After Twitter posted a fact check against one of his recent tweets, Trump is now set so sign a executive order limiting their power to do that

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics ... index.html

Not a snowball's chance in hell this ever goes anywhere but straight to the garbage can. He's effectively demanding the right to lie, and NOT be called out for it. That's what dictators do.

But even now, people WILL defend this. Even here.

AA747123 wrote:

After Twitter posted a fact check against one of his recent tweets, Trump is now set so sign a executive order limiting their power to do that

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics ... index.html

That is actually not what the draft order is about. it is about asserting Trump's rights to post what he wants, which Twitter and Facebook still allow.

Here is section 230 below that Trump is complaining about

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider

I think fact checks would be allowed as a along as it is clear it is not the user's content that is being altered.

Just imagine the uproar if Obama threw a hissy fit because twitter was mean to him.

casinterest wrote:

AA747123 wrote:

After Twitter posted a fact check against one of his recent tweets, Trump is now set so sign a executive order limiting their power to do that

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics ... index.html

That is actually not what the draft order is about. it is about asserting Trump's rights to post what he wants, which Twitter and Facebook still allow.

Here is section 230 below that Trump is complaining about

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider

I think fact checks would be allowed as a along as it is clear it is not the user's content that is being altered.

The content is not being altered and the WH can’t claim that with a straight face. And platforms can change rules or operations however they wish, without user consent, as they own the hardware and software the platform runs/is hosted on. This is all going nowhere fast.

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

AA747123 wrote:

After Twitter posted a fact check against one of his recent tweets, Trump is now set so sign a executive order limiting their power to do that

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics ... index.html

That is actually not what the draft order is about. it is about asserting Trump's rights to post what he wants, which Twitter and Facebook still allow.

Here is section 230 below that Trump is complaining about

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider

I think fact checks would be allowed as a along as it is clear it is not the user's content that is being altered.

The content is not being altered and the WH can’t claim that with a straight face. And platforms can change rules or operations however they wish, without user consent, as they own the hardware and software the platform runs/is hosted on. This is all going nowhere fast.

The scary part as someone has pointed out, is that with the AG in his pocket, the FCC his own loyalist quack, and the Supreme Court and Senators not doing their jobs, he can do what he wants.

I can't wait to see the official executive order. It may be enough to label him as an official fascist if it comes with the rumored oversight investigations.

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

That is actually not what the draft order is about. it is about asserting Trump's rights to post what he wants, which Twitter and Facebook still allow.

Here is section 230 below that Trump is complaining about



I think fact checks would be allowed as a along as it is clear it is not the user's content that is being altered.

The content is not being altered and the WH can’t claim that with a straight face. And platforms can change rules or operations however they wish, without user consent, as they own the hardware and software the platform runs/is hosted on. This is all going nowhere fast.

The scary part as someone has pointed out, is that with the AG in his pocket, the FCC his own loyalist quack, and the Supreme Court and Senators not doing their jobs, he can do what he wants.

I can't wait to see the official executive order. It may be enough to label him as an official fascist if it comes with the rumored oversight investigations.

Well, it is still their business, and if it stood, could just remove the rule exception for heads of state, and kick him out.

Best regards
Thomas

FGITD wrote:

Just imagine the uproar if Obama threw a hissy fit because twitter was mean to him.

Or if Obama acted like a king and ruled by executive order? oh, wait....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... eaning-on/

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

AA747123 wrote:

After Twitter posted a fact check against one of his recent tweets, Trump is now set so sign a executive order limiting their power to do that

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics ... index.html

That is actually not what the draft order is about. it is about asserting Trump's rights to post what he wants, which Twitter and Facebook still allow.

Here is section 230 below that Trump is complaining about

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider

I think fact checks would be allowed as a along as it is clear it is not the user's content that is being altered.

The content is not being altered and the WH can’t claim that with a straight face. And platforms can change rules or operations however they wish, without user consent, as they own the hardware and software the platform runs/is hosted on. This is all going nowhere fast.

