Twitter executives claimed under oath before Congress that they weren't "shadow banning" conservatives. They lied. Elon Musk released internal memos proving they lied extensively. It wasn't "enforcing their own TOS." It was working closely with the government to protect liberals personally and prevent any criticism of government actions by the Biden administration. And we saw the reaction to Musk from the Left. He was going to allow all sides to participate. That outraged them.
Lauren Boebert losses it over Twitter ban
- Thread starter nWo
- Start date
Trucker Clock
Well-Known Member
Wait a minute. I thought you didn't want the Government involved. You don't want the Government telling a private business what content to delete.
Now, you want the Government to tell a private business that they can't delete posts. Sorry, the Government has no authority to tell a private business what they can or can't delete.
Trucker Clock
Well-Known Member
A private business can run itself how it wants. Twitter does not have to be free to all sides. Not if Twitter management does not want it that way. Twitter has every right as a private business to be one sided. Hell, they already are. So is Facebook.
Oh, that's right, you want the Government to step in and force Twitter, a private business, to be free to all sides.
If you want Twitter to not delete any posts, to not ban anyone, do something about it. Boycott Twitter. Write letters to Twitter. Maybe if Twitter lost users do to their policies, they may change.
But, do not expect the Government to force a private business to do this. The Government needs to stay out of it completely. Let the free market decide how Twitter operates.
You want a platform free to all sides? Create one.
Next Day Error
X - Other
I know what VAERS is. You apparently do not.
Trucker Clock
Well-Known Member
Exactly how it is supposed to be done. The new owner of Twitter, a private business, is going to allow all sides to participate. This is an owner decision, not a forced decision by the Government. The previous owner of Twitter had every right to run it the way he wanted to.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Are you not aware of how many regulatory agencies your government has created?
Do you believe your government has your best interests at heart?
Or is your government more interested in controlling you, and remaining in control….
Trucker Clock
Well-Known Member
Yes.
No.
Sure.
But, at least for the time being, and hopefully for many, many years into the future, the Government cannot tell a private social media company what, or whom, they can or cannot delete from their site.
I want the government to stay out of it altogether. Not take sides. Sure, a private business can choose what to delete or allow. But as a platform given special exemptions from the government they need to treat everyone fairly or lose that exemption. And be held accountable by Congress for lying to them.
burrheadd
KING Of GIFS
Morals went out the window awhile ago
And Congress has the right to strip them from the exemption other media outlets don't enjoy if they no longer operate as an unbiased platform. Newspapers are free to write opinions, but when they print claims that harm others they can be sued. I forget the exact word/number designation of the exemption but Twitter and others argued that they are platforms that enable others to post, but shouldn't be held accountable for what others post. So they were granted an exemption from being sued as long as they remained an unbiased platform open to everyone. But they operated behind the scenes to shut down conservative voices before the election and since and were doing it in concert with elements of our government and lied about it to Congress. They weren't innocent bystanders just trying to run a business. And squealed like stuck pigs when Musk reopened the platform to most who've been run off.
You don't want the government telling a private business how to operate but the reason we have a government is to enact laws that protect us not only from criminals but protects consumers from poor business practices that can harm us in various ways. Businesses aren't free to just do anything they like. Do you think UPS can choose how to ship and deliver freight without any government regulations intended to protect public safety? Or the safety of its employees?
Last edited:
Trucker Clock
Well-Known Member
Says who? You?
That's not what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says.
A whole different issue.
Trucker Clock
Well-Known Member
Wrong. The exemption is not contingent upon Twitter being unbiased.
What's it contingent on? No way they can lose the exemption?
Trucker Clock
Well-Known Member
Nothing.
The law was created almost 30 years ago to protect internet platforms from liability for many of the things third parties say or do on them.
"Wyden likens the dual nature of Section 230 to a sword and a shield for platforms: They’re shielded from liability for user content, and they have a sword to moderate it as they see fit."
Section 230, the internet law that’s under threat, explained
The section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is now being considered by the Supreme Court in two cases, including Gonzalez v. Google.
www.vox.com
They were given an exemption, so the giver can take it away too. Obviously not going to be done by the Democrats. Twitter is essentially an arm of the DNC.Nothing.
The law was created almost 30 years ago to protect internet platforms from liability for many of the things third parties say or do on them.
"Wyden likens the dual nature of Section 230 to a sword and a shield for platforms: They’re shielded from liability for user content, and they have a sword to moderate it as they see fit."
Section 230, the internet law that’s under threat, explained
The section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is now being considered by the Supreme Court in two cases, including Gonzalez v. Google.
oldngray
nowhere special
Censorship is OK as long as it is only conservatives being censored.
Trucker Clock
Well-Known Member
The Government cannot take it away from just one social media company and pick and choose who is exempt. It is a broad exemption to any social media company that is not a publisher. They would have to eliminate it for all.
All or none.
Try all you want. You can spin it any way you want. You will never get what you want.
Trucker Clock
Well-Known Member
Looks like you're starting to see the light. Good job.
Trucker Clock
Well-Known Member
And the Republicans would say that censorship is OK as long as it was Liberals being censored.
While both parties are different, they are both the same. What's best for the party.
oldngray
nowhere special
Republicans just want a fair playing field for everyone. Which the Democrats seem to be afraid of.
