Trump signs social media executive order

originally posted by: burntheships

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.

Because ATS is, like Twitter, a private forum with its own T&C. You don't have problems with complying with ATS T&C but you throw a hissy fit at twitter for doing the same as ATS?!

CNN as a fact checker, that's rich.
So for three years that they kept the Russian collusion going and having people on saying that they had rock solid evidence of it and then it turned out to be all lies, flat out lies and we are supposed to believe that they have all the facts?
People get banned from Twitter for speaking the truth but someone doesn't like it but then turn around and say that someone calling for violence and killing the president is acceptable? That is the problem here.

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.

The problem is you are viewing the internet as one place.
If you want to go to a site that lets you post what you want and engage with like minded people you can.
Other places/sites have different rules.

The very notion that you want to turn the entire internet into something you want is unreasonable.
The internet offers almost unlimted choice. It's not a single thing that needs to be discussed in the round.

In this instance Twitter has decided on it's policies, no different from a bricks and mortar establishment. The choice you have is to walk on by and go somewhere else.

a reply to: burntheships

Because ATS is a microcosm of the issue at hand. Bring it closer to home. ATS is protected by the law that protects Twitter. ATS practices enforcement of their T&Cs just like Twitter does, with human moderators and maybe ATS allows for some artificial intelligence from time to time too.

Sure, Twitter is a huge platform, and Donald Trump is a huge personality. But, this if this stands, it will affect us all personally.

Imagine if ATS could get sued because someone found a post offensive. ATS would start censoring hard, and banning people hard!

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

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 #.

You mean like zucker-terd stealing and selling my private information? Twitter? Google? Youtube? Amazon? When did I opt in? I never opted in. Why should I opt out of something I didn't willingly opt in on?

Don't give me that T&C crap. Do you honestly think that if I had a forum and the only way you could get in to it was to sign my T&C or agree to it but in that print says you must pay me a million dollars after the first year. Do you think that would hold up in court? If that doesn't, how can any part of it?

It can't.

Common sense?

No... Common sense would say that media companies or anyone else should not have the right to my $#!% unless plainly asking for it and letting me decide if I should sell or give it to them or not at all.



XCrycek

Sorry... Twitter is too big to be private anything. Just like Microsoft when they were telling everyone to kick rocks.

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: burntheships

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.

Because ATS is, like Twitter, a private forum with its own T&C. You don't have problems with complying with ATS T&C but you throw a hissy fit at twitter for doing the same as ATS?!

Again. The issue is why Twitter has special protection from liability. And that is supposedly because they are supposed to be “neutral”.

originally posted by: XCrycek

Because ATS is, like Twitter, a private forum with its own T&C. You don't have problems with complying with ATS T&C but you throw a hissy fit at twitter for doing the same as ATS?!

See there, that is only your opinion that I threw a "hissy fit'.
Please direct me to my post in which I did such LOL.

And now you have a problem that I follow the T&C's?
More red herrings much.

I've never seen a post on here that was "fact checked"
with an official label etc.

Maybe you just don't like someone offering a differing opinion?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sure, Twitter is a huge platform, and Donald Trump is a huge personality. But, this if this stands, it will affect us all personally.

So you do understand the difference between platform and publisher? Hence the 230 protection. This is all just a question of whether they have that protection or not.

originally posted by: StallionDuck


XCrycek

Sorry... Twitter is too big to be private anything. Just like Microsoft when they were telling everyone to kick rocks.

It does not matter how big Twitter is.
Twitter is not a state actor preforming a public function.
Free speech is an "agreement" between US government and its citizens, not US government and privately owned company.

So do we want to discuss the fact that if this is allowed to stand it makes the Executive Branch superior to the Judicial Branch? The Legislative Branch writes the laws, the Executive Branch gives the laws, and the Judicial Branch interprets the laws. We all learned this in civics.

We have decades of jurisprudence in regards to Section 230. Trump is attempting to throw all of that out and interpret the law as he sees fit.