If I read this correctly
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... rrect-him/

this order would actually force social media side to wholesale remove all content they could be held liable for if they fact checked it.
And how does anyone think enabling liable cases against social media providers would not automatically include a liable case against the fact checked tweets author.

Best possible reply for twitter I guess is "until this is resolved in court, we will disable the fact check feature, and ban users violating our community standards."

Best regards
Thomas

Best possible reply from Twitter would be to hold POTUS to the same Terms of Service as everyone else.

NWAESC wrote:

Best possible reply from Twitter would be to hold POTUS to the same Terms of Service as everyone else.

But what would he do with all his hours of "executive time"?

Rant, rave, deflect, it's what Trump does best. The cynic in me wonders if this is a way to distract from 100k covid-19 deaths.

AA747123 wrote:

After Twitter posted a fact check against one of his recent tweets, Trump is now set so sign a executive order limiting their power to do that

You'd think that for someone who constantly rails against fake news, he'd welcome the fact-checking feature...

You'd think he'd also be smart enough to realize that if he went after them and their protections were removed, so would their requirements to accommodate anyone and everyone's opinion, which means it would be easy to take away his platform...which he gets for free. I read something to the effect of purported tax benefits, which if those were taken away, then, what's stopping the platform from charging users? If they charged, a good chunk of the audience disappear.

The way that it is written he's asking the matter to be looked at, which is a very bureaucratic way of saying "You're a doodie head!" which means there's a good chance that it's Trump's usual bellicose bluster that will fizzle out when his behind stops hurting and there's another face-saving crisis to address in the sandbox. It may still have teeth but for any laws to change it has to go through the House (someone correct me if I'm mistaken), and that's not happening because the evidence would be Trump's own use of the platform--I can't imagine he would like that attention. But hey, I've been wrong before.

So Twitter will move to Iceland or something?

Twitter should have terminated 'The Real Donald Trump' account before he became President for his frequent violations of their TOS. I also think there needs to be a Federal law passed banning elected and appointed Federal officials from use of their personal Twitter and other social media accounts, only 'official', government authorized ones.
One of the conflicts of our 1st Amendment is allowing freedom of speech even if offensive with a few exceptions (like porn involving minors is illegal but on other than free speech grounds). The best way to protect from offensive speech is more free speech. If Trump wants to put out lies, that is his right but others have the right to challenge those views including Twitter company to protect their product and other users. Trump doesn't have the right to use the government to censure speech,

Dutchy wrote:

So Twitter will move to Iceland or something?

Greenland. Until Trump buys it...

ltbewr wrote:

One of the conflicts of our 1st Amendment is allowing freedom of speech even if offensive with a few exceptions (like porn involving minors is illegal but on other than free speech grounds).

That's actually a pro of free speech. The fact that you can speak your mind in anyway you can. The main issue from free speech is that it doesn't mean reaction-free speech.

I'm in my complete right to say a slur of any kind. The government can't fine me or send me to jail because of that. However, a company may choose to disassociate itself from me so that I'm not a liability. People can react negatively and express their opinions about my statements. And if this slur was made on a platform held by a private company that requires me to agree to terms of service, the platform has every right to delete the post and/or suspend my account.

What many folks want is to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say whatever they want and for us to stay quiet and not react or accept it. I can defend someone's right to speak their mind; it doesn't mean I have to agree or accept what they say, especially when it denigrates people. If anything it says more about them than anyone else.

The Twitterverse mob sometimes DOES take it too far. How many people, exactly, have business with Franklin Templeton? Why not let FT determine the correct course of action? Calling for someone to lose their job is a bit of a stretch and unless its warranted (like someone that's in customer service and caught in the act WHILE doing their job), I wouldn't join the chorus to take it that far. The embarrassment and shame of being immortalized on the internet is enough punishment, even if eventually you become yesterday's news.

