• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EXC: Full White House Draft Exec Order on Big Tech

GhostlyJoe said:
No one is suggesting Trump should sue over this. Trump has no grounds for a defamation case. This is about the justification for the executive order and what legal issues Twitter may have stumbled into long-term due to their decision to take a political stance.
Click to expand...

Does the truth count as a "political stance" these days?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
No one is suggesting Trump should sue over this. Trump has no grounds for a defamation case. This is about the justification for the executive order and what legal issues Twitter may have stumbled into long-term due to their decision to take a political stance.
Click to expand...
Trump could just substantiate his tweets
It's easy.
It's simple.
Even people here on DP can do it.

Trump must have figured out that getting big government involved
is easier than trying to find stuff to substantiate his crappy tweets





And fwiw,
the protections Trump is talking about removing
are the protections which keep people from being able to sue Twitter
for defamation
So, it's sorta relevant
you may want to look into it
 
Ikari said:
Does the truth count as a "political stance" these days?
Click to expand...
That's the messaging coming from Trumpco

Trump wants to remove the protections which keep him from being able to
sue Twitter for defamation based on what someone anywhere in the world tweets

That's how much of a tantrum Trump is having.
 
Ikari said:
Does the truth count as a "political stance" these days?
Click to expand...

Come on. I know you understand the point I'm making. Do you really consider this truth?

Trump is clearly targeting a policy favored by his political opponents. Twitter's decision to inject "truth" into his statements is a clear political stance.

Again, is Twitter planning to fact check Trump and Trump alone? How can Twitter claim to not be a content creator if the're going to inject their own content into third-party statements?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Come on. I know you understand the point I'm making. Do you really consider this truth?

Trump is clearly targeting a policy favored by his political opponents. Twitter's decision to inject "truth" into his statements is a clear political stance.

Again, is Twitter planning to fact check Trump and Trump alone? How can Twitter claim to not be a content creator if the're going to inject their own content into third-party statements?
Click to expand...

If Trump makes misleading statements and they're labeled as "misleading", that's not a political stance. That's just reality. They're not creating content, Trump made the tweet. It was merely fact-checked.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
That's the messaging coming from Trumpco

Trump wants to remove the protections which keep him from being able to
sue Twitter for defamation based on what someone anywhere in the world tweets

That's how much of a tantrum Trump is having.
Click to expand...

That's really not the goal. The goal is to cow Twitter into behaving more like AT&T or Comcast as a neutral platform provider. You may argue that Twitter is a different animal than a phone company or ISP, but that's exactly the issue being litigated here.

If Twitter wants to weigh in on politics, why can't Twitter create a spin-off fact-checking site that doesn't operate as a platform or try to claim the special privileges under the law that Twitter currently enjoys?
 
Ikari said:
If Trump makes misleading statements and they're labeled as "misleading", that's not a political stance. That's just reality. They're not creating content, Trump made the tweet. It was merely fact-checked.
Click to expand...

Adding a label that alters the meaning of his utterance is inarguably creating content.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Do you really consider Trump's statements "substantiated"?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Has Biden every made unsubstantiated statements? Did Twitter label them as such?

If nothing else, Trump's tantrum, as you say, may force Twitter to start fact-checking Democrats, too.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Trump could just substantiate his tweets
It's easy.
It's simple.
Even people here on DP can do it.

Trump must have figured out that getting big government involved
is easier than trying to find stuff to substantiate his crappy tweets





And fwiw,
the protections Trump is talking about removing
are the protections which keep people from being able to sue Twitter
for defamation
So, it's sorta relevant
you may want to look into it
Click to expand...

Giant bold letters doesn't make your point any less weak. His Tweets are the substance of his speech. How can anyone be expected to "substantiate" a prediction? More importantly, those Tweets were clearly a political attack on Democratic policies. Trump is a politician in an election year. Why does his candidacy face a special burden to "substantiate"? That's a question that Twitter is going to have to answer. Trump's response is to force Twitter to take a stand on fact-checking. We'll see how this plays out.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
That's really not the goal. The goal is to cow Twitter into behaving more like AT&T or Comcast as a neutral platform provider.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Totally with you on this point.

I completely understand Trump is attempting to use the USG to blackmail a private business
because they pointed out that Trump tweeted some **** Trump can't back up.

Trump got embarrassed in public
So, naturally, he threatened to destroy a vital principle of how social media systems work.

Totally with you.

I am discussing the actual threat Trump is making.
Trump is threatening to remove Twitter's protections against being sued for defamation because of what any Twitter user posts.​

Does that sound like reasonable to you?
Is it reasonable for Twitter to be sued because one of its members posted some stupid ****?
Should DP get sued because one of its members posted some stupid ****?


GhostlyJoe said:
If Twitter wants to weigh in on politics...
Click to expand...
ftr
irl
pointing out that Trump's tweets were unsubstantiated
is just plain fact, not politics
:shrug:

###

Trump could just substantiate his tweets
It's easy.
It's simple.
Even people here on DP can do it.


Trump needs to get big government involved
because Trump can't even back up his own crappy tweets
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Yes.
Totally with you on this point.

I completely understand Trump is attempting to use the USG to blackmail a private business
because they pointed out that Trump tweeted some **** Trump can't back up.

Trump got embarrassed in public
So, naturally, he threatened to destroy a vital principle of how social media systems work.

Totally with you.

