re: Draft copy of Trump's executive order on Big Tech has been released

quote:

---

Has it? Show me where.

---

Holy hell. How about the fact that they enjoy the protections from the federal government AS A PLATFORM, and not a private publisher? Can you think of any other reason they would enjoy that protection? Hell, can you think?

quote:

---

Do you feel you have a right to tweet? Even if they are a publisher (which I disagree That they are) they can still ban based on politics. How has you freedom of speech been violated, you still haven’t answered.

---

quote:

---

Do you feel you have a right to tweet?

---

No, I don’t guess so. But that’s not what we are talking about, is it Einstein? If Twitter’s terms of service stated that as a conservative my content is subject to censorship, and that leftists are free to attack me at will, while I will be banned, shadow banned, and or censored for responding in kind, I probably wouldn’t have signed up.

You don’t really agree that they are a publisher, but you think they are well within their rights to abuse their users based on politics. Do you even listen to yourself? Tell me, how would you expect a publisher, which is subject to lawsuits based on content, to act any differently than Twitter does? You don’t dispute that conservative and republican content has been subject to all forms of censorship, to include denial of service, do you? Do you deny that leftists on twitter are pretty much allowed to do and say whatever they like, regardless of how vile, threatening, slanderous, and often provably false their content is? We all know these things are true, don’t we?

I mean, I could easily find you numerous examples of this, which you will ignore, just as you have every other fact that has been presented to you. Just tell me how a publisher would be any different than what Twitter is doing right now.

The only difference is, if they were classified as a publisher by the feds, they would be having their asses sued out of business, wouldn’t they?

quote:

---

Even if they are a publisher which I disagree with but whatever, they still don’t have to publish your shite. You don’t have a right to their platform, no matter if they are a publisher or not. But whatever just never say you’re a small government conservative bc that would be a huge load of bs. You want government in your life just like the damned Dems. You’re what we fought in 16’ and it’s sad as shite to see where we’re at now bc this isn’t what we voted for.

---

You still can't get it through your head. The issue is are social media companies complying with the FCC regs. that shield them from liabilities that come along with being considered a publisher. The original intent 20 years ago was to treat them as platform providers and provide protection to what was then a nascent industry. They have clearly crossed into what would be considered publishing by editorializing political content.

quote:

---

But whatever just never say you’re a small government conservative bc that would be a huge load of bs. You want government in your life just like the damned Dems. You’re what we fought in 16’ and it’s sad as shite to see where we’re at now bc this isn’t what we voted for.

---

Oh for fricks sake. How does the government grow any by enforcing laws that were supposed to be enforced already? How is it somehow big government to prevent a publisher from enjoying the protections of a platform? Maybe those entities classified as publishers should just have an obscure online forum tucked away somewhere, so they can be reclassified as a platform, so people can’t sue them. I guess you’re good with that, right?

You’re living proof of the adage, there ain’t no ignorant like the willfully ignorant.