Do the companies who own websites have a right to determine content?

[Walt]

Social media isn't about "private"; it's PUBLIC.

So the FoxNew forum or the Republican Party forum should be required to make public my attacks on them?

[Into the Night]

Well, Poopiehead. If you bothered to read my comments you would see I have already answered your question. If people don't like what the service provider or platform is doing they are free to leave it.

The problem with what Trump is doing, is he hasn't thought it through. For it to even have a chance of surviving a court challenge it has to apply to all platforms. That means that every conservative outlet is under the same threat. I'm sure Soros has a lot of money and can sue every site that accuses him of some RW fantastical conspiracy. It means this site is subject to lawsuits for all the RW conspiracy shit you post here, Poopiehead. Any site that removes content would be covered under this. By saying that a site can't remove content and then by removing legal protections for those sites, Trump is given all those that host sites an impossible choice. Remove content and risk a lawsuit or leave it up and risk a lawsuit.

But the real kicker is that it requires sites to enforce the same rules for everyone. That would mean Twitter has to start removing Trump's posts that violate its TOS. It can no longer give him leeway because he is a politician.

No. It would mean Twitter could no longer use political leanings to determine it's TOS. It would also make Twitter liable for banning users for political reasons. Gab is worried, but they need not be. They don't ban anyone for political reasons.

[AProudLefty]

Would you like it if DAMO attached comments to your posts here?

I wouldn't fucking care. BTW, it isn't "attaching comments", it's a link.

[AProudLefty]

No. It would mean Twitter could no longer use political leanings to determine it's TOS. It would also make Twitter liable for banning users for political reasons. Gab is worried, but they need not be. They don't ban anyone for political reasons.

Twitter doesn't.

[AProudLefty]

To make snowflakes with explosive diarrhea happy, the compromise is for them to attach BOTH views.

[StoneByStone]

your thread title is misleading/inexact.
Social media is more then a common website.
It replaces the old public square -but you are correct in that it is privately held.

The question then does social media platforms have the right to censor free (political) speech.
Thy rely on "it's a private corp and we can arbitrarily do as we please"

That has to change. fact checking by itself is often biased as well; leave it in the "marketplace of ideas" to decide instead
or Congress has to pass regs that do not allow for corporate interference of political speech

#deflection

[ExpressLane]

Trump threatens to shut down Twitter for pointing out that his Tweets are lies, does he have that power?


Republicans, how do you feel about that?

He is removing their protection from law suits because they are editing. They have a CHOICE let content from everyone go without edits or edit and be responsible and liable in the case of a suit. They can't edit and then claim protection from suits.

[AProudLefty]

He is removing their protection from law suits because they are editing. They have a CHOICE let content from everyone go without edits or edit and be responsible and liable in the case of a suit. They can't edit and then claim protection from suits.

Prove that they are editing tweets.

[FreeSpeech]

Trump threatens to shut down Twitter for pointing out that his Tweets are lies, does he have that power?


Republicans, how do you feel about that?

Not if they claim to be platforms and are exempt from legal liability and if they are liability exempt corporate entities that use their platform as a campaign ad for a political party then they are guilty of an illegal in kind campaign contribution.

[FreeSpeech]

Prove that they are editing tweets.

They are editorializing. And they are banning people based on editorial opinions; such as, there are only two genders.

[AProudLefty]

They are editorializing. And they are banning people based on editorial opinions; such as, there are only two genders.

Okay. So show me where they are changing Trump's words.

[Bill]

trumpkins say they are changing it, they say they are putting a warning there are lies...

SOme believe lying is merely another form of free speech, like fake news, deep state & other shit trump makes up on the fly & they suck down, hook, line & sinker.........

& to think almost all of them are actually adults & able to think for themselves..... Just easier to let the reality tv guy to do it for them...........

Some of them even bash millennials for being dumb & lazy, go figure...

[Concart]

He is removing their protection from law suits because they are editing. They have a CHOICE let content from everyone go without edits or edit and be responsible and liable in the case of a suit. They can't edit and then claim protection from suits.

LOL, they aren't claiming it. It's the law. If it wasn't, Trump would be immediately banned.

[Earl]

He is removing their protection from law suits because they are editing. They have a CHOICE let content from everyone go without edits or edit and be responsible and liable in the case of a suit. They can't edit and then claim protection from suits.

Indeed.

[Nordberg]

Who is responsible for the message if it is a lie? If the platform did not send it across the net, the lie would die. The platform is not safe because of claims it is the news. it is not, it is just a relay system. Are they OK if they send a terrorists messages?