I really hope they will close down his account, it will be hard for him to send his ridiculous complotist fake news. All his communication is based on that, he would just have shot himself in the foot.

sebolino wrote:

I really hope they will close down his account, it will be hard for him to send his ridiculous complotist fake news. All his communication is based on that, he would just have shot himself in the foot.

Ahh some whack would just go copy Twitter and set up a new site. Should be called "ReTwit" or something to announce they are Republican supporters. And he'll hammer away there (and it'll instantly have some 80 million members because of it sadly).

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Ahh some whack would just go copy Twitter and set up a new site. Should be called "ReTwit" or something to announce they are Republican supporters. And he'll hammer away there (and it'll instantly have some 80 million members because of it sadly).

There's already a Wikipedia equivalent called Conservapedia (which oddly enough can't be edited by anyone except the owner). It's hilarious!

einsteinboricua wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One of the conflicts of our 1st Amendment is allowing freedom of speech even if offensive with a few exceptions (like porn involving minors is illegal but on other than free speech grounds).

That's actually a pro of free speech. The fact that you can speak your mind in anyway you can. The main issue from free speech is that it doesn't mean reaction-free speech.

I'm in my complete right to say a slur of any kind. The government can't fine me or send me to jail because of that.

That's just not true.

You should try these:
- Shout insults and threats against the president in front of the white house
- Scream that you have a bomb in a plane
- Insult a cop in the street

Then you'll understand what "free speech" is not. All freedoms have limits, and it's something many people in the states don't seem to understand (typical for the weapons).

Trump has signed the order, but i do wonder how many folks realize that Trump's order is about stifling free speech instead of protecting it.

Here is one of the Author's takes.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/28/2127 ... law-speech

In a statement Thursday, Wyden said:
"I have warned for years that this administration was threatening 230 in order to chill speech and bully companies like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter into giving him favorable treatment. Today Trump proved me right. I expect those companies, and every American who participates in online speech, to resist this illegal act by all possible means. Giving in to bullying by this president may be the single most unpatriotic act an American could undertake."

Officials at the FCC are beginning to speak out about the draft order as well. Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said that the proposal “does not work” and that “an Executive Order that would turn the Federal Communications Commission into the President’s speech police is not the answer.” Republican Commissioner Brendan Carr said that it “makes sense” to allow the public to weigh in on 230’s interpretation.

The rise of the Facists has begun within the GOP.

About time. Now drain the social media swamp!

The 1st amendment only applies to the gpvernment giving you free speech. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc are not forced to provide a platform. They can easily ban Trump. Maybe Twitter should just threaten to do so, see if Trump still pushes through on his scheme. I would not be surprised that Trump values his shoutbox more and back down.

Jetty wrote:

About time. Now drain the social media swamp!

Perhaps you could help me, I do not see how this new executive order will ban Trump and the likes from Twitter.

petertenthije wrote:

The 1st amendment only applies to the gpvernment giving you free speech. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc are not forced to provide a platform. They can easily ban Trump. Maybe Twitter should just threaten to do so, see if Trump still pushes through on his scheme. I would not be surprised that Trump values his shoutbox more and back down.

In fact, by this very order Trump violates the freedom of a company (twitter) to conduct business as they please.

You know, freedom of business, the same reason he used for tweeting all that "Liberate [State with a Democrat governor taking the COVID situation seriously]" bullsh*t.

sebolino wrote:

You should try these:
- Shout insults and threats against the president in front of the white house

Not a slur and it's a threat to safety.

sebolino wrote:

- Scream that you have a bomb in a plane

Not a slur and this is a threat to safety.

sebolino wrote:

- Insult a cop in the street

Call them a slob; so long as I'm not a threat to their safety, they can't do anything. What? Are we shooting people or putting them in jail because of hurt feelings? Their reaction, if any, is personal and not because the handbook or the law says that, upon any form of insult, fire at will.

sebolino wrote:

Then you'll understand what "free speech" is not. All freedoms have limits, and it's something many people in the states don't seem to understand (typical for the weapons).

