Not being bound by the Act is just that, it absolves Twitter of anything that pertains to it.
And "it's public" is meaningless now. The bakery was open to the public; it was not a private members only bakery, yet as a private business it was still deemed the bakery could refuse service to anyone for any reason.
It's not meaningless. There have been cases like this before. The bakery was open to the public but was not defined as a public forum. However, privately owned public forums such as theaters have been forced by the court before to show shows that they did not wish too. Such rulings, therefore, would also apply to Twitter when it comes to the POTUS's account.
Originally posted by ares834
It's not meaningless. There have been cases like this before. The bakery was open to the public but was not defined as a public forum. However, privately owned public forums such as theaters have been forced by the court before to show shows that they did not wish too. Such rulings, therefore, would also apply to Twitter when it comes to the POTUS's account.
Dude, you said this on page one: "Ridiculous. It's their platform and business. They should be allowed to curate the content on it as they want."
Twitter is still a private business and you sign a EULA when you join, agreeing that they can boot you, if they so wish.
Originally posted by Robtard
Dude, you said this on page one: "Ridiculous. It's their platform and business. They should be allowed to curate the content on it as they want."Twitter is still a private business and you sign a EULA when you join, agreeing that they can boot you, if they so wish.
To be fair, he said that before he was knew about the judges ruling on trumps twitter.
So if it's legal for twitter to ban people then we are saying private companies can block access to public officials.
Originally posted by Robtard
Dude, you said this on page one: "Ridiculous. It's their platform and business. They should be allowed to curate the content on it as they want."Twitter is still a private business and you sign a EULA when you join, agreeing that they can boot you, if they so wish.
Yes, and I still think that. However, if Trump's Twitter is considered a public forum (which I've stated I think is a ridiculous ruling several times now) then Twitter is not allowed to discrimiate who has access to it.
The POTUS is bound by different rules. However, Twitter is still bound by different laws that prevents them from blocking access to public forums based on viewpoint discrimination.
And no. Obviously, I'd prefer none of this to be regulated at all. The POTUS's twitter should not be defined as public, twitter should be allowed to curate content as they see fit, and Trump should be allowed to ban people as he wishes.
Originally posted by Robtard
We're going in circles: Because the office of the POTUS is bound by different rules than Twitter.If seems like the argument from you people should be "We Need A Social Media Reform Act", where the government comes in and cements code and conduct for social media across the board.
Do you want that?
I don't want it, but I think we're going to need some sort of internet bill of rights.
The amusing thing is regulation of social media is supported by some on both sides, it is just the reasoning that is different. Republicans want to regulate it so there can be more speech, democrats want to regulate it so there can be less(especially in the wake of the altered Nancy Pelosi video).
Originally posted by ares834
The POTUS is bound by different rules. However, Twitter is still bound by different laws that prevents them from blocking access to public forums based on viewpoint discrimination.And no. Obviously, I'd prefer none of this to be regulated at all. The POTUS's twitter should not be defined as public, twitter should be allowed to curate content as they see fit, and Trump should be allowed to ban people as he wishes.
Which laws are these? Cos I'm 99.999% sure their EULA is tighter than a frog's ass. Same goes will all the social media giants, these billion dollar companies have the best lawyers money can buy writing their terms and conditions.
When Trump used his private Twitter for Presidential use on day one, that kinda made it not "private", that and the Presidential Records Act.
Originally posted by Surtur
I don't want it, but I think we're going to need some sort of internet bill of rights.The amusing thing is regulation of social media is supported by some on both sides, it is just the reasoning that is different. Republicans want to regulate it so there can be more speech, democrats want to regulate it so there can be less(especially in the wake of the altered Nancy Pelosi video).
And you actually believe this.
Originally posted by Robtard
And you actually believe this.
It's not about what I believe, it's about the democrats own reactions. They want to regulate too, just for different reasons. Yet you're going to troll and pretend like this isn't the case. *shrug* Okay, I'm not interested in indulging that lol.
He has used both his POTUS and personal Twitter on matters of state. He's even deleted some retweets from @POTUS to @realDonaldTrump, which is a no-no.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-02-19/donald-trumps-tweets-are-now-presidential-records
^That is official POTUS business/policy speak out of his personal Twitter account.
edit: Here the Twitter link to that: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890196164313833472?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E890196164313833472&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.brandwatch.com%2Fblog%2Freact-realdonaldtrump-vs-potus%2F
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]OK with Trans that want to Join the Military. Not OK with them doing so just to get the Operations paid for on the Gov Dime.They want the Snip and Clip. They can Pay out of their own pockets.
End of Subject.
[/B]
Hyde amendment is also a done deal. Can't wait to see dems move on.