Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet

[AnOminous]

Repealing section 230 would be the defacto thing to push the election out of his favor, imo. He will have effectively neutered the most important telecommunications apparatus ever devised and killed entire industries over it. No more independent content, no more entrepreneurial ventures, ect. This also means education will take a decline too, so much potential just going down in flames because fuck Twatter, scorched earth time.

He'd also lose a good chunk of the meme magicians who were on his side last time. Specifically the chunk who aren't moronic dickriders. He can't really afford that in what is likely to be a close election.

 

[grump]

That's completely against the fundamental rule of law that you are responsible for what you personally do, but others generally are not. The principle that ISPs were responsible for what you posted, instead of you, the guy who posted it, was a gargantuan mistake by one court in 1995 that was immediately corrected by Congress in 1996 with Section 230.

Why should ISPs be responsible for what their users do, instead of the users who actually did it?



If Section 230 is repealed, while this is the death knell of sites like Kiwi Farms (and really pretty much anyone but Facebook and Google), it also permanently ends the social media lynch mobs troons love so much. It's been nearly impossible to curtail lynch mobs like the ones that go after "transphobes" with made up lies and lurid accusations, or the one that went after Vic Mignogna, or any of the other "cancel" victims. Most of the perpetrators are judgment proof losers. Even if you sued them and won, they have nothing.

Without Section 230, though, you don't even have to litigate. You know that you can just sue Twitter or whatever other platform there is, for every single defamatory statement, and don't even bother with the broke brain welfare troons who said it. Twitter will dump the troons just to save their own skin because they're not going to pay to defend these worthless people.

The whole reason for Section 230 is to prevent exactly that kind of flood of cheap, cookie cutter litigation, which much like frivolous DMCA complaints, bad actors can just flood ISPs and platforms with until they get their way.

So yes, Orange Man doing this would finish us off, but they're next on the chopping block and anyone unhappy about this place going away will have a nice fat chunk of spare time freed up to go after those motherfuckers personally.

Repealing section 230 would be the defacto thing to push the election out of his favor, imo. He will have effectively neutered the most important telecommunications apparatus ever devised and killed entire industries over it. No more independent content, no more entrepreneurial ventures, ect. This also means education will take a decline too, so much potential just going down in flames because fuck Twatter, scorched earth time.

He'd also lose a good chunk of the meme magicians who were on his side last time. Specifically the chunk who aren't moronic dickriders. He can't really afford that in what is likely to be a close election.

Good thing thats not whats happening at all. This thread is basically people blowing gaskets over Null's fantasy scenario. Its like a thread of full of people furious at Obama and all the naughty things he did as a KKK grand wizard.

 

[King Ghidorah]

Good thing thats not whats happening at all. This thread is basically people blowing gaskets over Null's fantasy scenario. Its like a thread of full of people furious at Obama and all the naughty things he did as a KKK grand wizard.

But mr null man is upset so it must be gospel

 

[grump]

But mr null man is upset so it must be gospel

TBF to the people here, I'm loathe to try to predict what Trump will do on any given day but the EO has clearly been grotesquely mischaracterized.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Here's what Trump should be doing: compete, like any red blooded American.

By which I mean he should create a Twitter clone that's ran by the U.S. Government. Since it'd be a government platform, whatever you write and publish there is untouchable. What about getting spied on? You already are so what difference does it make?

When he unveils his Twitter clone, he can declare it on Twitter itself, on TV, virtually everywhere he can. People would flock to it in droves simply because it's Trumps platform, with blackjack and hookers, and also because it'd be a website completely protected under the First Amendment.

 

[CheezzyMach]

Tldr: nothing will happen and everyone is going to feel really stupid after the fact. It keeps happening time after time man

I already said I think this will just be another episode of Trump idiocy * if the Democrats weren't currently ID POL obsessed authoritarian fuckwits they could destroy Trump on this shit *. Doesn't mean I can't also think the people cheer leading this authoritarian tantrum he's having aren't massive dumbasses and hypocrites. Or express annoyance that the guys claiming to be all for free speech and anti censorship are constantly trying to destroy the internet's safe harbor laws.

I fell out with the mainstream Democrats when they became the hurt feefee police and pro censorship party after championing freedom of expression and personal liberty for two-three decades. Why the fuck should I be happy when Conservatives do that shit while lying to my face about it?