And you neglected to read the part where I say that free speech does not mean reaction-free speech, where I implicitly acknowledge there are limits.

Nothing stops me from yelling "bomb" on a plane or standing in front of the White House and hurling insults at the president (who will likely not even hear it) but I have to face facts that air marshals will take me down and be waiting for me at the airport or that the Secret Service may take me down (though oddly enough, standing somewhere in DC with a sign insulting the president isn't a threat; otherwise, lots of protests would be shut down) because what I am expressing could be considered a threat.

Scorpio wrote:

Not a snowball's chance in hell this ever goes anywhere but straight to the garbage can. He's effectively demanding the right to lie, and NOT be called out for it. That's what dictators do.

But even now, people WILL defend this. Even here.

He’s not demanding that he right to lie. He’s just clarifying that if social media platforms rely on the exemption of Section 230 they shouldn’t edit users content as Twitter did. This makes sense as Twitters actions undermine the whole rationale of that exemption. Not surprisingly they happened under authority of a staunch Trump hater: https://mobile.twitter.com/LevineJonath ... 8215124995

Jetty wrote:

Scorpio wrote:

Not a snowball's chance in hell this ever goes anywhere but straight to the garbage can. He's effectively demanding the right to lie, and NOT be called out for it. That's what dictators do.

But even now, people WILL defend this. Even here.

He’s not demanding that he right to lie. He’s just clarifying that if social media platforms rely on the exemption of Section 230 they shouldn’t edit users content as Twitter did. This makes sense as Twitters actions undermine the whole rationale of that exemption. Not surprisingly they happened under authority of a staunch Trump hater: https://mobile.twitter.com/LevineJonath ... 8215124995

They did not edit anything he wrote. They added a disclaimer.

Jetty wrote:

Scorpio wrote:

Not a snowball's chance in hell this ever goes anywhere but straight to the garbage can. He's effectively demanding the right to lie, and NOT be called out for it. That's what dictators do.

But even now, people WILL defend this. Even here.

He’s not demanding that he right to lie. He’s just clarifying that if social media platforms rely on the exemption of Section 230 they shouldn’t edit users content as Twitter did. This makes sense as Twitters actions undermine the whole rationale of that exemption. Not surprisingly they happened under authority of a staunch Trump hater: https://mobile.twitter.com/LevineJonath ... 8215124995

A normal user would have already been banned for all the conspiracies, vile, racist, misogynistic, and dishonorable lies that Donald Trump posts. It is well within a PRIVATE companies purview to facilitate understanding for the end users when such leeway is given to a public figure

luckyone wrote:

Jetty wrote:

Scorpio wrote:

Not a snowball's chance in hell this ever goes anywhere but straight to the garbage can. He's effectively demanding the right to lie, and NOT be called out for it. That's what dictators do.

But even now, people WILL defend this. Even here.

He’s not demanding that he right to lie. He’s just clarifying that if social media platforms rely on the exemption of Section 230 they shouldn’t edit users content as Twitter did. This makes sense as Twitters actions undermine the whole rationale of that exemption. Not surprisingly they happened under authority of a staunch Trump hater: https://mobile.twitter.com/LevineJonath ... 8215124995

They did not edit anything he wrote. They added a disclaimer.

A disclaimer that altered the whole purport of the original message that is.

casinterest wrote:

A normal user would have already been banned for all the conspiracies, vile, racist, misogynistic, and dishonorable lies that Donald Trump posts. It is well within a PRIVATE companies purview to facilitate understanding for the end users when such leeway is given to a public figure

No doubt about that. But if a private company wants to facilitate understanding for end users of other peoples content by altering the purport of said content they shouldn’t rely on the exemption of Section 230, then they should take responsibility for the content they relay themselves.

Jetty wrote:

A disclaimer that altered the whole purport of the original message that is.

