I have some hypocrisy that is super entertaining. Leftists, the moment Kav was announced, opposed him. People will remember those with signs with blank spaces ready to write in the name of whoever Trump picked. Leftists also seemed to immediately believe the accusations against Kavanaugh despite no evidence then nor any evidence now.
Yet these same people scream "the fix is in!" when it comes to the FBI investigation. Lol. Pure gold.
Originally posted by DarthPlaguis12
Hopefully laws will be passed where platforms can be sued for denying services to conservatives and the shit they did to Alex Jones.
Hopefully not.
Here's hoping that freedom increases and forcing people 1. to take actions and 2. support people they disagree with is boo'd like it should be.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Hopefully not.Here's hoping that freedom increases and forcing people 1. to take actions and 2. support people they disagree with is is boo'd like it should be.
Here is my thing though, they need to lose their protections. They aren't platforms anymore they are publishers.
Especially when they'll ban the alt right for racism, but let people like Sarah Jeong make many many racist posts with no consequence, and then they ban a black woman for retweeting the same shit and changing out the words "white" with "black" or "jew".
So yeah, those protections need to go.
Originally posted by Surtur
Here is my thing though, they need to lose their protections. They aren't platforms anymore they are publishers.Especially when they'll ban the alt right for racism, but let people like Sarah Jeong make many many racist posts with no consequence, and then they ban a black woman for retweeting the same shit and changing out the words "white" with "black" or "jew".
So yeah, those protections need to go.
What protections?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I understand you.But what specifically? I cannot find anything on this.
Well, they can't really be held liable for any content that appears on there.
Libel would probably be one. I'm guessing if a newspaper published death threats they'd also be in some legal trouble.
Originally posted by Surtur
Well, they can't really be held liable for any content that appears on there.Libel would probably be one. I'm guessing if a newspaper published death threats they'd also be in some legal trouble.
But why should they be held liable for libel when they didn't write it?
Twitter did not tweet racist things, for example.
The only way that Twitter could get into trouble is if they got a take-down request, court ordered, but they refused to comply.
Other than that, there's nothing at all that says Twitter is responsible for the content the account holders post. In fact, they specifically protect themselves from exactly what you're stating in the terms of service.
Here, read this:
You are responsible for your use of the Services and for any Content you provide, including compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others.Any use or reliance on any Content or materials posted via the Services or obtained by you through the Services is at your own risk. We do not endorse, support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any Content or communications posted via the Services or endorse any opinions expressed via the Services. You understand that by using the Services, you may be exposed to Content that might be offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate, or in some cases, postings that have been mislabeled or are otherwise deceptive. All Content is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such Content. We may not monitor or control the Content posted via the Services and, we cannot take responsibility for such Content.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But why should they be held liable for libel when they didn't write it?Twitter did not tweet racist things, for example.
The only way that Twitter could get into trouble is if they got a take-down request, court ordered, but they refused to comply.
Other than that, there's nothing at all that says Twitter is responsible for the content the account holders post. In fact, they specifically protect themselves from exactly what you're stating in the terms of service.
Here, read this:
And yet, picking and choosing what you allow on there not based on rules but more on ideology...sounds like a publisher.
They also allow some racist things to stay up, but not others. Even after they have had it reported to them. They didn't write it, but they CHOOSE to allow them to keep it up.
Originally posted by Surtur
And yet, picking and choosing what you allow on there not based on rules but more on ideology...sounds like a publisher.They also allow some racist things to stay up, but not others. Even after they have had it reported to them. They didn't write it, but they CHOOSE to allow them to keep it up.
Go back and read my edit.
You're still not answering my question. Even if you want to treat them like a publisher...nothing changes. You're not clarifying how it changes anything.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Go back and read my edit.You're still not answering my question. Even if you want to treat them like a publisher...nothing changes. You're not clarifying how it changes anything.
I never said twitter is currently responsible for it. I'm saying if they are gonna act like publishers they should be treated as such. If your claim is that doing so would still make it difficult to get them to take some shit down...that's fine, it does not in any way change the fact they behave like publishers.