I'm pretty sure the EO and the repeal threat are separate things.

Yeah the EO is typical toothless Trump posturing and dick swinging. It's his autistic screeching over repealing 230 out of asshurt Twitter-senpai laughed at him and his fanboys defending it that's pissing me off.

 

[King Ghidorah]

Here's what Trump should be doing: compete, like any red blooded American.

By which I mean he should create a Twitter clone that's ran by the U.S. Government. Since it'd be a government platform, whatever you write and publish there is untouchable. What about getting spied on? You already are so what difference does it make?

When he unveils his Twitter clone, he can declare it on Twitter itself, on TV, virtually everywhere he can. People would flock to it in droves simply because it's Trumps platform, with blackjack and hookers, and also because it'd be a website completely protected under the First Amendment.

Even if it was government sponsored it'd still be treated as gab 2.0 and suffer essentially the exact same smear campaign by mainstream media

 

[Piga Dgrifm]

I think I learned something new today; Orange Man Bad.

 

[#KillAllPedos]

That's completely against the fundamental rule of law that you are responsible for what you personally do, but others generally are not. The principle that ISPs were responsible for what you posted, instead of you, the guy who posted it, was a gargantuan mistake by one court in 1995 that was immediately corrected by Congress in 1996 with Section 230.

Why should ISPs be responsible for what their users do, instead of the users who actually did it?

The general rule of thumb is "no liability without fault." However, just because you didn't "personally" act does not mean there is no fault. Rules imposing vicarious liability are everywhere. Manufacturers and distributers are strictly liable for defective products, bosses are liable for the acts of their employees/agents, parents are liable for the acts of their children, owners are liable when their dog bites someone, etc. And as relevant here, news agencies are liable for publishing false and defamatory lies by third parties.

The fact is, everyone who is in a position of authority over others is liable to some extent for the acts of someone else. So why should Twitter be exempt? As I stated previously, § 230 lists finding and policies, and Twitter's behavior serves none of them. Let's not overlook the fact that Twitter inserted itself into the political censorship industry, ostensibly at the urging of the political Left. They could have remained neutral, but they chose not to.

 

[soft kitty]

This has been one crazy-ass fuckin year.

 

[AnOminous]

The fact is, everyone who is in a position of authority over others is liable to some extent for the acts of someone else. So why should Twitter be exempt? As I stated previously, § 230 lists finding and policies, and Twitter's behavior serves none of them.

It allows moderation for a list of conduct including that which is "otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected[.]" Who are you to say they don't find certain content objectionable?

 

[ChucklesTheJester]

This has been one crazy-ass fuckin year.

And it's almost half gone already. Wonder how 2020 is gonna top this next.

 

[F/lying Frankenstein]

This has been one crazy-ass fuckin year.

And we're only half-way. I don't know what we should expect next.

 

[Y2K Baby]

Dumb orange boomer.

 

[OrsonZedd]

It's amazing how Trump's internet schultzstaffel are 100% okay with every stupid thing he does, even when it will definitely, personally, affect their well-being and blow up in their face. Can't make this shit up. It's clear most of you support him because he's chaos incarnate, and not because you believe in his policies and principles, and you won't even listen when your ability to shittalk and shittake is put on the line.

 

[grump]

Yeah the EO is typical toothless Trump posturing and dick swinging. It's his autistic screeching over repealing 230 out of asshurt Twitter-senpai laughed at him and his fanboys defending it that's pissing me off.

The EO is the executive branch simply deciding how they are going to enforce 203 so its hardly 'toothless' on a technical level barring court or legislative challenge.

I already said I think this will just be another episode of Trump idiocy * if the Democrats weren't currently ID POL obsessed authoritarian fuckwits they could destroy Trump on this shit *. Doesn't mean I can't also think the people cheer leading this authoritarian tantrum he's having aren't massive dumbasses and hypocrites. Or express annoyance that the guys claiming to be all for free speech and anti censorship are constantly trying to destroy the internet's safe harbor laws.

I fell out with the mainstream Democrats when they became the hurt feefee police and pro censorship party after championing freedom of expression and personal liberty for two-three decades. Why the fuck should I be happy when Conservatives do that shit while lying to my face about it?