Exactly! His intent was to lie and /or deceive.

At least you realize and admit that Jetty.

Tugg

Jetty wrote:

A disclaimer that altered the whole purport of the original message that is.

The original message is there in original form for anyone to see. The fact check is also there for anyone to see. Nobody has to look at either. Again, the content is hosted on their platform and system - if they want to add a disclaimer, they can. Not sure how that fact keeps escaping 45ers.

Aaron747 wrote:

Jetty wrote:

A disclaimer that altered the whole purport of the original message that is.

The original message is there in original form for anyone to see. The fact check is also there for anyone to see. Nobody has to look at either. Again, the content is hosted on their platform and system - if they want to add a disclaimer, they can. Not sure how that fact keeps escaping 45ers.

They drink bleach I mean what do you expect?

Is this an appropriate time to call out dear leader for sharing the video of "a good Democrat is a dead Democrat" and no one on the right outraged over that at all? This man who claims to be a great leader for us all is sharing this crap makes me sick. I have been sick before but not like this. My soul is crying for sanitizer. When is enough enough for you Republicans? For you MAGA cult members? If this isn't, this shows your colors. Even if he would say "I should not have shared that" is weasely but something. For once. I would take it.

casinterest wrote:

A normal user would have already been banned for all the conspiracies, vile, racist, misogynistic, and dishonorable lies that Donald Trump posts. It is well within a PRIVATE companies purview to facilitate understanding for the end users when such leeway is given to a public figure

... and, ironically, his declaration might be the only thing that will get him banned. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - the section he is threating to remove - protects media companies when their users post false, malicious, and conspiratorial information. It is the legal provision that has given Trump latitude to publish with impunity a whole host of inflammatory, harassing and factually distorted messages - and without that provision, Twitter will probably be compelled to take much of that down.

Without Section 230, forcing Twitter into the role of a publisher forces them to take the risk of legal liability for these types of statements; its current definition as a distributor does not. For better or for worse, all of the bile and vitriol that spews from #therealdonaldtrump may become a thing of the past.

I am sure the members of his cult will miss him...

einsteinboricua wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One of the conflicts of our 1st Amendment is allowing freedom of speech even if offensive with a few exceptions (like porn involving minors is illegal but on other than free speech grounds).

That's actually a pro of free speech. The fact that you can speak your mind in anyway you can. The main issue from free speech is that it doesn't mean reaction-free speech.

I'm in my complete right to say a slur of any kind. The government can't fine me or send me to jail because of that

That is no different from the government looking away, not giving you a recourse, when someone slaps you.
"Freedom of Speech" is an illusion, can´t exist, and in fact doesn´t exists anywhere. Its also why pretty much everywhere else it is freedom to express an opinion.

The stuff Alex Jones, Hannity or Trump are spouting out would carry a prison sentence here, well, for Jones perhaps involuntary mental treatment, and rightly so.

As a measurable thing freedom of speech is much more intact here, and that holds for most other developed democracies as well.

https://rsf.org/en/ranking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ind ... 18_ranking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World

Freedom and the ability to commit libel, hate speech and such have no bearing on how free people actually are..[/quote]

Tugger wrote:

sebolino wrote:

I really hope they will close down his account, it will be hard for him to send his ridiculous complotist fake news. All his communication is based on that, he would just have shot himself in the foot.

Ahh some whack would just go copy Twitter and set up a new site. Should be called "ReTwit" or something to announce they are Republican supporters. And he'll hammer away there (and it'll instantly have some 80 million members because of it sadly).

