FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[Pio1980]

Former Twitter employee tells Jan. 6 committee Trump would have been banned long ago if he were ‘any other user’

https://fortune.com/2022/07/12/donal...yee-testifies/

[Rajoo]

Congressman Under Investigation For 'Sex Trafficking' Caps Off Twitch's Worst Week Ever

How could things get any worse for the social media platform that generated $2.6 billion in revenue last year? Enter Matt Gaetz.

“I’m joining Twitch to bring my America First message to a new generation of viewers,” he announced on Twitter Thursday. “Twitch will join the lineup of platforms I livestream on, including Rumble, GETTR, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.”

As Motherboard reports, Gaetz briefly streamed with a setup that “looked like Boomer-auctioneer-turned-sportscaster” for only six viewers. After he went offline, however, the chat continued filling as people came by to dunk on him.

“I honestly didn’t think it was possible for you to become any more creepy than you already are,” read a comment by lazy_lightning_73. “But then I learned you joined Twitch one day after Bloomberg published a report about how child predators are using Twitch to track and engage with kids and teens.”

https://kotaku.com/twitch-matt-gaetz...tor-1849570942

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You're not getting it. Last time.

It's not about the first amendment. It's about liability protection under 230 for internet platforms. Lose that, and they become liable for what is posted on their platforms, and potentially what they remove. That makes their business model rather dicey.

OK, back to whatever irrelevant point you were trying to make above.

I know that too. What then explains the Right and their obsession with calling it a First Amendment free speech issue? You yourself in this very thread have referred to it as censorship and muzzling free speech, both implicating First Amendment free speech provisions.

An analog to your (and other conservatives') free speech claim would be a theater operator kicking out a couple of loudmouth conservatives who simply refuse to stop talking loudly during a feature movie. The (implied) terms of service for entering a movie theater is to keep quiet when the movie is playing. Giving you the boot for being a loudmouth who is harming others' viewing experience isn't a free speech issue nor is it discriminatory to conservatives. It's simply folks unwilling to play by the rules and getting kicked out for it (I guess this jibes with conservatives believing that rules, written or unwritten, simply don't apply to them (Trump being the epitome of this)).

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I know that too. What then explains the Right and their obsession with calling it a First Amendment free speech issue? You yourself in this very thread have referred to it as censorship and muzzling free speech, both implicating First Amendment free speech provisions.

You'd have to ask them why. My mention of First Amendment was in the context of a platform deleting content that would otherwise be in line with platform moderation rules, and I can only conjecture whether that would jeopardize 230 protections, though I imagine a tort lawyer would try to sue if the circumstances were right. However, let some nutcase run over a teenager with a car, and have discussion of motive or target by the perp found on Twitter, who deleted other questionable content but not that of the perp....

No, I did not use the term "muzzle free speech" in context of 230. That was a response to some of your comments about the TX law.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You'd have to ask them why. My mention of First Amendment was in the context of a platform deleting content that would otherwise be in line with platform moderation rules, and I can only conjecture whether that would jeopardize 230 protections, though I imagine a tort lawyer would try to sue if the circumstances were right. However, let some nutcase run over a teenager with a car, and have discussion of motive or target by the perp found on Twitter, who deleted other questionable content but not that of the perp....

No, I did not use the term "muzzle free speech" in context of 230. That was a response to some of your comments about the TX law.

You made my very point - that conservatives, you included, sling accusations of muzzling free speech and First Amendment violations to support their incessant whining about social media, even when it has no relevance.
As for tort lawyers suing social media for their moderation decisions, the Whiner-in-Chief's lawsuit against Twitter on this very basis was thrown out of court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...uit-dismissed/

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You made my very point - that conservatives, you included, sling accusations of muzzling free speech and First Amendment violations to support their incessant whining about social media, even when it has no relevance.
As for tort lawyers suing social media for their moderation decisions, the Whiner-in-Chief's lawsuit against Twitter on this very basis was thrown out of court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...uit-dismissed/

No. I presume this is the sentence you're referring to?