If you really like all those things you just listed you might actually want to support this EO.

It's amazing how Trump's internet schultzstaffel are 100% okay with every stupid thing he does, even when it will definitely, personally, affect their well-being and blow up in their face. Can't make this shit up. It's clear most of you support him because he's chaos incarnate, and not because you believe in his policies and principles, and you won't even listen when your ability to shittalk and shittake is put on the line.

I don't agree with everything Trump says but what should I be mad about here? Basically all that has happened so far is Trump tweeted something that sounds wacky if you're relatively well versed in the particulars of internet law and expect an old grandpa president to also be too, then did something that might actually be good for my personal tastes and for kiwifarms. Tell me what I should be pissed off about?

 

[Freya]

Here's what Trump should be doing: compete, like any red blooded American.

By which I mean he should create a Twitter clone that's ran by the U.S. Government. Since it'd be a government platform, whatever you write and publish there is untouchable. What about getting spied on? You already are so what difference does it make?

When he unveils his Twitter clone, he can declare it on Twitter itself, on TV, virtually everywhere he can. People would flock to it in droves simply because it's Trumps platform, with blackjack and hookers, and also because it'd be a website completely protected under the First Amendment.

Yeah but then trump would be doing something actually productive and useful for once.

 

[soft kitty]

"He is just pretending he is retarded guys"- Trump fags.

64D Underwater Backgammon.

 

[#KillAllPedos]

It allows moderation for a list of conduct including that which is "otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected[.]" Who are you to say they don't find certain content objectionable?

I would hold that Twitter, insofar as it censors political viewpoints at the behest of political parties (and in some cases, foreign sovereigns), acts as an “information content provider” to whom the provision you mentioned does not apply. I would hold this for several reasons:

(a) Twitter’s conduct contravenes the expressly stated purposes of the statute. In fact, it frustrates those purposes.

(b) Twitter actively promotes opposing political content that is “objectionable” for the same reasons (according to the TOS), showing that their objection is not genuine.

(c) Twitter is acting against a broad class of persons, encompassing roughly half the country. The sheer numbers warrant exacting scrutiny.

(d) Twitter’s actions could affect our elections (and indeed appear tailored to that objective), and thus implicate interests beyond “constitutionally protected” speech. In that capacity, Twitter purports to flex not just statutory rights, but political power. To that end, it affects the sovereign interests of the USA, and the integrity of our processes.

(e) Twitter’s behavior is oppressive. They’re a gigantic corporation, and they’re censoring political speech of natural people, for no reason other than the fact that they disagree.

(f) To the extent section 230 burdens “constitutionally protected” First Amendment rights of natural persons for the benefit of corporate citizens, it is unconstitutional. As the EO says, the internet is the new public square, and we have a right to speak, regardless if Twitter arbitrarily deems our speech “objectionable.” Because, as a corporation, Twitter’s speech is fundamentally commercial, it is afforded less protection under the First Amendment, and it must yield to our superior First Amendment interests.

I can respect a difference of opinion. But tell me... do you not find Twitter’s conduct reprehensible? And if § 230 protects that conduct, why would you want it to persist? If Twitter wants to hold that kind of power, they need to at least win an election. It cannot be acquired by way of gift from the legislature.

 

[SigSauer]

I say good. Trump should revoke section 230. The internet was invented by the Jews anyways. Nothing like going to the library or opening a phone book. Same with smartphones. I hope the internet really does fucking go away. It was the worst invention ever, no matter what you people want to say about it. Maybe then people might go back to reading books or going outside for once. Same with smartphones. I fucking hate those things. Computers are also an entirely new invention that were designed to eavesdrop on people to begin with. Who was the fag Alan Turing? What was the Bombe? Or the Colossus? Computers were invented to spy on Nazi communications that used encrypted ciphers like the Enigma machine or the Lorenz cipher. The internet itself was invented by the Department of Defense. It's no wonder the NSA is spying on people. Of course they fucking would, because that's what computers and the internet was made for to begin with. Instead of making people smarter it makes them dumber. This social experiment was fun while it lasted guys, but then again, just remember that with Jews you ALWAYS lose, no matter how good it may seem on it's face.