If a President can change the interpretation of a law on a whim, what's the point of even having a Judicial Branch?

Not only is Trump infringing on the rights of private businesses he is drastically expanding the powers of the Presidency. And many of you are lapping it up with a smile on your face.

Just like so many other populist politicians Trump is ramping up the authoritarianism just in time for his reelection. It's almost like people were warning this would happen back in 2016.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: XCrycek

Because ATS is, like Twitter, a private forum with its own T&C. You don't have problems with complying with ATS T&C but you throw a hissy fit at twitter for doing the same as ATS?!

I've never seen a post on here that was "fact checked"
with an official label etc.

Maybe you just don't like someone offering a differing opinion?

But you havee seen threads get hoax binned, correct? What's the difference between ATS hoax binning a thread and twitter putting a fact check label on Donald's tweet?

a reply to: XCrycek


The FCC Needs to Have the Power to Regulate All of the Big Social Media Platforms . Getting to Big for their Britches IMO . Bravo President Trump , About Time !

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

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 #.

You mean like zucker-terd stealing and selling my private information? Twitter? Google? Youtube? Amazon? When did I opt in? I never opted in. Why should I opt out of something I didn't willingly opt in on?

Don't give me that T&C crap. Do you honestly think that if I had a forum and the only way you could get in to it was to sign my T&C or agree to it but in that print says you must pay me a million dollars after the first year. Do you think that would hold up in court? If that doesn't, how can any part of it?

It can't.

Common sense?

No... Common sense would say that media companies or anyone else should not have the right to my $#!% unless plainly asking for it and letting me decide if I should sell or give it to them or not at all.



XCrycek

Sorry... Twitter is too big to be private anything. Just like Microsoft when they were telling everyone to kick rocks.

That's probably the biggest scam in the last three decades. How did a company find a way to profit off your private information without consent?

I foresee a form of HIPPA law for companies dealing in ad revenue generated from your information.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Not quite - you're assuming a fluid free market where expansion happens through natural growth & demand. In this instance, the move to other platforms is precisely and specifically resultant from bias censorship, over years, over an array of forums that have left folks broke, penniless or a move to a much much less well known platform in an attempt to eke out a living.

That's still the free market, no one ever said it was fair.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
thats why hopefully this EO or more legislation to come can change these big tech compnaies into a "public forum"

We should just have Executive Orders for anything one side doesn't like, just keep signing them and subverting the markets and our principals.

One day your Karen wont be in office and the other side will have theirs, then you will cry salty rivers of tears when they do it to you.

a reply to: trollz

If you don't like a platform, don't use it!

Pretty simple if you ask me.

I really don't understand the confusion surrounding this...a platform hosts other peoples content and is therefore not liable for what is posted. But when they inject their own opinion into that content, they become a publisher and consequently are liable for content. Seems very straightforward to me.

a reply to: burntheships

I've never seen a post on here that was "fact checked"
with an official label etc.

I've seen threads locked until the OP PMs the moderator with proof of a claim.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: burntheships

Because ATS is a microcosm of the issue at hand. Bring it closer to home. ATS is protected by the law that protects Twitter. ATS practices enforcement of their T&Cs just like Twitter does, with human moderators and maybe ATS allows for some artificial intelligence from time to time too.

There may be similarities but the two are actually different.
Beside that, I have never seen a post on this board "fact checked".
Again, locking a thread is not the same thing.

Twitter is a huge platform, and Donald Trump is a huge personality. But, this if this stands, it will affect us all personally.

Allowing Twitter to "fact check" every post would have a far reaching
impact, but your ok with that because Orange Man Bad, right?

What if Twitter is wrong in it's fact checking? Then what?

originally posted by: Flatcoat
I really don't understand the confusion surrounding this...a platform hosts other peoples content and is therefore not liable for what is posted. But when they inject their own opinion into that content, they become a publisher and consequently are liable for content. Seems very straightforward to me.

So ATS is a publisher now? Lol