Killington is Woke

[madhatter]

If twitter flags a tweet as potentially misinformation, and provides supporting links, that is speech. The President wants to restrict their ability to offer that speech. That is censorship. Ego, the President is trying to censor Twitter. How is it anything else?neither a platform nor a publisher is has any first amendment restrictions on them...both are free to say whatever they want...only your alternative reality considers that "censorship"...

It's interesting how some conservatives are all about free speech until they hear speech they don't like. Such as flag burning. Or kneeling during the anthem. Or twitter posting fact checks.

As to Twitter's alleged censorship, they are not preventing his tweets from being published, are they? It's one thing to acknowledge that search and display algorithms boost certain types of speech. It's another to say that they are actually preventing publication of speech. While I think the former happens routinely, I don't think the latter happens at all, other than to restrict pornography, violent material, etc.

so how do you feel about the confederate flag? is that free speech? a swastika? free speech too?

personally I don't consider ANY of them to be speech...nor do I see any reason why there needs to be any legal definition of those things...I think flag burning would be the closest to any sort of "illegal" activity...but I'm not advocating for it...kneeling during the anthem? I don't want a law...I still disapprove...

twitter " fact checking" is a whole different story...most of their "fact checking" is offering THEIR opinion or their belief in someone else opinion...and most often with great bias....that makes them a publisher...

yer wild stretch of trump "censoring" is ridiculous...he isn't suggesting anything of the sort...he's saying that they are a publisher not a platform...neither of them would be censored from saying anything...

why do you insist on seeing things that don't actually exist and insisting they are fact...

[easyrider16]

so how do you feel about the confederate flag? is that free speech? a swastika? free speech too?

Yes, they are all forms of speech. Speech can be symbolic. I don't like this particular speech, and anyone who owns private property can kick someone off their property for displaying this sort of speech, but the government can make no law restricting it.

yer wild stretch of trump "censoring" is ridiculous...he isn't suggesting anything of the sort...he's saying that they are a publisher not a platform...neither of them would be censored from saying anything...

why do you insist on seeing things that don't actually exist and insisting they are fact...

This is naive. He clearly wants to remove the protection so he can sue them and get them to stop publishing this speech. That's the point, here, and if you can't see that it's because you're letting your politics get in the way.

I do agree that on its face the EO doesn't censor anything, and in reality it probably won't affect much in the way of what twitter can and can't do. Even if Trump sues them, he can't prevail if all they are doing is publishing fact check news articles. But despite its futility Trump is certainly making an attempt to stop a private company from saying stuff about his statements as a public official. That is the very definition of censorship.

[madhatter]

so how do you feel about the confederate flag? is that free speech? a swastika? free speech too?

Yes, they are all forms of speech. Speech can be symbolic. I don't like this particular speech, and anyone who owns private property can kick someone off their property for displaying this sort of speech, but the government can make no law restricting it.

yer wild stretch of trump "censoring" is ridiculous...he isn't suggesting anything of the sort...he's saying that they are a publisher not a platform...neither of them would be censored from saying anything...

why do you insist on seeing things that don't actually exist and insisting they are fact...

This is naive. again with the projection?He clearly wants to remove the protection so he can sue them and get them to stop publishing this speech. exactly, they are PUBLISHING...That's the point, here, and if you can't see that it's because you're letting your politics get in the way.conversely they want to be a publisher yet still keep that protection...and it's you who is allowing politics to cloud (just like twitter et al...)your every thought not only on this subject but on virtually everything else you've posted...... it's always projection w you leftists...there's already a law, a court can decide if they are a platform or a publisher......

I do agree that on its face the EO doesn't censor anything, and in reality it probably won't affect much in the way of what twitter can and can't do. Even if Trump sues them, he can't prevail if all they are doing is publishing fact check news articles. But despite its futility Trump is certainly making an attempt to stop a private company from saying stuff about him as a public official. no he's not stopping them from doing anything...a private company saying "stuff" about him is PUBLISHER, not a platform...That is the very definition of censorship.no. it's not and no court of law would ever side w you....no lawyer would even take your case...

your argument of "censorship" is fantastical...you should have included a unicorn or wizard in there to make it seem a little more believable...

[madhatter]

hard to call it deceptively edited to "say whatever they want"...

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/we- ... st-veritas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[easyrider16]

So, clearly you are not a lawyer and have had no legal training

ehhh... have you looked at the executive order? Particularly bothersome is the directive to the FTC to take action against companies like Twitter for "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" which it defines to include "practices by entities covered by section 230 [ie Twitter] that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices."

So that to me means that the EO is directing the FTC to go after Twitter for say, posting a fact-check link in response to a Trump Tweet. That would be blatant censorship and clearly unconstitutional.

[madhatter]

So, clearly you are not a lawyer and have had no legal training

ehhh... have you looked at the executive order? Particularly bothersome is the directive to the FTC to take action against companies like Twitter for "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" which it defines to include "practices by entities covered by section 230 [ie Twitter] that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices."

So that to me means that the EO is directing the FTC to go after Twitter for say, posting a fact-check link in response to a Trump Tweet. That would be blatant censorship and clearly unconstitutional.

again NO...no one is "going after" twitter for fact checking anything...by the same token twitter isn't god and neither is snopes...and once twitter has an opinion, they become a publisher and not a platform...

again, twitter wants the protection of a platform while publishing an opinion/content that they endorse or otherwise agree with while censoring, banning, flagging or otherwise negatively opining on content with which they disapprove of...the platform is what is protected not the content on the platform...

and it would be up to a court of law to decide if one is platform or a publisher...likewise twitter might wish to become a publisher, or maybe try to remain a platform...they can't be both...

