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

[Liar]

That didn't stop the left across the country and all over this board from screeching artistically for the government to go put a gun to their head and force them to do it.

Incorrect.

 

[HisArpy]

Laurel, for reasons of her own, does not partcipate on this board. Are you saying she should be prohibited from doing so?

I'm saying that were she to so choose, and did so in a manner which impermissibly chills or discriminate against protected speech while refusing to get her shit together and regulate her conduct, she faces the prospect that the Government will step in and do that regulation for her.

 

[spacekowboy]

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.

Nice matrix dodge there, timfoul.

 

[Pookie]

Now, what would be the result if the inserted "correction" was one which promoted discrimination?

***[This post violates forum membership guidelines - Click here to discover more ways in which white people can tell blacks to not participate on this forum]***

Could the government step in to regulate that kind of thing? Should they?

Given it is a "private" website, I would say no unless the administrator/moderators of the website was actually altering/changing the words/text of the poster to mean something different than intended by the poster. Otherwise, I see it as all the parties exercising free speech on a moderated platform.

 

[HisArpy]

Race card played.

What Trump’s doing is demanding raw pork at room temperature added to the menu.

GOFUCKYOURSELF

 

[coati]

And if a social media site wants the legal protections of being a "public square" then they have to behave like it.

If they want to censor what they don't like/agree with then they play by publisher rules and no longer get the protections that the "public square" enjoys.

No censorship. Trump's post is still there, and Twitter can also participate in their public square. Probably need more of that, not less, in order to keep these forums from all becoming merely propaganda arms for whichever groups or individuals have the most time and money to burn on-line.

If Trump does not like their comments, he is free to find or form a forum that has an orientation more to his liking.

 

[Liar]

I'm saying that were she to so choose, and did so in a manner which impermissibly chills or discriminate against protected speech while refusing to get her shit together and regulate her conduct, she faces the prospect that the Government will step in and do that regulation for her.

But you still haven't explained in what manner Twitter's participation on their platform was so "chilling" other than "they own the platform".

Laurel owns this platform. In what manner can she participate and in what manner can she not?

 

[FlowersForFun]

No censorship.

You're seriously stating that social media doesn't censor any right wing??

Really???

I got a bridge for sale....

Twitter can also participate in their public square. Probably need more of that, not less, in order to keep these forums from all becoming merely propaganda arms for whichever groups or individuals have the most time and money to burn on-line.

Who gets to decide what is propaganda? They will be biased.....

And how do they prevent it?? Censorship is their ONLY tool.

 

[hogjack]

If this stops President Trump from tweeting that is a win/win situation.

This seems unlikely. A 50% reduction might be within range

 

[coati]

You're seriously stating that social media doesn't censor any right wing anything??

Really???

I got a bridge for sale....

Oh, you and the impeached President should stop whining-- it's very unbecoming.

What I actually said was that Trump's post was still up there on Twitter for everyone to read and ridicule as they wish.

 

[HisArpy]

Given it is a "private" website, I would say no unless the administrator/moderators of the website was actually altering/changing the words/text of the poster to mean something different than intended by the poster. Otherwise, I see it as all the parties exercising free speech on a moderated platform.

Thus we circle back around to the "it's private property" vs. "public square" problem.

 

[HisArpy]

But you still haven't explained in what manner Twitter's participation on their platform was so "chilling" other than "they own the platform".

Laurel owns this platform. In what manner can she participate and in what manner can she not?

You should think about it some more.

Literotica cannot "participate" in the debate when it wields the ban hammer. Laurel can participate whenever she posts her thoughts on whatever subject is being discussed.

Notice that Laurel and Literotica are 2 different "persons"?

 

[Sean]

You should think about it some more.

Literotica cannot "participate" in the debate when it wields the ban hammer. Laurel can participate whenever she posts her thoughts on whatever subject is being discussed.

Notice that Laurel and Literotica are 2 different "persons"?

Have you ever heard of a court case known as Citizens United, Tim?

 

[HisArpy]

Nice matrix dodge there, timfoul.

https://media.giphy.com/media/ac7MA7r5IMYda/giphy.gif

 

[Liar]

You should think about it some more.

Literotica cannot "participate" in the debate when it wields the ban hammer. Laurel can participate whenever she posts her thoughts on whatever subject is being discussed.

Notice that Laurel and Literotica are 2 different "persons"?

You mean like Donald Trump and the President. Although it is now the latter taking actions based upon slights against the former.

So if the note in question had said "Yours truly, @jack" at the end , that would have made all the difference.

Alrighty.

 

[HisArpy]

Have you ever heard of a court case known as Citizens United, Tim?

You should STFU before you embarrass yourself any further.

