Posted on 05/28/2020 1:42:16 PM PDT by Helicondelta
Best President since George Washington.
That is a complication. However, there’s a big difference between $ multi-billion tech giants, with many millions of subscribers; and a not-for-profit site with well under a million members, who largely share a common ideology. There must be a way that ends the biased censorship of the tech giants while enabling FR (and its wicked step-sister, DU) to continue as before.
It is a warning shot to anti - free speech fascists.
Good point.
“If a social-media company chooses to continue censoring, they will be exposed to ruinous lawsuits. That’s got to make a difference. 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.”
The easy fix for this would be for all those who donate to become monthly subscribers. Then Jim still gets the revenue, people still get posts deleted for blatant violations but become an even more open forum of viewpoints. I think a subscription would change the legal dynamics but I am no lawyer.
Here’s the definition of who’s affected by the EO:
” Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.”
Don’t see how FR wiggles out of that.
Oops! I already put it there last year.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Social%20Enemedia
Twitter is a publisher, not a platform as they claim.
If a newspaper were to “fact check” you and call you a liar, you are able to sue them for libel.
Why should not Twitter be subject to the same law when they offer editorial comments on posts?
A true platform would operate in the background and never be heard from or comment on posts.
One that makes news for a day and makes it sound like something is being done when really nothing is going to be done.
Now, you have freedom of speech on the internet, but not freedom from consequence. Want to be unchecked? Start your own website or blog. You’re guaranteed the right to be able to do that. You’re not guaranteed that right on someone else’s brand.
—
I don’t agree. From what I read on FR this morning, Mike Huckabee compared the social media giants to the phone company. What if the phone company monitored your calls, and the minute you said something they didn’t approve of, they cut off your call and closed your account? Would you say: “Yeah, well, Joe Blow can start his OWN phone company!”. It’s just not going to happen. Something things are too big and too ingrained now, and Twitter / YouTube / Facebook are three of ‘em.
ping
If that were true all Twitter would have to do is offer free subscriptions.
It really doesn't change anything legally.
The bigger issue is what terms of service did you agree to before using any of these services.
That is the best news in a long time. :D
Not under Section 230 or this EO.
The order did nothing. It was a warning. I don’t know why he doesn’t simply get on with it.
And who would see it? Lol
>> Twitter hiring CNN
CNN is ATT
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.