I'm not sure how to make it clearer...the platform twitter is shielded from content posted on their platform...those who post to their platform are still responsible for that content...once twitter ( the company) posts an opinion on twitter ( the platform) they become a content creator/publisher and are subject to the same rules/laws as any other publisher...twitter is trying to blur the line by feigning big brother like ministry of truth"righteous benevolence and adherence to the facts" ( as they see them of course) while promoting their opinion and censoring others...

owning the platform is not license to evade responsibility for content you yourself post on it... in any case there is nothign wrong with asking a court to intervene and decide ...especially if you think you might win...

[easyrider16]

I don't really see twitter as trying to blur any sort of line. They can be both a publisher if/when they publish their own opinions and a forum provider when they publish the opinions/content of 3rd parties. I'm not sure how posting links to content created by others, e.g. snopes, in response to a Trump tweet makes them a publisher, or a ministry of truth or anything like that. They are just providing links to more content aren't they? It's not like twitter is saying "potus is full of sh!t" they are just linking to a site that says he's full of sh!t, ie 3rd party content

Edit: after looking at what twitter actually did, it looks like they made a page where they claim potus made unsubstantiated claims, and cited to media sources. I think this could very well put them in the realm of content creator. Nonetheless, it is protected free speech.

[madhatter]

I don't really see twitter as trying to blur any sort of line. They can be both a publisher if/when they publish their own opinions and a forum provider when they publish the opinions/content of 3rd parties. I'm not sure how posting links to content created by others, e.g. snopes, in response to a Trump tweet makes them a publisher, or a ministry of truth or anything like that. They are just providing the platform doesn't provide links the owners of the platform do, ie they publish...links to more content aren't they? now who's trying to skirt reality??saying things like "this is abusive behavior" or posting a counterpoint is publishing ON the platform... It's not like twitter is saying "potus is full of sh!t" they are just linking to a site that says he's full of sh!t

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

yes they most certainly can be both, and I'm glad you agree that they are indeed both...however as a publisher they don't enjoy the protections that the platform does... you either think they can and should blur the line or you don't understand what you just posted...

you've already made my argument a number of times only to attempt to explain it away in the next paragraph...

but twitter the platform and twitter the poster, sharer, creator, publisher of any content on the platform is NOT the platform itself and has no protection under CDA230...

example Bubba spanky shortski and dork are owners/moderators of kzone ( the platform)...the platform is not responsible for any content posted here...nor does the platform publish, post or create...

bubba spanky shortski and dork are not "the platform" when they post/publish as an individual ON the platform....


like I said in a court of law your argument would go nowhere...

[easyrider16]

I dont think they should enjoy protections as a publisher under CDA when they publish their opinions on political speech. In that case, however, they certainly enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. Any attempt by Trump to curtail that speech is censorship.

Here we are, come full circle. In any case, whether it's because of CDA or the First Amendment, Twitter certinly has the right to fact check Trump's tweets.

[madhatter]

I dont think they should enjoy protections as a publisher under CDA when they publish their opinions on political speech. In that case, however, they certainly enjoy the protections of the first amendment. Any attempt by Trump to curtail that speech is censorship.

Here we are, come full circle.

how is he attempting to curtail it? please explain?

[easyrider16]

By signing an executive order directing the FTC to inestigate them, for starters.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[madhatter]

BLM goals...

Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors admitted during a Friday night interview with CNN that "our goal is to get Trump out."

Cullors, who described BLM organizers in 2015 as "trained Marxists," compared Trump to Hitler after refusing to meet with him, and referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as the Gestapo, told CNN's Jake Tapper (via Breitbart's Josh Caplan):

PATRISSE CULLORS: Trump not only needs to not be in office in November but he should resign now. Trump needs to be out of office. He is not fit for office. And so what we are going to push for is a move to get Trump out. While we’re also going to continue to push and pressure vice president Joe Biden around his policies and relationship to policing and criminalization. That’s going to be important. But our goal is to get Trump out.

I said," Newsome told the host, "if this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking ... figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It's a matter of interpretation.

"Let's observe the history of the 1960s, when black people were rioting," he went on. "We had the highest growth in wealth, in property ownership. Think about the last few weeks since we started protesting. There have been eight cops fired across the country."

"I don't condone nor do I condemn rioting," Newsome added. "But I'm just telling you what I observed."

At the conclusion of the interview, Newsome told MacCallum, "I just want black liberation and black sovereignty, by any means necessary."

[madhatter]

By signing an executive order directing the FTC to inestigate them, for starters.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

is there a law against that? is it illegal? are you trying to say trump can't do that? no yer just mad cuz yer wrong, like always...

do you even read what you say....so by trump applying the law as chief of the executive branch, he's censoring? yer nuts...


that's another nonstarter in any court of law...so far yer 0-2...

[easyrider16]

Okay, so you agree then that Twitter has the right to post fact checks of Trump tweets?

[madhatter]

Okay, so you agree then that Twitter has the right to post fact checks of Trump tweets?

twitter can POST whatever content they want...just like any other publisher....