"Fact checking" Trump's tweets with links to fake news media falls under which of those safe harbors? "Otherwise objectionable" is the only logical candidate and that's so subjective it could be cited with damn near any censorship the social medias feel like doing right?
If you own private property, yes, you can censor however you want. If someone comes to your house and calls your wife or daughter or mother a "f'ing c-word" you don't need a reason to kick them out of your kitchen and to the curb. If they say, "I hate Trump" you can kick them out of your house. You decide who is allowed in your kitchen, and you can kick them out for any reason or no reason.
Christian websites can 'censor' anti-Christian trolls or abortionists or Jews or FSM believers, because when they establish a community and allow comments, they decide how to moderate it and they don't need a bureaucrat's permission to delete a comment or ban someone. See, the rules for Debate Politics. They establish them and we agree to them by posting here. DP doesn't need permission to ban someone or to establish any rule, and if they break their own rules, well, that's too bad but it's actually FINE. If they infract me I can complain but I cannot sue them. In the name of free speech and private property rights, you'd change that, and if a volunteer moderator on DP makes a mistake, SUE THEM TO BANKRUPTCY!!!
In other words the social media has been given broad powers to censor AND broad protection from liability?
That's false or incomplete. EVERY site that allows comments has broad powers to censor and liability protection. CNN and ABC and FOX and Breitbart all allow comments and cannot be held liable for content their readers create. They CAN all (including Twitter and Facebook) be held liable for content THEY create. So the rules do not distinguish between Twitter and ABC or Debate Politics, where you're posting right now. If DP gets my SSN and CC, and posts that on here, they can be held liable. If YOU do that and post it here, DP is protected. Same with CNN and Twitter and Fox and Breitbart.
My mamma always told me good time, bad times, all times pass. Congress wrote that law and they can change it if it comes to light that it's being abused due to ambiguity. So I guess we'll have to wait for the courts to decide some things in order to know if re writing the law is necessary or not.
IMO if they can get away with crap like this and still maintain their protections the intent of the law is being abused. And should be rewritten ASAP as times change laws always need updating. Common sense for those who still have some dictates it's not a "platform's" job to decide what's true or false.
We don't need to wait on the courts. They've decided in multiple cases that the liability protection is broad, and it's because the law was intended to be broad.
The left's only hope for hanging on to their fascism in this arena lies in holding the house because the senate and white house are out of reach at this point.
What Twitter did was exercise THEIR right to free speech, and if it protects ANYTHING it must protect the ability of private entities to criticize our elected leaders, and that especially includes Dear Leader Trump, without fear of punishing by the government. Trump is advocating for a fascist system in which criticizing the President is punished by the President and the government officials under his command.
You're got it exactly 180 degrees wrong here. It's fascinating and stunning to see 'conservatives' abandon all their principles to defend that asshole Trump. If you or Trump don't like how Twitter is doing their job, don't use it! That's the "freedom" solution here. It's of course fine to criticize Twitter and their executives and their policies. Scream it from the rooftops! That's what free speech allows. What it cannot mean is Twitter did something we don't like by criticizing the President, so GOVERNMENT must punish them for that.