 

[Sean]

You should STFU before you embarrass yourself any further.

Sounding a little defensive there, Tim. I suggest you read up on the case, it was in all the papers.

 

[HisArpy]

You mean like Donald Trump and the President. Although it is now ghe latter taking actions based upon slights against the former.

So if the note in question had said "Yours truly, @jack" at the end , that would have made all the difference.

Alrighty.

Deflection.

The post, regardless of who made it, was tagged and that tag had the intended purpose of chilling further participation in the ever ongoing public discussions. The fact that the "official person" did it, rather than another participant in the discussion is what changes the perspective and what exposes the platform to regulation.

The government cannot regulate this forum for what WE say here. It can only regulate it for what Literotica does if Literotica violates the rules that give it the protections it enjoys as a public platform.

 

[Wrong Element]

When Twitter "expresses it's opinion" it is doing so as the OWNER of the platform, not a participant.

Take a debate for example, when the participants duke it out on stage, that's ok because they're stating their positions. But, then the moderator steps in, they aren't "participating", they're controlling what's allowed to be said and what isn't.

Laurel, for reasons of her own, does not partcipate on this board. Are you saying she should be prohibited from doing so?

I once found myself in the position of owning a very tiny online forum (minimal rules: no threats/abuse, no posting other people's personal info), and I had to think about this sort of thing when I posted. I wanted the ability to offer my opinions like I had before I became owner, while also making it clear that I wasn't doing so in an attempt to end discussion or implying no one could disagree without getting on my bad side. This was not at all easy, and people sometimes took exception despite my best efforts.

I think people here generally knew where Laurel was coming from, but she was pretty circumspect when it came to wading into contentious matters here, for I assume the same reason.

It's a good idea for board owners to tread lightly if you're trying to get a diverse crowd to participate (for example: if you're running an avowedly racist site — some of you would apparently be surprised to learn these do exist — you can probably get away with antagonizing black people who wander in by mistake). That's just a good business practice.

But the idea that the government can step in and tell site owners what they can do? This is bizarre and I can't believe it's being seriously argued.

 

[FlowersForFun]

Oh, you and the impeached President should stop whining-- it's very unbecoming.

The only people whining here are the lefties upset about their elites and billionaires having to live by their own rules.

What I actually said was that Trump's post was still up there on Twitter for everyone to read and ridicule as they wish.

Oh so you were talking about irrelevant bullshit.

Good to know.

 

[HisArpy]

Sounding a little defensive there, Tim. I suggest you read up on the case, it was in all the papers.

I see you're going to insist on embarrassing yourself by not knowing that you have no fucking clue about the difference between an actual person and a "legal entity acting in it's official capacity". Or about how a corporate entity can be held to a standard that an "actual person" will not be. Or even understanding that customers can't be held liable for the official conduct of the store owners or operators.

But hay, you be you and do what you seem to do best.

 

[FlowersForFun]

I see you're going to insist on embarrassing yourself by not knowing that you have no fucking clue about the difference between an actual person and a "legal entity acting in it's official capacity". Or about how a corporate entity can be held to a standard that an "actual person" will not be. Or even understanding that customers can't be held liable for the official conduct of the store owners or operators.

But hay, you be you and do what you seem to do best.

Name calling??

 

[HisArpy]

I once found myself in the position of owning a very tiny online forum (minimal rules: no threats/abuse, no posting other people's personal info), and I had to think about this sort of thing when I posted. I wanted the ability to offer my opinions like I had before I became owner, while also making it clear that I wasn't doing so in an attempt to end discussion or implying no one could disagree without getting on my bad side. This was not at all easy, and people sometimes took exception despite my best efforts.

I think people here generally knew where Laurel was coming from, but she was pretty circumspect when it came to wading into contentious matters here, for I assume the same reason.

It's a good idea for board owners to tread lightly if you're trying to get a diverse crowd to participate (for example: if you're running an avowedly racist site — some of you would apparently be surprised to learn these do exist — you can probably get away with antagonizing black people who wander in by mistake). That's just a good business practice.

But the idea that the government can step in and tell site owners what they can do? This is bizarre and I can't believe it's being seriously argued.

So, the phone companies can just stop offering service to "certain communities"? Or does the fact that they're permitted and licensed to use a government communication network allow the government some degree of control over what happens and how that network is used?

 

[HisArpy]

Name calling??

Well that and being one of the board's biggest fuckups. Not THE biggest fuckup, that's reserved for luk, but there's a list and Sean is on it.

 

[Sean]

I see you're going to insist on embarrassing yourself by not knowing that you have no fucking clue about the difference between an actual person and a "legal entity acting in it's official capacity".

O RLY?