What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Should the occupant of the white house censor twitter et al? (1 Viewer)

D

dutch

Footballguy
Much ballyhoo emanating recently from the safe space on 1600 Penn. Ave. regarding perceived persecution from Twitter and other social media platforms towards the occupant and his adherents which has led the thin skinned child to thrash about the idea of shutting down these private businesses. One discussion taking place is what rights and responsibilities do the social media companies have in the course of their business but I am curious the flip side: what rights does the government and it's office holders have to thwart the will of these private businesses? 

All replies appreciated.

 
He'll sign something toothless, or simply impossible to enforce,  just to give his supporters something to cheer about. Same as day one.

 
HellToupee said:
[scooter] said:
BREAKING NEWS: TRUMP TO SIGN EXECUTIVE ORDER DEMANDING THAT TWITTER STOP HURTING HIS FEELINGS
Click to expand...
Please stop posting fake news as factual. This isn’t true. This simply isn’t true 
Click to expand...
I was just copying what I saw on CNN. I paused the TV to write down the words to make sure I got it right, but I admit that I may not have gotten every word exactly correct, which is why I was careful not to put it in quotes.

 
All of this because he wants to promote a conspiracy that a morning talk show host that is critical of him is a murderer. Now he wants to use the power of the office to punish the company that called him out on his bull####. 
 

Does any Trump supporter believe Joe Scarborough killed someone?

 
Jobber said:
That this is even being put into legislation is laughable, and yet another reason the GOP is dying. Good luck passing it, too.
Click to expand...
As long as they "fact check" 100% of the content, I don't have a problem with them doing it here.  If they don't, then their protection under Section 230 should be removed.  

 
:lmao:  at executive order for social media

I'm sure there are plenty of chat rooms Trump could post in if Twitter bans him :lmao:

 
Snorkelson said:
All of this because he wants to promote a conspiracy that a morning talk show host that is critical of him is a murderer. Now he wants to use the power of the office to punish the company that called him out on his bull####. 
 

Does any Trump supporter believe Joe Scarborough killed someone?
Click to expand...
Trump is also saying a dead woman cheated on her husband.  I think any widower would knock Trump’s teeth out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Daywalker said:
Trump is also saying a dead woman cheated on her husband.  I think any widower would knock Trump’s teeth out.
Click to expand...
Slow down, the occupant of the oval office is only pondering whether a dead woman cheated on her husband, he never outright claimed she did as that would be unpresidential.

 
Apparently the EO has stuff about tracking users likes and follows as well as their activities offline. 

Not authoritarian at all.

 
Obvious attempt to commandeer social media completely to become a conduit for the pack of lies that have become the core of Trump and the Republicans' campaign messages. That it's done so blatantly and obviously with so many believing Trump's lies is sad. I hope he tries the EO and gets promptly taken to court. Also, it'll probably lead to even more restrictive posting policies (i.e. he'll probably lose his account) if they force these companies to further protect themselves from litigation due to misbehavior by users. 

The good news is, it'll never actually happen. This'll prove to be yet another case of bluster with zero follow through by Trump, as he's done so many times already - seems like at least once a week now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As noted by Steve Bannon, Trump's administration has been a complete attack on truth. Truth subverts his agenda. Twitter offering up token resistance has to be brushed aside in the interest of the larger purpose.

 
How would this censorship be enforced?  Raid some server farms? Arrest the Twitter corporate executives?

If white collar crime cannot be investigated, why spend resources on this junk?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
Obvious attempt to commandeer social media completely to become a conduit for the pack of lies that have become the core of Trump and the Republicans' campaign messages. That it's done so blatantly and obviously with so many believing Trump's lies is sad. I hope he tries the EO and gets promptly taken to court. Also, it'll probably lead to even more restrictive posting policies (i.e. he'll probably lose his account) if they force these companies to further protect themselves from litigation due to misbehavior by users. 

The good news is, it'll never actually happen. This'll prove to be yet another case of bluster with zero follow through by Trump, as he's done so many times already - seems like at least once a week now.
Click to expand...
Biden's debate material writes itself. I imagine his campaign has a team that does nothing but save off all those lusciously idiotic tweets for use later. Whether it be in commercials or right on the debate stage.  

 
The Z Machine said:
How would this censorship be enforced?  Raid some server farms? Arrest the Twitter corporate executives?
Click to expand...
The argument being made is Twitter is protected by federal laws that they are just the vehicle that people express their stuff.  The president now does not want them protected if they are going to "moderate".  Basically, if you choose to moderate then you could be legally responsible.   However, there is also a terms and conditions agreement you sign when joining so not sure how that plays.  But let's say this passes.   I could envision Twitter than basically moderate everything. Where you post something and it won't be put up until it passes moderation.

That should go well :lmao:

 
Jobber said:
Biden's debate material writes itself. I imagine his campaign has a team that does nothing but save off all those lusciously idiotic tweets for use later. Whether it be in commercials or right on the debate stage.  
Click to expand...
...and yet I get the sinking suspicion that they will #### up the opportunity. 

 
belljr said:
The argument being made is Twitter is protected by federal laws that they are just the vehicle that people express their stuff.  The president now does not want them protected if they are going to "moderate".  Basically, if you choose to moderate then you could be legally responsible.   However, there is also a terms and conditions agreement you sign when joining so not sure how that plays.  But let's say this passes.   I could envision Twitter than basically moderate everything. Where you post something and it won't be put up until it passes moderation.

That should go well :lmao:
Click to expand...
With the amount of #### all over Twitter, I don’t know how this is financially viable. 

 
belljr said:
The argument being made is Twitter is protected by federal laws that they are just the vehicle that people express their stuff.  The president now does not want them protected if they are going to "moderate".  Basically, if you choose to moderate then you could be legally responsible.   However, there is also a terms and conditions agreement you sign when joining so not sure how that plays.  But let's say this passes.   I could envision Twitter than basically moderate everything. Where you post something and it won't be put up until it passes moderation.

That should go well :lmao:
Click to expand...
And if they don't moderate the content, the executives can be held criminally liable?

 
The Z Machine said:
And if they don't moderate the content, the executives can be held criminally liable?
Click to expand...
Depends.  First they didn't actually moderate or change content.  Second they have terms that people sign. No nudity, hate speech etc.   I'm sure stuff falls through. But if they change the law the will be responsible for anything that is on their service, then if they don't moderate and something is posted, then they could be sued and I guess criminally liable based on what content they allowed through.

If the law changes it won't be much different than say this forum, imo.   Stuff will get removed, users banned etc.

All my opinion of course

 
belljr said:
The argument being made is Twitter is protected by federal laws that they are just the vehicle that people express their stuff.  The president now does not want them protected if they are going to "moderate".  Basically, if you choose to moderate then you could be legally responsible.   However, there is also a terms and conditions agreement you sign when joining so not sure how that plays.  But let's say this passes.   I could envision Twitter than basically moderate everything. Where you post something and it won't be put up until it passes moderation.

That should go well :lmao:
Click to expand...
Be careful what you wish for, Mr. President. As soon as you remove Twitter's ability to protect itself from your rhetoric and incitation, that's when your account gets shut down.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HellToupee
Greenwald: The Pressure Campaign on Spotify to Remove Joe Rogan Reveals the Religion of Liberals: Censorship
2 3
Replies
103
Views
3K
AAABatteries
AAABatteries
D
The stench of the Potomac
2
Replies
67
Views
3K
SaintsInDome2006
SaintsInDome2006

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top