(10-14-2020 09:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  How hard is it to remove 230 protection?

Can't you just do an executive order? Or have an attorney's opinion that they no longer qualify?

The House wont do it. This protection and interference in the election has now crossed a line and must be considered an illegal "in kind" campaign donation. Time for a DOJ investigation into Twitter and Google for illegal campaign donations and interference. Time for Trump Campaign lawyers to file a federal law suit seeking an injunction preventing this type of action for the next 3 weeks by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube by claiming they represent an illegal "in kind" campaign donation. Shouldnt be hard to find a friendly court.

Courts move too slow to get them involved now

(10-14-2020 10:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-14-2020 09:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  How hard is it to remove 230 protection?

Can't you just do an executive order? Or have an attorney's opinion that they no longer qualify?

The House wont do it. This protection and interference in the election has now crossed a line and must be considered an illegal "in kind" campaign donation. Time for a DOJ investigation into Twitter and Google for illegal campaign donations and interference. Time for Trump Campaign lawyers to file a federal law suit seeking an injunction preventing this type of action for the next 3 weeks by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube by claiming they represent an illegal "in kind" campaign donation. Shouldnt be hard to find a friendly court.

Ben Shapiro had a great point about how Big Tech is biting the hand that protects them. Its the GOP that wants the social media platforms to have free market protections not the Dems

(10-14-2020 10:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-14-2020 09:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  How hard is it to remove 230 protection?

Can't you just do an executive order? Or have an attorney's opinion that they no longer qualify?

The House wont do it. This protection and interference in the election has now crossed a line and must be considered an illegal "in kind" campaign donation. Time for a DOJ investigation into Twitter and Google for illegal campaign donations and interference. Time for Trump Campaign lawyers to file a federal law suit seeking an injunction preventing this type of action for the next 3 weeks by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube by claiming they represent an illegal "in kind" campaign donation. Shouldnt be hard to find a friendly court.

Well they don't have a twitter specific 230 exemption. Its a general exemption for those that are platforms. If they cease to be a platform it shouldn't be that hard to say they don't qualify.

The only thing I can think of is they are afraid they will be totally cut off and Parler isn't enough.

If they really think its necessary now, they need to act the day after the election.

(10-15-2020 09:25 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-14-2020 10:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-14-2020 09:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  How hard is it to remove 230 protection?

Can't you just do an executive order? Or have an attorney's opinion that they no longer qualify?

The House wont do it. This protection and interference in the election has now crossed a line and must be considered an illegal "in kind" campaign donation. Time for a DOJ investigation into Twitter and Google for illegal campaign donations and interference. Time for Trump Campaign lawyers to file a federal law suit seeking an injunction preventing this type of action for the next 3 weeks by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube by claiming they represent an illegal "in kind" campaign donation. Shouldnt be hard to find a friendly court.

Well they don't have a twitter specific 230 exemption. Its a general exemption for those that are platforms. If they cease to be a platform it shouldn't be that hard to say they don't qualify.

They are publishers. That protection is toast. Hope their stock follows suit. Vladimir Putin would be proud of them.

I personally don't see how the 230 exception can be justified for any platform that practices significant editing. The theory is that they're just a conduit and not responsible for content. But when they start editing, they have to take some responsibility for content.

Quote:This is what totalitarianism looks like in our century: not men in darkened cells driving screws under the fingernails of dissidents, but Silicon Valley dweebs removing from vast swaths of the Internet a damaging exposé on their preferred presidential candidate.

That’s what Facebook and Twitter did to the New York Post’s bombshell report on Hunter Biden, revealing why the illustrious vice-presidential son was hired by a shady Ukrainian energy firm in exchange for at least $50,000 a month.

According to e-mails obtained by The Post, Hunter introduced the firm’s executives to his father — just when Joe Biden was the second-most powerful man on earth, with outsize influence over the fate of the embattled Eastern European country.

That information is squarely in the public interest as we head into an election, right? Yes, but it’s also extremely embarrassing for President Trump’s opponent, and so social-media executives went into action.

Andy Stone, a member of Facebook’s p.r. team, said, “We are reducing [the Post story’s] distribution on our platform.” Before joining the social-media giant, Stone worked for Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, yet he insisted that Facebook’s action was “part of our standard process to reduce the spread of misinformation.” Right.

Then, Twitter began blocking users from posting the story, with a spokesman telling a Washington Examiner scribe that the move was prompted by “the lack of authoritative reporting on the origins of the materials included” in the report.

Misinformation? Lack of authoritative reporting? The story explained exactly The Post got the material, and the supporting evidence. Yet the past four years have seen left-of-center outlets devote millions of column inches to anti-Trump stories that turned out to be utter bunk — yet neither Facebook nor Twitter took similar action as part of any “standard process”:

Remember when four CNN reporters claimed, in June 2017, that James Comey was about to dispute in congressional testimony Trump’s claim that the FBI director had reassured the president he wasn’t under investigation? Comey did no such thing, but did Twitter and Facebook censor the story? Nope.