And indeed, I have read their terms of service. I read back when they refused to penalize Sarah Jeong for numerous racist posts against whites, but did punish Candace Owens for tweeting the same shit, just changing it from white to another group.
So, they act like a publisher and should be treated as such. It's difficult to actually win a libel case against a publisher, but my point is why should they not be treated as publishers when they will allow certain racist content and punish other racist content? Sounds like a publisher, picking and choosing what opinions can or can't remain.
Originally posted by Surtur
I never said twitter is currently responsible for it. I'm saying if they are gonna act like publishers they should be treated as such.
Publishers? How? By disabling accounts and deleting them because those accounts violate the terms of service? When in the history of any Publisher has that been a Publisher's thing?
Originally posted by Surtur
If your claim is that doing so would still make it difficult to get them to take some shit down...that's fine, it does not in any way change the fact they behave like publishers.
Before you can operate under the assumption that your premise is correct, you first must establish your premise. You have not done that.
Twitter is not operating as a Publisher. That much is 100% fact. So you cannot then entertain implications of Twitter being a publisher.
Also, there's the problem of Twitter being a publisher. So what? Still nothing changes.
Originally posted by Surtur
And indeed, I have read their terms of service. I read back when they refused to penalize Sarah Jeong for numerous racist posts against whites, but did punish Candace Owens for tweeting the same shit, just changing it from white to another group.
So? This has nothing at all to do with "publisher" and only to do with their ToS. They can arbitrarily and hypocritically enforce their ToS all they want. lol, it's even in their ToS that they can do that.
Originally posted by Surtur
So, they act like a publisher and should be treated as such. .
Let's pretend your publisher premise is correct (it's not).
So what? Nothing happens. They don't have to act any differently. The Publisher argument wasn't correct in 2012. And it's still not correct. And even if it is, still...nothing changes. Delete tweets, suspending accounts, deleting accounts...those do not "violate" Publisher regulations nor do those imply that they now have to do that to all tweeters.
Originally posted by Surtur
It's difficult to actually win a libel case against a publisher, but my point is why should they not be treated as publishers when they will allow certain racist content and punish other racist content?
This may come as a shock to you...but...racism is not libel.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Publishers? How? By disabling accounts and deleting them because those accounts violate the terms of service? When in the history of any Publisher has that been a Publisher's thing?
By deleting accounts for a behavior that they don't delete other accounts before, despite being aware of both accounts.
Before you can operate under the assumption that your premise is correct, you first must establish your premise. You have not done that.Twitter is not operating as a Publisher. That much is 100% fact. So you cannot then entertain implications of Twitter being a publisher.
Also, there's the problem of Twitter being a publisher. So what? Still nothing changes.
So, people report Sarah Jeong for multiple overtly racist tweets, nothing is done, not even a temporary ban. People report Candance Owens for tweeting the same, but swapping out the groups. Twitter chooses to go after Ownes(temporarily, they backed down after being called on it) but allows the racism of Sarah Jeong to stay up. Sounds like a publisher to me. But if I'm wrong I'm wrong.
So? This has nothing at all to do with "publisher" and only to do with their ToS. They can arbitrarily and hypocritically enforce their ToS all they want. lol, it's even in their ToS that they can do that.Let's pretend your publisher premise is correct (it's not).
So what? Nothing happens. They don't have to act any differently. The Publisher argument wasn't correct in 2012. And it's still not correct. And even if it is, still...nothing changes. Delete tweets, suspending accounts, deleting accounts...those do not "violate" Publisher regulations nor do those imply that they now have to do that to all tweeters.
Lol fair enough, it's not something I'm gonna massively push.
This may come as a shock to you...but...racism is not libel.
I never said it was. Libel was one of the things I mentioned as what they might face. Them selectively allowing racism was meant to illustrate they behave more like a publisher than a platform.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I understand you.But what specifically? I cannot find anything on this.
A federal court said that trump could not block people on Twitter as it was a public forum, so it should work both ways.
Conservatives need to fight back n lawmakers need to start protecting them.