President Trump Will Sign Executive Order on Social Media Censorship

[yuna628 9,676]

13 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Overall, I am fine with whatever Twitter and FB does since they are private companies, but when they start censoring/editing, they are crossing the line from a social media platform with a listed TOS, to a publisher and should not benefit from being shielded from libel laws.

The censoring and removal that they do is no different than what goes on here or any other site. They have a TOS that all users agree to, and the site holds the right to remove for ANY REASON they see fit. If the person doesn't like that, they can make their own site. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

So, is Twitter fact checking everyone, or just one person, or folks with one political bent.  I don’t use Twitter, but I am sure there are quite a few posts regarding the false narrative regarding President Trump’s visit to the church the other day.  Is Twitter fact checking all of those?   Btw, the person at Twitter doing the “fact checking” has a very biased background himself.  You can probably guess which way he leans.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twitter-exec-in-charge-of-effort-to-fact-check-trump-has-history-of-anti-trump-posts-called-mcconnell-a-bag-of-farts.amp

 

   Please. It was one post. If they fact checked and corrected everything Trump posted, it would create enough new jobs to turn the economy around instantly.

[Dashinka 24,496]

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Please. It was one post. If they fact checked and corrected everything Trump posted, it would create enough new jobs to turn the economy around instantly.

Then what they are doing is targeted.  Regardless, Twitter and FB are cesspools, and much of the reason we have so much division in this country.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

8 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Then what they are doing is targeted.  Regardless, Twitter and FB are cesspools, and much of the reason we have so much division in this country.

They are deliberately missing the point, because the idea is censorship, and clearly agree with it. The argument is about the benefits of a social media platform that behaves as a public square not to be liable for what's posted on their platform. If they're curating what's on their platform, silencing opposing views (through banning, shadow banning, etc.) then they have no reason to be shielded from liability. Easy. They are no longer a social media site open to the public. There's also the free speech "concept" that governed Twitter et al, a long standing approach to the internet and public squares respecting people's individuality, humanity. That's all gone with the left. It's all about wiping out opposing views.

 

Undoubtedly there are some "conservatives" who are also missing the point by arguing they should have "free speech" on someone else's private property. There's no basis for this argument, enforcement is impossible, unlawful. They're allowing their emotions of the moment to get the better of them and playing into the left's hands. This government interference is what they want. 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds