Posted on 05/28/2020 1:42:16 PM PDT by Helicondelta
Nope I think you don’t fully understand the situation.
Twitter has always claimed innocent and not liable for the content posted by its users. ......because it simply provides the platform to post. ...however now by Twitter hiring CNN to fact check Trump, Twitter now becomes a active publisher and lose their status as a innocent provider.
Further, just hours ago, prior to Trump EO, Twitter announced that they will stop the fact checking and return to their original, non participatory status. ....Twitter backed down. Trump won.
It is not as simple as you think.
the left is going to have a problem
Bari Weiss
@bariweiss
· 7h
Of note. Here’s @JoeBiden in January to @nytopinion: “Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one.” Why? “It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company,” he said of Facebook. Worth reading it all, again.
https://nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html
We can't do anything? I bet the Obama administration wouldn't let the sun set on a day without taking action if the situation was reversed.
I did!!!
And the war begins...
* * *
That’s right. I predict this will not be settled soon, but it definately puts the pressure on social media and points a big finger on censorship. Great move by the President.
“Just BAN the Domain for any company that Censors Political Speech or Discriminates against differing view points.”
That would take Free Republic and countless others off the air.
Think before emoting.
I'm sure Jim would agree.
FR is protected by exactly the same Section 230 and is going to subject to everything in this EO that Twitter is.
No more deleted posts and no more zots.
“Second, such competition has been prevented from appearing on application stores under the dubious claims of “hate speech”.
Anti competitive behavior is rampant.
And the first action of the real presidential campaign finally happens. Sure, Twitter, you can ‘fact check’ or ‘block’ or ‘delete’ the president’s tweets, but you better be filing your campaign contribution reports for doing so, as you’re actively campaigning in a federal election.
I don’t think silicon valley has the slightest clue what a pandora’s box of regulations they just opened. Plus the absolute fun of opening the courtrooms to suing JOINTLY the tweeter and Twitter for libel since they’ve decided to fact check tweets.
Knew this was going to bite them in the rump.
“So, your saying that even though a publicly traded company that offers its stock as a platform while fully operating as a publisher is not in violation under SEC laws.”
No.
The SEC tack is a good one. It also provides legal support from shareholder lawsuits should they suffer damages.
Which is an open question.
“The Feds gave the tech giants protection from liability in exchange for keeping their platforms neutral.”
No such language exists in the law.
“I don’t think silicon valley has the slightest clue what a pandora’s box of regulations they just opened. “
But you can bet they all have hired the best lawyers money can buy.
Oh, and Congressmen.
“First of all, the old phrase “no shirt, no shoes, no service” comes to mind here. Can’t Instagram and Facebook and Twitter simply refuse service to someone?”
It depends, would you support AT&T shutting off phone service to Ronald Reagan’s campaign because he used the term “Welfare Queens”. Pretty much the same degree of monopoly now with tech companies.
The issue is that they are indemnified by law because they are not responsible for content. But, when they edit content (including warning tags) they become responsible for the content, where they are no longer protected.
They should be considered utilities.
Since they have chosen to thrust themselves into a vortex of public controversy, they can be responsible for censoring everything.
“First of all, the old phrase “no shirt, no shoes, no service” comes to mind here. Can’t Instagram and Facebook and Twitter simply refuse service to someone?”
If a baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a couple of queers then SM platforms should not be able to refuse service to anyone either.
What Twitter did is tantamount to editorializing personal content posted by one of their members. In this instance I think Trump is correct and if we get the House back this should be on the agenda day 1. Eliminate the immunity clause for these organizations.
They already did that. That’s how they got their common carrier coverage to begin with. This is like a voice coming on during your phone call saying ‘Liar!’
And I don’t think that the senate would confirm any special exclusions of Twitter - either they leave the messages intact or they take partial ownership of the messages.
FR is protected by exactly the same Section 230 and is going to subject to everything in this EO that Twitter is.
No more deleted posts and no more zots.
* * * *
NO! What’s a poor guy like Humblegunner going to do?!
Seriously, I’m not sure you’ve got that right. Free Republic is a closed community. It doesn’t pretend to be open to the public for commenting. The large social media firms are operating quite different.
Somebody please comment on this. Cheers.
I believe the Constitution guarantees freedom of association inclusive of freedom of non-association.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.