Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies

[HisArpy]

So you're saying that the president willfully spreads disinformation to the public?

If this is what you wish to say, then your Right to say it is protected. It's a shame that you don't give the same protections to those whose statements you don't agree with.

 

[hogjack]

Though the social media companies are obviously and radically Left this is not the time to take action. It's bad optics.

The tech companies are radically Left. Many also are closely tied to helping Communist China track its citizens for compliance to the Party. It really is twisted. The tech companies grow in one of the most free societies ever assembled but use their technical skills to help a communist government control its citizens.

 

[Wrong Element]

So are the pro-censorship folks here arguing that Laurel does not have the right to ban users from the Lit forums (a substantially more drastic action than anything Twitter did to the Idiot-in-Chief)?

 

[HisArpy]

Would Twitter tagging a note to a user's post be considered "protected speech"?

Technically, yes. But in this instance I don't believe it would be viewed as such.

The platform belongs to Twitter. Thus whenever they engage in "control" of the speech on their platform, they're engaging in censorship. And while censorship can be considered protected speech through conduct, it's not "lawful" speech when the conduct is illegal or discriminatory.

In this case censoring conservatives would be discriminatory.

 

[HisArpy]

So are the pro-censorship folks here arguing that Laurel does not have the right to ban users from the Lit forums (a substantially more drastic action than anything Twitter did to the Idiot-in-Chief)?

Your premise is twisted. "Pro-censorship" wouldn't argue that there's "no right to ban".

 

[Liar]

If this is what you wish to say, then your Right to say it is protected. It's a shame that you don't give the same protections to those whose statements you don't agree with.

This is what Twitter wished to say, while not censoring or curtailing the Presidents ability to do so.

 

[Wrong Element]

Your premise is twisted. "Pro-censorship" wouldn't argue that there's "no right to ban".

So Twitter would have been justified in banning Trump outright (people get banned and put in timeouts on Twitter all the time), just not in affixing a disclaimer to his (completely unedited) tweets?

 

[HisArpy]

So Twitter would have been justified in banning Trump outright (people get banned and put in timeouts on Twitter all the time), just not in affixing a disclaimer to his (completely unedited) tweets?

All I said was that your premise was twisted. Until you untangle that, I'm not going to debate with you because your twisted premise indicated that your thinking isn't clear as to who is doing what.

 

[Pookie]

Technically, yes. But in this instance I don't believe it would be viewed as such.

The platform belongs to Twitter. Thus whenever they engage in "control" of the speech on their platform, they're engaging in censorship. And while censorship can be considered protected speech through conduct, it's not "lawful" speech when the conduct is illegal or discriminatory.

In this case censoring conservatives would be discriminatory.

But Trump's actual words weren't removed or altered. It was more like Twitter making a reply, but it was tagged onto his post and noted as such. Would that still be considered "censorship"?

 

[coati]

Privately-held social media platforms have every right to insert their editorial comments, in the same way that newspapers do. If you don't like their comments, take your posting business somewhere else.

 

[FlowersForFun]

"Congress (Government) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Yet, Der Dumph' want to do exactly that, restrict free speech on private sites.

I find the MAGAhat and the Orange Rag of Hate offensive and inflammatory and think they should be banned, but Congress can't really do that.

No one is trying to do that.

What they're trying to do is make sure that if they're claiming to run a tech company under the guise of being a "public square" style social media platform, they behave like it.

If you censor people you don't agree with? You don't get the protections of being a free speech platform, or a "digital public square" .


______________________________________________________________________





My favorite part of this whole ordeal is watching the left suddenly being super concerned if not upset with their beloved lord and savior the government, regulating uber-corporation billionaires, the much hated 1%, with the rules they support as long as they are pointed in the other direction.

'But muh private company!! BUTT muh free speech!!' they suddenly cry!!! Tell it to the Christian bakers you flaming fucking hypocrites.

https://www.zikoko.com/wp-content/uploads/zikoko/2019/11/bitch-ps.gif

Have SOME sense of dignity and take your medicine with a smile.

 

[HisArpy]

This is what Twitter wished to say, while not censoring or curtailing the Presidents ability to do so.

