Twitter Fact Checks Trump

[Orthin]

Oh man, the material is essentially liquid muscle. So maybe? They can talk and breathe so sneezing through it might be a real issue. Though the only time they wear the suits is once.



The guy on the right has serious sneeze guard issues.

Sweet so two people to never fuck with and also amazing potential alter ideas!

[Tgo01]

Publishers take and edit submitted works day in and day out, that's how they make money.

Yes but Twitter isn't a publisher, they are a platform. Now you get it? Good.

[Tgo01]

So I think the difference between the newspapers as publishers and Twitter as publishers lies in who is publishing the material. For newspapers (with the exception of OP EDs and advertisements) is from the newspapers staff. So in this case yes they should be available for slander and libel since they control the content and are also the creators of the content.

Newspapers choose what does and does not get published on their platform. Not everything written in a newspaper is from an employee of said newspaper, a lot of them are freelance journalists, but if it gets published in a newspaper then the newspaper is open to liable.

[Seran]

No it's not their right as a platform.

If Twitter wants to act like a publisher then they need to start being treated like a publisher, meaning they will be responsible for slander and other crimes that are posted on their site.

It's their sole right as a company offer a service conditioned upon acting within terms and conditions and community standards. The argument that they shouldn't be the sole arbiter of posted content is fuckin ridiculous. It's their service, it's decision on what is or isn't acceptable. It's their right, just as it's his right as a common citizen to sue them if he feels they've breached a covenant of good faith or contract.

[Seran]

No, it is a right of their platform. It’s their company. Don’t like it, don’t use it.

Exactly

[Tgo01]

Don't news authorities have different legal standards set in place that could be factoring in to this? I don't think Twitter is considered a news organization like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC etc are. I believe with at least broadcast news their are rules they have to abide by according to FCC.

News organizations are not immune from slander lawsuits although it is much tougher to sue them for slander.

Internet companies were given this unique protection way back when the internet was young because the government wanted to see the internet flourish and not stifle innovation because internet companies were worried about lawsuits because of what their users said, but the government assumed the internet companies would stick to the idea of them being a platform and not a publisher and up until very recently have have been very good on this. But lately they are acting worse than China's internet censorship, and hmm...with an election just a few months away. Weird.

[Tgo01]

It's their sole right as a company offer a service conditioned upon acting within terms and conditions and community standards. The argument that they shouldn't be the sole arbiter of posted content is fuckin ridiculous. It's their service, it's decision on what is or isn't acceptable. It's their right, just as it's his right as a common citizen to sue them if he feels they've breached a covenant of good faith or contract.

Why do you hate facts so much? I'm not sure how else I can explain this to you so it gets through that thick skull of yours.

If Twitter wants to be a publisher then fine, they can be a publisher. They don't get the protection of being a platform AND have the luxury of being a publisher.

[Solkern]

Why do you hate facts so much? I'm not sure how else I can explain this to you so it gets through that thick skull of yours.

If Twitter wants to be a publisher then fine, they can be a publisher. They don't get the protection of being a platform AND have the luxury of being a publisher.

Twitter is a platform, for people voice their opinions, and views, Twitter doesn’t publish anything themselves technically speaking. But under terms and service. They have every right to do what they did to Trump. You agreed to it when you sign up for twitter. These people don’t get paid by twitter to make post. They aren’t employees by twitter.
Facebook, MySpace, WeChat, they are all the same. They all do the same.

[~Rocktar~]

Twitter is a platform, for people voice their opinions, and views, Twitter doesn’t publish anything themselves technically speaking. But under terms and service. They have every right to do what they did to Trump. You agreed to it when you sign up for twitter. These people don’t get paid by twitter to make post. They aren’t employees by twitter.
Facebook, MySpace, WeChat, they are all the same. They all do the same.

The problem is, when they start doing shit like this in a clearly political attack, they censor others, shadow ban people and so on, then they become a publisher because they are shaping content. Thus, if they want to do that, they should lose the Section 230 protections.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/f...political-bias

[Tgo01]

But under terms and service. They have every right to do what they did to Trump. You agreed to it when you sign up for twitter.

This isn't how the real world works. If Twitter's terms and service said they own your house and car after you make your first tweet do you really think this is legally binding?

If Twitter's terms and service said their employees were immune from murder charges if the president uses their platform do you think this holds up?

No.

Ergo it matters not what their terms and service states.

This really isn't difficult. If Twitter wants to be able to "fact check" only Trump and wants to censor conservatives and boot conservatives from their platform while they let liberals run wild then all they have to do is state they are a publisher and not a platform. It seems you too want Twitter to have special protections for some reason and at the same time have the power ignore the provisions those special protections require. Why is that?