Twitter Fact Checks Trump

[Tgo01]

The worst part, she's going to vote for Biden. Imagine having to swallow that giant lump of shit after spending 12 years bashing old rich racist white guys.

It's pathetic because Democrats have convinced themselves that merely voting Democrat makes them a good person and that they can't be racist or sexist or any other -ist.

[Astray]

Eh, make it a global fact check and not a singular individual. If it's not already that.

I don't really care, Twitter is shit.

[Solkern]

First of all they censor shit all of the time.

Second of all you're really being nitpicky with the word "censor" here.

Allowing someone FREE SPEECH and then taking it upon themselves to act as the arbiter of truth and to "provide the facts" for someone's free speech is censorship.

Why are you denying this? Is this what you think "free speech" entails? Imagine if the government decided this was how free speech worked. This is the type of shit that they do in communist shit holes that people like Seran love so much.

Yeah sure, the government allows you "free speech", but at the same time the government takes it upon themselves to decide what is and is not fact and can correct everyone's speech in real time. Yeah, great "free speech" you got going on there.

We don’t have free speech. You do know that right? People get arrested all the time for “free speech”

Twitter is a private company, they are using freedom of speech, to add a counter argument to Trump’s post. That’s in their right to do so. Trump used his freedom of speech to make a post on Twitter, twitter as a private company used its right to counter argue Trump’s claims. How twitter chooses to do this on their OWN platform, is their choice.

[Tgo01]

We don’t have free speech. You do know that right? People get arrested all the time for “free speech”

You really love nitpicking and deflections.

Let's just go back to my original question that you didn't answer, why do you feel Twitter should receive special protection to both have the power to editorialize the content on their site AND be immune from lawsuits and the like, a privilege no other company in the US enjoys.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

We don’t have free speech.

We 100% absolutely have free speech.

[~Rocktar~]

Popularity if a product or service doesn't make a monopoly. Only when the action's of a company inhibit competition, innovation or instances of price fixing does an unfair practices or FTC review become relevant.

Ummm, controlling a lion's share of a market by using anti-competitive practices does indeed constitute a monopoly. You know, things like threatening advertisers if they advertise on a competitor, skewing search results to hide your competitors or dissenting opinion, frivolous lawsuits, out right theft of intellectual property. All of which the major tech companies have done.

Your review of Section 230 is lacking. Can you show where there's a violation of the Communications Decency Act by Twitter for flagging the President's post as misleading? The section clearly states that there is no civil liability on the part of the platform for acting in good faith to material it found to be objectionable. They could have removed the post entirely and still be acting in accordance with the CDA.

Says the world class lawyer. Facts are, a lot of people that are far more legally educated than you or I seem to think that I am right including a lot of legal advisers to the White House and POTUS.

Again, the President can try to sue, but Twitter's immunity is clearly defined by law. The President can also try to use an EO to reinterpret the act, but any court will see the plaintext of the law and tell him he's drunk.

Quoted for posterity.

[Solkern]

You really love nitpicking and deflections.

Let's just go back to my original question that you didn't answer, why do you feel Twitter should receive special protection to both have the power to editorialize the content on their site AND be immune from lawsuits and the like, a privilege no other company in the US enjoys.

People who write for the New York Times, etc are employed and paid by said company. Twitter is a platform that requires people who use their services to agree to a TOS. They aren’t paid employees of twitter. By agreeing to use twitter, you are giving up your rights, it’s that simple, I’m 100% sure twitter said in its TOS that it can do what it did to Trump, and you agree to this by using its service. If you don’t agree, you can’t use it. Just like a private company mandating people to wear mask, even though it’s not required by law. Because it’s their company. They choose the rules. Don’t like it, don’t use it.

[Solkern]

We 100% absolutely have free speech.

And what happens if you start spouting racist words, or threatening messages to people? Like to the president?

Pretty sure slander isn’t protected under freedom of speech either.

So we have freedom of speech, as long as you follow the rules of it. So is that really freedom of speech?

[Tgo01]

People who write for the New York Times, etc are employed and paid by said company. Twitter is a platform that requires people who use their services to agree to a TOS. They aren’t paid employees of twitter. By agreeing to use twitter, you are giving up your rights, it’s that simple, I’m 100% sure twitter said in its TOS that it can do what it did to Trump, and you agree to this by using its service. If you don’t agree, you can’t use it. Just like a private company mandating people to wear mask, even though it’s not required by law. Because it’s their company. They choose the rules. Don’t like it, don’t use it.

You keep saying this. This is NOT how it works. I have explained this to you multiple times now. You are just flat out wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with Twitter's TOS.

EVERY company must abide by these rules. Even phone companies! Phone companies can't decide "Hey we don't like these KKK members saying this shit on our service so we just aren't going to allow them to say this shit" because if they do then they become legally responsible for ANY communication that happens on their service. And no phone companies can't get around this by simply having their customers agree to a TOS. They either have to say "We don't censor speech on our service" and are immune to lawsuits or they say "Yes we do censor speech" and are now responsible for lawsuits because they are taking an active role in deciding what is and is not allowed on their service.

And don't deflect again by saying this isn't censorship.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

or threatening messages to people? Like to the president?

First of all, your example itself is so retarded. Do you believe that people who say mean words about our president, even threaten him like say... mocking up his severed head or even a play in the park where he's slain, are rotting away in jail? Or even went to court? Jesus christ man, do you read the vomit argument you just made?

Yes, we have that freedom of speech, and I can be a racist, bigot, homophobe, whatever...