It’s a free service not sure why they can’t do what they want. Don’t like the product leave. It’s strange that people get upset at companies that offer their product for free.
Exactly. Some people just like to bitch. I can’t stomach CNN. So I don’t watch it. Problem solved.
It’s not free. They scoop up all of your data that they possibly can and sell it.
When the product is free, YOU are actually the product.
>>It’s a free service not sure why they can’t do what they want.<<
De facto monopoly dominating social discourse. This is closer to easement than freedom of speech/association.
If EVERYONE gets to use it, then you have to let all do so equally.
twitter and facebook have become de-facto utilities. Just like Ma Bell and ALCOA, they can be broken up even if private (or semi-private).
Twitter is a publisher, not a platform as they claim.
If a newspaper were to “fact check” you and call you a liar, you are able to sue them for libel.
Why should not Twitter be subject to the same law when they offer editorial comments on posts?
A true platform would operate in the background and never be heard from or comment on posts.
They can do what they want. But if they WANT immunity under section 230, then they need to do what they are required to do under that section.
It's like a 501(c)3 Corporation. If they want the tax breaks, then they have to follow the requirements of that section.
Trump is using his executive authority to enforce the section 230 regulations.
Twitter and Facebook don't have to claim immunity under section 230, but if they don't submit to the regulations under that section, then they lose their immunity.
All Twitter and Facebook and You Tube need to do is to declare that they are publishers and not platforms.
If that's what they want, then they can do what they want.
I suspect they will WANT that protection. So they will have to follow the rules.
This order was not haphazardly put together since yesterday. This has all the earmarks of an order that has been in the pipeline for months.
Has to do with defamation lawsuits. Without the protection of the rule, if a person defamed someone on line and a social media company publishes it without investigating the truth, the media company could also be sued for republishing the defamatory
statements.
The law only allows threatening and dangerous posts to be deleted. Neither of those apply to Trump.
Once the social media company starts to make claims about a post, the are operating outside the law that protects them from defamation lawsuits.
For that reason, Twitter is going to cave in to the demands of President Trump on his and other conservative Twitter users.
“It’s a free service not sure why they can’t do what they want. “
Sure, totally agree, however, they have federal protections that they shouldn’t have. Trump just took the first move to remove those protections.