Twitter Fact Checks Trump

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I can't believe you guys are arguing about a free internet platform where literally anyone can use it so long as they follow the terms of service which means they've given up essentially all rights in what the platform does once it's posted.

Those folks saying don't like it, don't use it are right.

Frankly I can't believe people use it, only ever irritated me so I dumped all that social media shit and am very much enjoying not seeing it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

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.

Most people call this a logical fallacy.

[Seran]

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.

They're not facts just because you're trying to spin it that way and they're not suddenly wanting to be a publisher just because it fits your narrative to try and paint them into a box.

[kookiegod]

I am going to be amused by Trump's social media executive order.

Wonder how far he's going to shred the First Amendment to the Constitution. His party and his supporters at FOX might actually turn on him. This might be his jump the shark moment.

Its one thing to keep wrongly calling the press the "enemy of the people" and weaponizing politics in the way he does it. Quite another to actually quell freedom of the press, esp the platform from which he has spouted the majority of his 20000+ lies and counting.

[Seran]

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?

If people stupidly agreed to terms of service which granted entitlement to their assets, then Twitter would have a cause of action to quiet title and take ownership. The problem is that would be an unconscionable clause and would be unenforceable in a court of law.

It's not just conservatives who are having their misleading, objectionable or libelous materials taken down. Unless of course you're including David Duke, the American Nazi Party and Guccifer 2.0 as conservatives unfairly wronged by censorship, which of course wouldn't be surprising coming from you.

[Seran]

I am going to be amused by Trump's social media executive order.

Wonder how far he's going to shred the First Amendment to the Constitution. His party and his supporters at FOX might actually turn on him. This might be his jump the shark moment.

Its one thing to keep wrongly calling the press the "enemy of the people" and weaponizing politics in the way he does it. Quite another to actually quell freedom of the press, esp the platform from which he has spouted the majority of his 20000+ lies and counting.

Sadly it's not just the first amendment he's shat all over. I'm imagining what few of his level headed advisors who are still around are begging the President to dial it back

[Solkern]

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?

Sadly that is how the world is. You live in, you should know it. Terms and agreements are only legally standing when they are related to use of said service or platform, demanding someone’s car isnt legal and wouldn’t hold up in court. I bet 99% of the people don’t read apples Terms and agreements.
Writing in the Terms and agreements they are immune to murder if they work for twitter? Seriously wtf? That is the most dense thing I’ve ever heard. Maybe you should read about what is allowed and not allowed in companies terms of service.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/b...selling/terms/

[Solkern]

I can't believe you guys are arguing about a free internet platform where literally anyone can use it so long as they follow the terms of service which means they've given up essentially all rights in what the platform does once it's posted.

Those folks saying don't like it, don't use it are right.

Frankly I can't believe people use it, only ever irritated me so I dumped all that social media shit and am very much enjoying not seeing it.

Yeah, I’ve never had a twitter account and see zero fucking reason to get one. I barely even use Facebook.

[Tgo01]

If people stupidly agreed to terms of service which granted entitlement to their assets, then Twitter would have a cause of action to quiet title and take ownership.

I was actually going to waste my time replying to all of your points but then I read this and decided against it. Seriously you can't be this fucking stupid to think a single sentence in an 80+ page terms of service agreement which states you are signing over your house to the business in question if you use their service gives the business any sort of claims to your home. You just can't be this much of a retard.

[Tgo01]

Sadly that is how the world is. You live in, you should know it. Terms and agreements are only legally standing when they are related to use of said service or platform, demanding someone’s car isnt legal and wouldn’t hold up in court. I bet 99% of the people don’t read apples Terms and agreements.
Writing in the Terms and agreements they are immune to murder if they work for twitter? Seriously wtf? That is the most dense thing I’ve ever heard. Maybe you should read about what is allowed and not allowed in companies terms of service.

Point is you can't just make yourself immune to lawsuits simply because you stick it in a terms of service. Don't you think every company in the entire world would be doing that if it were that simple?