Tugg

And who would go use it? Those that are already fans... no reach to anybody else, like the people needed to win an Election. And all the other "fun" stuff wouldn´t be there, so it get divided attention.
This forum has plenty of conservatives.. how often does anyone site conservepedia?

best regards
Thomas

seb146 wrote:

Is this an appropriate time to call out dear leader for sharing the video of "a good Democrat is a dead Democrat" and no one on the right outraged over that at all?.

they either agree, or are afraid of those that do.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Is this an appropriate time to call out dear leader for sharing the video of "a good Democrat is a dead Democrat" and no one on the right outraged over that at all?.

they either agree, or are afraid of those that do.

best regards
Thomas

Also, remember that they are already insisting that November 2020 elections are fake and rigged and that November 2020 elections are thrown. Now. In May 2020. The November 2020 elections are fake and must be disputed and rejected.

George Orwell said it best

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

seb146 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Is this an appropriate time to call out dear leader for sharing the video of "a good Democrat is a dead Democrat" and no one on the right outraged over that at all?.

they either agree, or are afraid of those that do.

best regards
Thomas

Also, remember that they are already insisting that November 2020 elections are fake and rigged and that November 2020 elections are thrown. Now. In May 2020. The November 2020 elections are fake and must be disputed and rejected.

They can reject the result all they want. Standing Supreme Court precedence is that a result on Jan 20th is more relevant than figuring out the correct result.

If they do more than that complaining about it, Law Enforcement shuts them down rather quick..

best regards
Thomas

Twitter has 'flagged' President Trump's latest Friday, early AM tweet of 'if the looting starts, the shooting starts', as encouraging violence.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartandhp
Guess another round of hate of Trump vs. Twitter company.

Why does anyone use Twitter? What is the purpose?

Famous or wealthy people can just have their own websites to post announcements, or hire someone to do it. And the rest of us have nothing of any interest to post ( in my case, neither do rich people or celebrities). So why.

Derico wrote:

Why does anyone use Twitter? What is the purpose?

Famous or wealthy people can just have their own websites to post announcements, or hire someone to do it. And the rest of us have nothing of any interest to post ( in my case, neither do rich people or celebrities). So why.

Twitter allows a more personal connection to leaders, businesses, and interest groups. Psychologically, the distance feels less than visiting someone's website for announcements (and websites don't always load or work reliably on mobile devices if poorly-designed, whereas social media apps are designed around them). Also it acts as a personal interest aggregator, which many users find appealing if their time is limited and they can't spend an hour or two paging through Flipboard on the daily. For those of us in businesses that require continual engagement with repeat customers, it's an excellent marketing tool as well.

At some point in time this issue has to be settled by Supreme Court or through legislation. I guess the time is now.

scbriml wrote:

Jetty wrote:

luckyone wrote:

They did not edit anything he wrote. They added a disclaimer.

A disclaimer that altered the whole purport of the original message that is.

So does that mean you’ve now accepted that Twitter didn’t edit Trump’s tweet?

I’m dumb, please explain what the purport of Trump’s tweet was. Then explain how adding the “this is unproven bollocks” flag changes it.

Then tell us how you feel after Twitter bitch-slapped another of his vile tweets.

Trump tried to pass off his message as true, Twitter flagged it as false. That obviously changes a whole lot. They should be allowed to do so but not while claiming the Section 230 exception at the same time.

Aaron747 wrote:

Derico wrote:

Why does anyone use Twitter? What is the purpose?

Famous or wealthy people can just have their own websites to post announcements, or hire someone to do it. And the rest of us have nothing of any interest to post ( in my case, neither do rich people or celebrities). So why.

Twitter allows a more personal connection to leaders, businesses, and interest groups. Psychologically, the distance feels less than visiting someone's website for announcements (and websites don't always load or work reliably on mobile devices if poorly-designed, whereas social media apps are designed around them). Also it acts as a personal interest aggregator, which many users find appealing if their time is limited and they can't spend an hour or two paging through Flipboard on the daily. For those of us in businesses that require continual engagement with repeat customers, it's an excellent marketing tool as well.

Ok, that is a valid reason. I never thought business used Twitter. I guess I'm such an extreme cynic, that I wouldn't really care what anyone or any company says on Twitter. Words are cheap, key strokes are even cheaper. I guess I would make a bad "repeat" customer hahaha.