Facebook and Twitter

It's not.

TheBear said:

Please elaborate.

Click to expand...

Twitter and facebook are not required to allow any speech on their platforms, even political speech. You can argue I suppose that refusing to platform this newest story is of value to Biden, but if they can feasibly point to how it violates it's ToS, then there is no issue.

TheBear said:

Please elaborate.

Click to expand...

As private companies they can determine how their services are used.

"Twitter and Facebook are private companies that are not subject to free speech laws, therefore they did not interfere in the election."

Nothing like starting out a thread with a few good fallacies!

The social media companies restricted conservative speech without rationale, without a fact check, in a purely partisan way, by applying a double standard. There's just nothing hard about this.

essentialsaltes said:

As private companies they can determine how their services are used.

Click to expand...

Sure they can, but when they edit the speech of others they become publishers and as such no longer subject to the legal protections from liability suits that are given under the law to open platforms that allow free speech.

So there is that...

zippy2006 said:

The social media companies restricted conservative speech without rationale, without a fact check, in a purely partisan way, by applying a double standard. There's just nothing hard about this.

Click to expand...

What double standard did they apply? How do you know they didn't do a fact check?

Hazelelponi said:

Sure they can, but when they edit the speech of others they become publishers and as such no longer subject to the legal protections from liability suits that are given under the law to open platforms that allow free speech.

So there is that...

Click to expand...

This is not true. The publisher/platform distinction doesn't apply to the internet because of section 230 of the CDA. That's a common law distinction that was specifically overwritten by the act.

Arcangl86 said:

How do you know they didn't do a fact check?

Click to expand...

It's common knowledge. Have you followed this story at all? No fact check was presented before the censorship. Jack Dorsey apologized for censoring the content before even giving an explanation why, much less a fact check.

zippy2006 said:

It's common knowledge. Have you followed this story at all? No fact check was presented before the censorship. Jack Dorsey apologized for censoring the content before even giving an explanation why, much less a fact check.

Click to expand...

I wasn't following too closely, but now i am and I see why Twitter censored the content. They had a policy of not publishing hacked content. AKA there was something against their ToS that they could point too.

TheBear said:

Election interference.


Discuss....

Click to expand...

Are they interfering in the election by restricting the speech of conservatives without doing the same for liberal outlets you mean?

Like how no one on earth outside of 3 people has ever seen the reported tax returns of Trump, and not even they saw any hard copies, and no one on earth knows if they are the actual tax returns of Trump, yet these 3 people's opinions of what was in those returns were repeated ad nauseum all over Facebook and Twitter as if gospel truth...

While on the other hand the FBI was given the hard drive and computer of reportedly Hunter Biden, and several higher-ups have had a chance to investigate what was on those, and copies of it all given to the former Mayor of NYC, who himself sought to investigate the veracity of it all...

And though some in the Justice Department find it credible to likely truly belonging to Hunter Biden, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have gone to extreme measures to scrub any mention of it calling it unfounded...

Is that what you mean? When it's anti-Trump its automatically credible, when it's anti-Biden it's automatically unreliable to untrue?

Arcangl86 said:

I wasn't following too closely, but now i am and I see why Twitter censored the content. They had a policy of not publishing hacked content. AKA there was something against their ToS that they could point too.

Click to expand...

Keep reading. The content wasn't hacked. Twitter's calves will be cramping soon from all of the backpedaling they've been doing.

Of course the other problem is that Twitter allows hacked content all the time, such as Wikileaks, not to mention unauthorized and illegal content, such as Trump's tax returns two weeks ago (there's your double standard). Heck, Twitter has now officially changed their "Wrong policy" regarding hacked materials, and will no longer censor them except in special circumstances.

Really, go read a bit about this story before giving your opinion.

Hazelelponi said:

Sure they can, but when they edit the speech of others they become publishers

Click to expand...

Even if that were true, Simon and Schuster does not have to publish your novel. They can tell you it stinks and to go pound sand. Publishers can select and edit; that's why they have editors.

Arcangl86 said:

This is not true. The publisher/platform distinction doesn't apply to the internet because of section 230 of the CDA. That's a common law distinction that was specifically overwritten by the act.

Click to expand...

It was overwritten specifically to protect non-publishers in an open platform setting. When those non publishers become publishers, they should lose all protection for being an open platform because they no longer are. Period.

essentialsaltes said:

Even if that were true, Simon and Schuster does not have to publish your novel. They can tell you it stinks and to go pound sand. Publishers can select and edit; that's why they have editors.

Click to expand...

Yep... but "open platforms" were given legal protection which Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube now enjoy. Yet, they stopped being an open platform and began being publishers...

essentialsaltes said:

Even if that were true, Simon and Schuster does not have to publish your novel. They can tell you it stinks and to go pound sand. Publishers can select and edit; that's why they have editors.

Click to expand...

Go ahead and read the rest of the post you cherry-picked. So far you've committed a blatant fallacy and a blatant misrepresentation based on the fact that you just cut out 26 inconvenient words from a sentence.

essentialsaltes said:

As private companies they can determine how their services are used.

Click to expand...

If they are restricting information of one candidate could be an in-kind contribution. Providing a service to a candidate may be illegal if the value is determined to break campaign laws on contributions.

Making in-kind contributions to candidates - FEC.gov

I think Facebook, google and Twitter have done this. I also think the media outlets have as well. They are clearly doing everything the can to get Biden elected.

zippy2006 said:

Go ahead and read the rest of the post you cherry-picked. So far you've committed a blatant fallacy and a blatant misrepresentation based on the fact that you just cut out 26 inconvenient words from a sentence.

Click to expand...

Oh nonsense. What, even if I grant Hazelponi's assertion, these companies can be sued? Big deal. I guess we're agreed it's not election interference.