... Midget porn. Little people sounds so pedo.



On a more serious note - Yes... The internet should be like it used to be. OPEN AND FREE It was the epicenter of free speech once and it never should have stopped being so. When big media can stifle what you say, the next step will be to do the same on everything outside of their hub and they're doing their best to do just that.

Once politics and big media took over.... the internet and people's minds went to utter crap!

This is good but notice how it was only AFTER he was hit by twitter police that it is now a must. Why not before all the conservative voices were thrown from twitter or youtube etc. ?

a reply to: Dwoodward85

I am in total agreement with you

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.

originally posted by: carewemust
Twitter says President Trump is lying about mail-in ballot voter fraud, when in fact, there have been numerous convictions for voter fraud over the past for years.

justthenews.com...

If twitter (or ANY mainstream media left-wing propaganda outlet) says President Trump is lying, he’s not.

I’m pretty sure there’s not a single human on Earth who doesn’t know that

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You

So, when an ATS moderator removes a post of mine, and leaves behind a opinion/comment about the post being off topic or trolling, and I disagree, ATS should be held liable?

You said the president should file a lawsuit.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neutronflux

Twitter would lose there special status because they use censorship to promote a biased political view.

If that is true, then the injured party can sue Twitter for discrimination. Removing their liability shield against what 3trd parties post is counter productive to free speech. If Twitter is liable for the president's tweets, they won't post them.

So can you file a lawsuit or not?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

god damn, its sick how some people hate Trump so mhch, theyre willing to give up their own right to free speech..

oh wait, left wingnuts dont get censored.. lock trumps son up and molest him, right?

a reply to: StallionDuck

Free speech SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON.

This is where you are wrong. "Free speech SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON" by the government. But your employer, your mom, and places where you post on social media can infringe on your free speech.

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.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: trollz

Remember when Dear Leader Obama singled out FOX and unfairly targeted them? Yeah? Now it's President Karen's turn.

Nope, not President Karen.

Karen wants to speak to the manager. Donald Trump is the manager.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: StallionDuck

Free speech SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON.

This is where you are wrong. "Free speech SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON" by the government. But your employer, your mom, and places where you post on social media can infringe on your free speech.

Maybe inside their business but not on their sidewalk.

If they deny me the same liberty they're allowing someone else - you bet your ass that they can be sued and they will very much lose.

This isn't a supermarket where I'm buying goods, though. This is a forum - an open forum. If you're denying the same service based on prejudice, they can be held accountable. The same laws apply to everything done in the US no matter who you are.

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. How fast do you think he'll get sued and for how much money? Quickly and A LOT.

The commies are loving Trump for this. One step closer to total control.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
The commies are loving Trump for this. One step closer to total control.

huh? The opposite of free speech is communism? That doesn't make sense.

Let me know when people start going to the gulag here for shutting up.