 Or recall when The Guardian newspaper concocted a story, seemingly out of thin air, about Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange meeting at Ecuador’s embassy in London? There was no such meeting, as the special counsel’s report confirmed. So did Facebook or Twitter block that story? Nope, you can still post the debunked nonsense on either platform.

 Or remember when The Atlantic published a several-thousand-word story suggesting that then-Sen. Jeff Sessions had lied when he said he didn’t meet the Russian ambassador as a Team Trump surrogate, but as a routine matter? The Mueller report debunked The Atlantic decisively with its finding that the meeting in question didn’t “include any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.” So is The Atlantic story blocked as misinformation? Nope.
 
Or how about when the McClatchy news agency claimed that Trump attorney Michael Cohen had secretly traveled to Prague to meet with his Kremlin handlers? “Cohen had never traveled to Prague,” the Mueller report found. So is the McClatchy report blocked? You know the answer — of course it isn’t.
 
Then there was BuzzFeed’s big bombshell that fizzled: a major story claiming that Trump had ordered Cohen to lie to Congress. The Mueller report’s verdict: “The president did not direct [Cohen] to provide false testimony. Cohen also said he did not tell the president about his planned testimony.” Did Facebook and Twitter block the link or otherwise “reduce distribution” pending fact-checking? Of course not. You can still post the lies freely.

Then there was the biggest of whopper of all: the salacious — and utterly discredited — Steele dossier, first reported by David Corn of Mother Jones and later published by BuzzFeed. Blocked by Big Tech? Ha!

The Post will continue to chase the truth wherever it takes us. But this episode should alarm ­every American. A very few people can unaccountably shape what you read.

This is how freedom dies.

Link

You were saying?

(10-15-2020 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You were saying?

Some leftist tweets a list, this clown copies and tweets it and it somehow becomes gospel? Yeah... I believe that

Yea for Josh Hawley!! Watch this. If you have Fakebook and Twitter not letting the NY Post stories (2) get read, there is more than one way to make people aware. Great move here. Watch what he does and says. This will cause people to look up the Post and read what has been written.

He shoots and SCORES!!! Well played Senator.

Here's one for you...

1) okay, let's just assume that you had concerns that the NYPost story was "iffy" (I for one see it as entirely plausible).
2) You decide that you will not allow any NYPost links to the story to appear in your "platform".
3) You block the press secretary of the US, you block the campaign page of the president of th united states.. and a few others, and you say "oopsie, it was an accident", we'll unblock those as quick as we can.

And NOW you decide for yourself to declare certain sites "Unsafe" (you know the virus warning type pages?)

And here are your criteria;

=====
Malicious links that could steal personal information or harm electronic devices
Spammy links that mislead people or disrupt their experience
Violent or misleading content that could lead to real-world harm
Certain categories of content that, if posted directly on Twitter, are a violation of the Twitter Rules
============

So this website decides to put up the article that you've banned... so you've decided to label that site as 'malicious'. Only guess which site they marked as malicious? (And this is AFTER Jack puts up his "apology" about Twitter's blocking)...

the Republican House Judiciary Committee!

Read that again folks.. Twitter has officially declared the Rep. House Judiciary Committee webpage as a _Malicious_ website. So again, by their own terms:

So would twitter like to let us know which of it's 4 listings makes the Republican House Judiciary Committee website malicioius again?

We've had #brexit.. now we need #twexit!

slo Joe sure gets testy when asked about his son's 'business dealings' overseas. Wonder how long he can keep lying about it when everybody knows the truth.

I crack up when I hear about "3rd party fact checkers." Funny how they are all leftwingers. Somebody, find me a right wing fact checking outfit.

So....twitter was down for an extended period last evening. Prompting the leader of the free world to provide his usual "keen" insight.

Hour and a half later, and the tweet is still posted.

God, let it end. PLEASE!!!!

Yep, gotta admit it's funny that even Trump can get suckered into a Bee article.

Hey at least Trump found actual fake news.

Something needs to be done about Big Tech, but I have absolutely no faith in conservatives doing anything about it other than running to some alt-site ghetto like Parler with zero content beyond eagle memes and political ranting. Privatizing the public square and letting the companies act as censors and curators of information is a massive mistake. Robust Section 230 reforms or antitrust lawsuits are necessary to put them in their place.

Sadly, we're talking about the Republicans, so they'll just say "at least it's not da goberment" and cede yet another cultural stronghold to liberals.

(10-16-2020 08:33 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Yep, gotta admit it's funny that even Trump can get suckered into a Bee article.

That tweet's going to be framed in the Babylon Bee offices, for sure. They probably think it's as funny as anyone.

RNC has filed a complaint against Twitter with the Federal Elections Commission.

(10-16-2020 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  RNC has filed a complaint against Twitter with the Federal Elections Commission.

I would state, "what took so fk'n long?!"....however, that's too obvious...

I live in dumbfk-land...

(10-16-2020 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  RNC has filed a complaint against Twitter with the Federal Elections Commission.

Good.

Don't bother focusing on senate races or anything.