i prefer to call it JAQ'ing off. it was started by the tucker carlson types i think.. they're always Just Asking Questions, not actually suggesting all the racist/bigoted **** they say.

neverbeclever: I violated my longstanding "not gonna watch your Youtube video rule" and watched the videos. As expected, the executive summary is just: "We don't think Twitter should engage in fact checking." There's no argument at all that Twitter's actions are illegal. Also, Donna Brazille is sick of the whining. Seems about right :P

Anyway, arguing about what Twitter should do is fair enough. Moderation policies are definitely debatable, and (going back to earlier in this thread) I think there are interesting conversations to be had about how to think about big platforms like Twitter and Facebook as de facto public forums.

But, you originally tried to argue that Twitter was violating the law. There is no argument to be found in your sources to support that claim. Nor in the executive order. The main problem that the panelists are not grappling with, at least in relation to the executive order, is that it's more problematic for the government to be the arbiter of fact claims (for everyone) than it is for Twitter to be the arbiter (but only on Twitter).

Ive said that if Trump violates ToS he has no case.
Then i thought something was wrong with Tos...because Trump said something fishy was going on.
In the end it was the liability/press thing.
I was just trying to ask questions to figure out what was going on/whats it all about.

Point is: TWITTER can do whatever it wants without ever being hold accountable.
Also using CNN as a reference point...thats kinda sick, since we can all agree all msm is biased.

Thank u for breaking your longstanding "not gonna watch your Youtube video rule.
It was just meant so u guys know what i meant.

Dunno man...wether its all legal or not...i think its all going into some questionable direction.

ty for your time!

Look what Twitter wrote about this Tweet. Censorship. Twitter must be stopped!!!


...This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible. Learn more

We know how much Trump and his Trumpsters with TDS love the 1st amendment and freedom of speech.




"...The Pulitzer-winning cartoonist Nick Anderson has described Donald Trump as an “adolescent wannabe authoritarian”,...

...Redbubble pulled Anderson’s illustration from sale following a trademark infringement claim made by Trump’s campaign organisation,...

“We live in a strange time when the #POTUS can falsely accuse someone of murder with impunity (violating @Twitter’s terms of service), while at the same time bully a private business into removing content it doesn’t like,” Anderson added on Twitter.

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF) and other free speech organisations subsequently got involved, sending a group letter to Redbubble that accused Trump’s campaign of having “misused Redbubble’s reporting mechanism to suppress protected political expression in the form of parody, critique, and satire”, and arguing that the work and those who publish it are protected by the first amendment.

Redbubble reinstated Anderson’s cartoon this week, saying that it strives “to respect IP rights and freedom of speech..."

cite

Bumping this thread as a place the discussion from the vaccine passport thread can go

Okay. I agree that FB, et al should be fair in their standards. I think FB and Google should regulate what they allow to be uploaded to their platforms using fair standards. However, I don't think the First Amendment is a standard of fairness, but rather lack of regulation of speech by the government. I also don't assume that a fair standard is neutral between political ideologies.

I don't know what this means. Dominant market position? In what? If you want to upload a video to the internet, you have lots of options.

So? That doesn't make them into social media, just a good business.