However, let some nutcase run over a teenager with a car, and have discussion of motive or target by the perp found on Twitter, who deleted other questionable content but not that of the perp....

This is not a 1st Amendment reference. It is a 230 reference....or more correctly stated, risk that might be incurred absent 230 protections.

As for Trump's lawsuit, his "the gov't made them do it" complaint was pretty damn thin to start with.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

No. I presume this is the sentence you're referring to?

However, let some nutcase run over a teenager with a car, and have discussion of motive or target by the perp found on Twitter, who deleted other questionable content but not that of the perp....

This is not a 1st Amendment reference. It is a 230 reference....or more correctly stated, risk that might be incurred absent 230 protections.

As for Trump's lawsuit, his "the gov't made them do it" complaint was pretty damn thin to start with.

He, like you, was trying to create a nexus between Twitter banning him and the First Amendment for the sake of his case. It was the only chance he had, but the court was clear that no such nexus exists.

From the Knight Institute on the First Amendment at Columbia University on the 5th Circuit opinion:

“This is a deeply unpersuasive opinion. The First Amendment questions presented by the Texas statute can’t be answered simply by recasting the platforms’ editorial decisions as censorship. We hope and expect that the Supreme Court will stay and ultimately vacate this ruling. If the ruling is left in place, it will give state officials all over the country sweeping power to distort free speech online.”

What we have here is a 1996 law applying analog-era First Amendment law to digital-era communications platforms that was written by the type of people who referred to the Internet as a "series of tubes."

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

He, like you, was trying to create a nexus between Twitter banning him and the First Amendment for the sake of his case. It was the only chance he had, but the court was clear that no such nexus exists.

Is this your new strategy? Keep repeating the same lie, and eventually, folks will start to believe it?

I'm doing no such thing, and I've clarified that several times now. I've posted where Facebook has alternatively referred to themselves as a publisher on one hand, and a platform on the other. Though I can't predict the future, this "split personality", treading on both sides of their 230 protections may unravel those same protections. To me, as I've said more than once in this thread, it's not a 1st Amendment issue.

It's YOU who keeps pulling this back to a 1st Amendment issue. So, congratulations. You've once again won the argument you appear to be having with yourself.

Originally Posted by finnbow

What we have here is a 1996 law applying analog-era First Amendment law to digital-era communications platforms that was written by the type of people who referred to the Internet as a "series of tubes."

There you go again. 230 is not about the 1st Amendment. It's about liability protection for internet platforms. But, you go boy!

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Is this your new strategy? Keep repeating the same lie, and eventually, folks will start to believe it?

I'm doing no such thing, and I've clarified that several times now. I've posted where Facebook has alternatively referred to themselves as a publisher on one hand, and a platform on the other. Though I can't predict the future, this "split personality", treading on both sides of their 230 protections may unravel those same protections. To me, as I've said more than once in this thread, it's not a 1st Amendment issue.

It's YOU who keeps pulling this back to a 1st Amendment issue. So, congratulations. You've once again won the argument you appear to be having with yourself.



There you go again. 230 is not about the 1st Amendment. It's about liability protection for internet platforms. But, you go boy!

Yet, the 5th Circuit decision (which launched this particular discussion and which you defended) used First Amendment rational to curtail moderation by platform owners. IOW, you and others on the Right use the 1A and its tenets to attack social media moderation and then deny having done so when shown how disingenuous and legally fraught your argument is.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yet, the 5th Circuit decision (which launched this particular discussion and which you defended) used First Amendment rational to curtail moderation by platform owners. IOW, you and others on the Right use the 1A and its tenets to attack social media moderation and then deny having done so when shown how disingenuous and legally fraught your argument is.

Show me the post where I stated that I support any 1st Amendment arguments that internet platforms don't have the right to moderate their content.