I am discussing the actual threat Trump is making.
Trump is threatening to remove Twitter's protections against being sued for defamation because of what any Twitter user posts.​

Does that sound like reasonable to you?
Is it reasonable for Twitter to be sued because one of its members posted some stupid ****?
Should DP get sued because one of its members posted some stupid ****?



ftr
irl
pointing out that Trump's tweets were unsubstantiated
is just plain fact, not politics
:shrug:

###

Trump could just substantiate his tweets
It's easy.
It's simple.
Even people here on DP can do it.


Trump needs to get big government involved
because Trump can't even back up his own crappy tweets
Click to expand...

Crafting a legal argument isn't blackmail. lol
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Yes.
Totally with you on this point.

I completely understand Trump is attempting to use the USG to blackmail a private business
because they pointed out that Trump tweeted some **** Trump can't back up.

Trump got embarrassed in public
So, naturally, he threatened to destroy a vital principle of how social media systems work.

Totally with you.

I am discussing the actual threat Trump is making.
Trump is threatening to remove Twitter's protections against being sued for defamation because of what any Twitter user posts.​

Does that sound like reasonable to you?
Is it reasonable for Twitter to be sued because one of its members posted some stupid ****?
Should DP get sued because one of its members posted some stupid ****?



ftr
irl
pointing out that Trump's tweets were unsubstantiated
is just plain fact, not politics
:shrug:

###

Trump could just substantiate his tweets
It's easy.
It's simple.
Even people here on DP can do it.


Trump needs to get big government involved
because Trump can't even back up his own crappy tweets
Click to expand...

Well stated. Basically a bully is going to bully.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Adding a label that alters the meaning of his utterance is inarguably creating content.
Click to expand...

It didn't alter the meaning, it was merely fact checked. If Trump tweets 2+2=5 and Twitter fact checks it and says it's misleading, it doesn't mean Trump didn't tweet 2+2=5.

Fact checking is just that. If one is worried about it, they I suppose they can avoid misleading or disinformation tweets in the first place.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
The bolded: It already is! Content creators are not shielded from liability. Newspapers, magazines, websites, etc., are not shielded. Twitter is.

You see, Twitter isn't supposed to be a political operative at all. Becoming one violates the spirit of the law and should negate their protections.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's accurate. I believe newspapers, magazines, and other websites are still protected by Section 230 in so far as content created by third parties. For example if someone defames you in the comment section on a New York Times article, you cannot go and sue the Times.

So unless I'm misunderstanding, I'm not sure what standards you are suggesting should be applied to Twitter that are applied to newspapers, magazines, and websites.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
How can anyone be expected to "substantiate" a prediction?
Click to expand...
How is that a confusing question for you?
Providing substantiation for assertions is not some impossible or even Herculean task. [ though some DP posters act like providing sources is near impossible ]
It's easy as ****.

e.g.
You provide the evidence which leads to the conclusions you are spouting
You provide evidence that subject matter experts see this coming


GhostlyJoe said:
Why does his candidacy face a special burden to "substantiate"?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't
any other serial liar with a huge base who was as prolific of a dissembler as Trump
also be treated the same way?


I know Donnie said he was being picked on.
But he starts **** and then whines about he consequences
all.
the.
friggen.
time.

This is one of those times.

GhostlyJoe said:
Trump's response is to force Twitter to take a stand on fact-checking.
Click to expand...
You may not have noticed, but
Twitter already has a stance on fact checking.
Twitter's already existing stance on fact checking led to Twitter saying Trump's tweets were unsubstantiated.
 
Anagram said:
I don't think that's accurate. I believe newspapers, magazines, and other websites are still protected by Section 230 in so far as content created by third parties. For example if someone defames you in the comment section on a New York Times article, you cannot go and sue the Times.

So unless I'm misunderstanding, I'm not sure what standards you are suggesting should be applied to Twitter that are applied to newspapers, magazines, and websites.
Click to expand...

It would be quite surprising to see newspapers and magazines protected by section 230... After all, the section only came into existence in 1996 and specifically only applies to electronic communications...
 
BlueTex said:
It would be quite surprising to see newspapers and magazines protected by section 230... After all, the section only came into existence in 1996 and specifically only applies to electronic communications...
Click to expand...

I mean their online presence, which I think is obvious by context. See "other websites" where other clearly applies to the former items in the list.
 
armycowboy said:
Its amazing how many Trump supporters don't get how the 1st amendment works.
Click to expand...

We do... what we don’t get is how the Left supports censorship.

I’ve found Leftists gleefully suppress the speech of their opponents every opportunity they get. They’re not even shy about it, and their ilk energetically support and defend the suppression, and egg the suppressors on.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Conservatives should file this under : 'We should be careful what we wish for'...

Of course they are totally brainwashed so they don't see how this attack on social media by their cult god just might come back and bite them squarely in the ass.
Click to expand...

Wishing for a level playing field... not being shadow-banned... censored is something to fear?
 
CaughtInThe said:
Remember how almost every Republican cheered the Patriot Act? Remember how long it took them to see the effects of that and then flip flop?
Click to expand...

Yeah... we figured Democrats wouldn’t abuse it.

We were wrong.
 
CaughtInThe said:
It's going to be hilarious when democrats take control again and use all of the things that Trump put in the place against republicans.
Click to expand...

You think Democrats are for free speech?

ROTFLOL...

Listen to this flotation device with an airbag for a brain... a supposed “journalist”.

Her Stalinist tendencies ... airhead... explode at the 57 second mark.

Amazing how thin skinned Leftists are. They get a microscopic taste of the bull**** they have spewed for 3-plus years... and they lose it... ROTFLOL...

Joe... no man he... has to send his flotation device out to defend him. Yo!!! Joe!!! Grow some stones.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom