Could you add “Forced arbitration” to the TOS ?
2 Likes
In order to protect free speech we are going to curtail free speech…
Its a good thing we know what drugs Trump has taking so we can avoid having our brains resemble Cottage Swiss cheese.
3 Likes
Boomers bought into “burn the villagers to save the village” to play bully for South Vietnamese rich landlords.
And by and large Boomers know that they won’t have to deal with the dictatorial part of the creating a dictatorship as they will be dead.
1 Like
Uhm, I think you have the wrong generation there. Boomers were the conscripts in the war, and the protesters at home. Policy was being made by the Greatest Generation. I’m a Boomer (on the tail side of the Boom) and I wasn’t even old enough to vote by the time the US pulled out of Nam. Even the oldest of the Boomers were twenty-something.
9 Likes
Sorry - I’m a Boomer and I was first able to vote the year after the US withdrawal from Vietnam. We have made a lot of mistakes, but this one is not on us - or at least the majority of us.
2 Likes
Twitter just needs to kick trump off for obvious transgressions to their rules - escalate the conflict, please
4 Likes
In fact, that comment about the Boomers made me think of hearing one Republican talking about “Obama’s incompentent response to Hurricane Katrina.”
“He wasn’t in office.”
“Yes, and there needs to be an investigation into why he was out of the office that day! What was he doing, playing golf?”
7 Likes
It’s misdirection - they’re yelling about bias and censorship, but their proposed “solutions” involve stripping safe harbor protections and saddling platforms they dislike with liability for content posted by their users.
Doing so would force said platforms to heavily censor all content that might upset or offend someone with the means to sue them for it. That’s the prize here. Plutes and Corps can already sue your average citizen into ruin, silence, and submission, but it costs money to do so. Trump and co. would be much happier if the platforms did the dirty work for free at the mere threat of legal action.
4 Likes
For some reason, this is the least disturbing @beschizza’d shoop ever. It’s an improvement in fact.
13 Likes
What 230 says:
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.
The crux of the issue will lie in the court’s thoughts on these two past cases. Central will be wether or not they consider Twitter’s branding of something as false as editorializing and therefore leaning them toward a publisher and away from a provider.
From Wiki, the two cases that went in either direction:
In the early 1990s, the Internet became more widely adopted and created means for users to engage in forums and other user-generated content. While this helped to expand the use of the Internet, it also resulted in a number of legal cases putting service providers at fault for the content generated by its users. This concern was raised by legal challenges against CompuServe and Prodigy, early service providers at this time.[2] CompuServe stated they would not attempt to regulate what users posted on their services, while Prodigy had employed a team of moderators to validate content. Both faced legal challenges related to content posted by their users. In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. , CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. found that as Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and legally responsible for libel committed by customers.[3][a]
If they lean against Twitter, the internet will change in drastic, and destructive ways. The internet needs less regulation, not more.
1 Like
IANAL, but I’d imagine not, since this isn’t an issue of OUR TOS, but instead a matter of law, something section 230 of the CDA protects us from. We can’t say, for example, “If a user slanders you you must do X” because the law already defines what you need to do if a user slanders you.
The loss of section 230 of the CDA would quickly lead to the loss of independent discussion forums, followed quickly by every US-based Mastodon and mastodon-like twitter alternative (as the operators would be liable for posts there), followed pretty quickly by attempts to remove dns entries for non-Us-based forums, or some sort of filtering from the US, by parties who want to control the disucssion.
IMHO, You’d be left with only the major players, running regulated forums no one would want to read because of the garbage in them, and everyone else filtering US traffic.
7 Likes
The thing about the First Amendment is it’s a limit on the Government, saying that the Government can’t limit the speech of citizens.
It does not say that private enterprises cannot ban customers, and it certainly does not say that a private enterprise (Twitter) cannot point out when a customer (Trump) is lying.
Really, since he’s the President, that means that Trump attempting to stop Twitter from pointing out he’s full of shit is the only thing here that could be defined at being in violation of the First Amendment.
7 Likes
Just made my donations to ACLU and EFF. Great time now that the stock market is Trumply exuberant.
5 Likes
This was the first eyemouth shoop, I think. Just warming up.
7 Likes
https://twitter.com/YahooNews/status/1266076433912336384
White House sources tell Yahoo News that the office of Vice President Mike Pence, National Economic Council Chairman Larry Kudlow, and others are making the argument that it will set a bad precedent to signal that the federal government can go after private companies and seek to penalize them for purely political reasons.
Even though draft of the order that leaked into the public on Thursday would be limited in its impact, the signal it will send is the most significant thing, according to its opponents. The push comes amid the coronavirus death toll in the United States surpassing 100,000.
“There is pushback from a lot of people” inside the White House, an administration official told Yahoo News, saying there is “a lot of frustration” among advisers who are often some of the president’s most loyal backers.
6 Likes
Somehow, it just improves the orange shite…
5 Likes
As we Brits say, he has definitely lost his marbles. The man is stark, staring bonkers. Paranoia at its worst.
1 Like
EFF articles related to rule 230:
1 Like
And so it begins. Trump going full dictator. Setting out to destroy any opposition of any kind.
I must have misunderstood, nobody censored him. They just pointed out he was lying.
I’m getting heartily sick of these fucking idiots.
Zuckerberg went into gutless, pre-emptive bootlicking mode yesterday, basically saying that Twitter has their policy… and FB has its own, which does not include fact-checking. Whether or not the Zuck ever truly believes in anything he says, I have a feeling FB will hunker down and hide behind the skirts of platforms that do decide to fight back.
7 Likes