Strange, I thought Adre was the one who said it.

In point of fact, the tag that Twitter put on the tweets was "incorrect". To the point it could be said it was "false". You can try to argue that the tag wasn't "totally false" but that's like trying to say that a small orange isn't really an orange.

Be that as it may, the intended purpose of the tag wasn't really to "warn" anyone. It's purpose was to demote the prominence of the person making the Tweet which was tagged.

And, while that is protected speech, it's not immune from liability for it. In this case, it may result in Twitter and other social media platforms losing their protected status under the broadcast decency laws. Which is a pretty heavy price to pay for censoring speech you don't agree with for purely political reasons.

 

[Comshaw]

Would Twitter tagging a note to a user's post be considered "protected speech"?

Rather, he want's to remove restrictions. His intention is to allow all sides to speak freely. Does that bother you? Are you afraid of what might happen if social media platforms can no longer censor speech from the party they don't like?? Hmmmmm? Scared of the open expressions of ideas and language?? Hmmmm?

First stop and read what Pookie wrote. The Donald got pissed because Twitter tagged his post with a fact check. They didn't remove it, they didn't amend it, they didn't abridge it, they added a note with directions to a fact check. Under the constitution that note as free speech is as protected as the Donald's original tweet.

We have freedom of speech. You can say just about anything you want or claim anything you want as long as it does not endanger others ("fire" in a crowded theater example).HOWEVER freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. That's exactly what The Donald and his cohorts are after, freedom from criticism.

This is apparent by his use of an executive order, by using lawsuits rather than submitting a bill to congress on this issue. It is apparent by designating the White House as the authority who will determine what is or isn't free speech.

I am appalled and angry that Trump and associates have even mentioned this much less put it into action. I would be just as appalled and angry if a Democratic administration attempted such an end run around a constitutional right. For those who support it, tell me you would if a Democratic president did this. If not you are intentionally turning a blind eye to this dangerous course of action. By ignoring this those who support it do not realize, or apparently care what harm it will do to our freedoms.

Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

Privately-held social media platforms have every right to insert their editorial comments, in the same way that newspapers do. If you don't like their comments, take your posting business somewhere else.

Sure.

Separate but equal, right? Because private restaurants have every right to only serve the white patrons they want in their businesses. If you don't like it, you can go eat at the Black's only restaurant over there across the railroad tracks.

 

[hogjack]

Privately-held social media platforms have every right to insert their editorial comments, in the same way that newspapers do. If you don't like their comments, take your posting business somewhere else.

I agree.
The Right needs to build out its own platforms.

Publicly supported media platforms, like PBS, need to be pushed into the marketplace on its own. Let the market decide the media that survives or not. The government should not be operating a media company. De-funding PBS is a move that needs to be made. The fundraisers are brutal and embarrassing.

Similarly, the US Postal Service should also be 100% privatized. Let it operate like a corporation.

 

[HisArpy]

But Trump's actual words weren't removed or altered. It was more like Twitter making a reply, but it was tagged onto his post and noted as such. Would that still be considered "censorship"?

If it were someone replying to the tweet it wouldn't be censorship, it'd be the opposite. Something called "debate".

When the owner of the platform inserts itself into the debate as an "authority" it's censorship because it chills further speech.

As yourself some questions: Would you personally continue to post your thoughts here if LAUREL tagged your posts as "false"? No matter what you posted, if she didn't agree with it, she'd label it "false" or "irresponsible" or whatever.

How long before you'd just give up and stop posting if that continued to happen?

 

[FlowersForFun]

Sure.

Separate but equal, right? Because private restaurants have every right to only serve the white patrons they want in their businesses. If you don't like it, you can go eat at the Black's only restaurant over there across the railroad tracks.

Yea.....it's all "Buh mah private company and freedom of expression!!"

Until some baker tells a gay trans couple no, they won't make a bunch of penis confections for their wedding.

THEN they want God King Obama to swoop in and smite the Nazi with the raw awesome power of the state.

 

[coati]

Sure.

