- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BREAKING: Trump will sign executive order shortly about social media companies
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:59 pm to honeybadger07
Posted on 5/27/20 at 8:59 pm to honeybadger07
quote:Why haven't you started your own company to compete?
Suppressing conservative speech you dumb arse
5
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:01 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
I’m sorry but this wasn’t why people jumped on the Trump Train. It’s like he wants to lose this election.
People I barely know tell me they see in the news things that are being censored...
people feel like this is a turning point for our country...
Trump is the only guy who has balls to say a dang thing about any of it...
we've tolerated it way too long....
now it seems unreasonable to hold these communist accountable
they will just say "oh see, he is being fascist dictator like we tried to tell you"
sadly that will be the case
but it will be a complete lie ...
Trump's entire presidency has been about trying to censor him... with phony investigations and even an impeachment
now or never
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:04 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Why haven't you started your own company to compete?
I remember when liberals loved free speech especially by companies protected by congress to uphold it.
Do you remember?
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:05 pm to ApexTiger
Notice how the President has held this in his pocket since 2019 but only played the card when he was personally affected.
He doesn’t give a rip about me and you.
He doesn’t give a rip about me and you.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:06 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Dictator in chief.
funny...you loved Obama's phone and a pen EO's...
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:24 pm to texashorn
quote:
So they had an executive order ready to roll and were just looking for an opportunity to spring it when the President himself was the affected party? Perhaps.
Or, he baited y'alls dumbasses like he has been doing for 4 years and y'all still can't figure it out.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:27 pm to Hurricane Mike
Or, he devalued your own constitutional rights and system of government when it suited his fancy, and you cheered it on.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:28 pm to texashorn
quote:
Notice how the President has held this in his pocket since 2019 but only played the card when he was personally affected.
Know when to hold em, know when to fold em.
RIP Kenny
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:29 pm to Contra
Calling my shot.
EO will state that all media platforms that censor conservatives unnecessarily will not receive the benefits of their current status any longer. It will be a financial hurt, is my bet.
Status being that current laws applicable to them protect them from being sued as a platform.
EO will state that all media platforms that censor conservatives unnecessarily will not receive the benefits of their current status any longer. It will be a financial hurt, is my bet.
Status being that current laws applicable to them protect them from being sued as a platform.
This post was edited on 5/27/20 at 9:35 pm
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:30 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Dictator in chief. I’m sorry but this wasn’t why people jumped on the Trump Train. It’s like he wants to lose this election.
Holy shite, you are dumb.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:33 pm to DavidTheGnome
You killed Lucas
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:34 pm to ApexTiger
quote:
now or never
We are at the edge of the cliff
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:37 pm to Geauxboy
Something something free speech
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:40 pm to Big Scrub TX
fricking vermin spout that nonsense KNOWING about the barriers to entry
Dishonest as shite but you be you
Platform v publisher, not hard
Dishonest as shite but you be you
Platform v publisher, not hard
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:40 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Dictator in chief. I’m sorry but this wasn’t why people jumped on the Trump Train. It’s like he wants to lose this election.
316 DV's is impressive considering it not the OP of the thread.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:42 pm to texashorn
3 hours ago this was a snap decision.
quote:
What has it been, two days since twitter clarified the Trump tweet? This reeks of a Trump temper tantrum. Lawyers have been burning the midnight oil to exact Nixonian retribution via executive fiat.
Now he’s bad for sitting on it.
quote:
Notice how the President has held this in his pocket since 2019 but only played the card when he was personally affected.
You could just save time by saying “whatever Trump does will suck”.
This post was edited on 5/27/20 at 9:42 pm
Posted on 5/27/20 at 11:48 pm to gthog61
quote:Awww, is it hard for you to start a competing business? Poor thing.
fricking vermin spout that nonsense KNOWING about the barriers to entry
Posted on 5/27/20 at 11:48 pm to MrLarson
quote:You'll have to be more specific about what you're talking about. I'm talking here about whiny arse "conservatives" too afraid to compete with a company they don't like.
I remember when liberals loved free speech especially by companies protected by congress to uphold it.
Do you remember?
Posted on 5/27/20 at 11:52 pm to Big Scrub TX
The funniest part about this is Karen Brzezinski got Jack to do something that will lead directly to Twitter losing its safe harbor protections and opening the floodgates to lawsuits against Twitter.
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:08 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
One of the first legal challenges to Section 230 was the 1997 case Zeran v. America Online, Inc., in which a Federal court affirmed that the purpose of Section 230 as passed by Congress was "to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision". Under that court's holding, computer service providers who regulated the dissemination of offensive material on their services risked subjecting themselves to liability, because such regulation cast the service provider in the role of a publisher. Fearing that the specter of liability would therefore deter service providers from blocking and screening offensive material, Congress enacted § 230's broad immunity "to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material." In addition, Zeran notes "the amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is . . . staggering. The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obviously chilling effect. It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems. Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect."
It’s Wiki but it works for background info
To put it simply, seems theres a difference in regulating for screening and deletion than a company publishing its own content tagging it onto the user’s material. Seems easy enough to redefine that a private company can screen/censor and remain a ‘platform’ like deleting offensive material vs creating content like a ‘publisher’ as we saw with twitter-trump fiasco.
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News