Separate but equal, right? Because private restaurants have every right to only serve the white patrons they want in their businesses. If you don't like it, you can go eat at the Black's only restaurant over there across the railroad tracks.

Nobody banned Trump from continuing to post on Twitter. If he does not like the comments posted by Twitter, who have the right to set policies about the content of posts and the right to respond to posts that do not meet their standards, he is not obligated to either leave Twitter or continue posting. His choice.

He's not the boss of Twitter.

 

[FlowersForFun]

Nobody banned Trump from continuing to post on Twitter. If he does not like the comments posted by Twitter, who have the right to set policies about the content of posts and the right to respond to posts that do not meet their standards, he is not obligated to either leave Twitter or continue posting. His choice.

He's not the boss of Twitter.

BUH MAH PRIVATE COMPANY!!! DON'T REGULATE THE 1%!!!!

Coati.....not shockingly has gone full blown hypocrite, what a partisan hack absolutely DEVOID of any values or ideological consistency of any kind.

 

[HisArpy]

Nobody banned Trump from continuing to post on Twitter. If he does not like the comments posted by Twitter, who have the right to set policies about the content of posts and the right to respond to posts that do not meet their standards, he is not obligated to either leave Twitter or continue posting. His choice.

He's not the boss of Twitter.

Sure, no one is forcing you to go eat at the other restaurant. You can continue to try and eat at the white's only restaurant or not, it's your choice... right?

 

[Liar]

Strange, I thought Adre was the one who said it.

In point of fact, the tag that Twitter put on the tweets was "incorrect". To the point it could be said it was "false". You can try to argue that the tag wasn't "totally false" but that's like trying to say that a small orange isn't really an orange.

Be that as it may, the intended purpose of the tag wasn't really to "warn" anyone. It's purpose was to demote the prominence of the person making the Tweet which was tagged.

And, while that is protected speech, it's not immune from liability for it. In this case, it may result in Twitter and other social media platforms losing their protected status under the broadcast decency laws. Which is a pretty heavy price to pay for censoring speech you don't agree with for purely political reasons.

Let's make one thing clear: Since the Tweet is still up there, it was not censored.

Twitter expressed their view. If it is protected speech, it should be immune from punitive Government action for it. If Donald Trump as a private citizen wants to sue Twitter for it, he is free to do so.

 

[hogjack]

Tens of thousands of incorrect posts about Russia/Trump.

Why did Twitter suddenly decide to get busy now?

I dunno. Is there anything special about this year politically?

 

[Wrong Element]

I agree.
The Right needs to build out its own platforms.

Please do.






Has anyone answered Pookie's original question of whether Twitter, or someplace like Lit, has any right to restrict who uses its service? Because I have literally never heard anyone suggest before that Twitter can't ban users who violate its rules, and they've made some pretty prominent bannings. For example, threatening people is against their rules as it is on Lit.

It's pretty bizarre to argue that banning a user may be allowed, but putting a notation on someone's tweet saying "click here for more information on this subject" is the chilling long arm of Big Brother.

 

[akatrex]

If Impeached president trump didn't lie so much this wouldn't even be a thing

Is Twitter going to Fact Check - Adam Shiff, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, FBI Director James Comey, FBI Deputy Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Barak Obama's Team of BOZO's?

The Lying Mother F-ers that they are!

Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia

Still waiting for Dip Shit ADAM SHIFF to disclose his irrefutable Russan Collusion Evidence!

 

[Pookie]

If it were someone replying to the tweet it wouldn't be censorship, it'd be the opposite. Something called "debate".

When the owner of the platform inserts itself into the debate as an "authority" it's censorship because it chills further speech.

As yourself some questions: Would you personally continue to post your thoughts here if LAUREL tagged your posts as "false"? No matter what you posted, if she didn't agree with it, she'd label it "false" or "irresponsible" or whatever.

How long before you'd just give up and stop posting if that continued to happen?

I probably would continue to post, because a case could be made that after eighteen years I'm probably just as addicted to Literotica as Trump is to Twitter.

The media in general will "add" comments/editorials/corrections to interviews. Wouldn't this also fall within that realm when it comes to adding a note to a post/statement/comment posted on a social media website?