- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: Draft copy of Trump's executive order on Big Tech has been released
Posted on 5/28/20 at 11:51 am to DavidTheGnome
Posted on 5/28/20 at 11:51 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:Free speech as defined by the ability to lawfully share your beliefs and opinions within the public square. Social media has been determined to be the equivalent as the public square when they purport to be a platform for information sharing instead of a publisher of information.
What rights are being violated ?
This post was edited on 5/28/20 at 12:11 pm
1
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:08 pm to oogabooga68
quote:As long as your terms don't include "no cakes for ghey weddings" you're good to use them for denying service.
These companies aren't consistent with their violation of terms of service, don't play stupid.
I still don't see why "public accomodation laws" democrats are so fond of don't apply if your business is on the internet.
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:31 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I still don't see why "public accomodation laws" democrats are so fond of don't apply if your business is on the internet.
thank you!
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:33 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Oh good, big government here to save the day from private companies. Damn those libs!
Damn. You still don't understand this?
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:36 pm to LSU Patrick
I thought conservatives liked small government?
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:38 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
I thought conservatives liked small government?
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool........
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:39 pm to boogiewoogie1978
Big Tech is all-in for Leftist/Globalist politics ... at the direct expense of America's liberty ..
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:39 pm to boogiewoogie1978
If Verizon or at&t told you what you could and couldn’t say on their phone...
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:47 pm to Possumslayer
quote:
If Verizon or at&t told you what you could and couldn’t say on their phone...
I own this phone and pay for the service.
I don't own Twitter
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:48 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Abandoning the small government principles you supposedly had because muh Obama did it too, nice.
You are the one who brought up whataboutisms
quote:
And then the next admin comes in and they use the same new rules to crack down on all the conservative social media you enjoy
The point here is that comparing stripping away preferential treatment for tech companies due to discrimination isn’t in the same stratosphere as actually targeting conservative businesses and journalists for no other reason than being conservative. What the frick is wrong with you
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:51 pm to boogiewoogie1978
You use, you don’t own Verizon or at&t
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:52 pm to The Maj
quote:
Sounds like the Facebooks and Twitters is fricked... oh and the YouTube as well...
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:55 pm to boogiewoogie1978
We do. What are you insinuating?
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:55 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
I don't own Twitter
No, but you own the device you are using to access it and you pay for your ISP.
This post was edited on 5/28/20 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
eliminate fake accounts
like alters here?
GOOD LUCK WIT DAT!
Posted on 5/28/20 at 12:58 pm to Contra
quote:
U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to order a review of a law that has long protected Twitter, Facebook and Alphabet’s Google from being responsible for the material posted by their users, according to a draft executive order and a source familiar with the situation.
Doesn't sit easy with me at all. This is EARN IT ACT (Patriot Act 2.0) but now expedited without a vote.
Eta: it can destroy End To End Encryption.
This post was edited on 5/28/20 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 5/28/20 at 1:00 pm to tagatose
quote:
We do. What are you insinuating?
He just felt like showing the board that his understanding of this issue is on par with DavidTheGnome's.
Posted on 5/28/20 at 2:09 pm to Contra
Unfortunately Trumps EO is really a paper tiger here so I wouldn't get all excited because of the Freedom Watch Inc. et al. v. Google Inc. et al decision yesterday by the DC Circuit Court.
Reason
In Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google Inc., decided today by D.C. Circuit Judges Judith Rogers, Thomas Griffith, and Raymond Randolph, Freedom Watch and Loomer sued "Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple … alleging that they conspired to suppress conservative political views." No, said the court (correctly, in my view):
"[A.] The plaintiffs' First Amendment claim failed because "the First Amendment 'prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech.'" (Recall that the First Amendment says "Congress shall …" and the Fourteenth Amendment says "No state shall ….")
[B.] The plaintiffs' antitrust claim failed because there was no evidence of an anticompetitive behavior by platforms:
[C.] The plaintiffs' claim under D.C.'s public accommodation statute failed because the statute doesn't apply to online service providers:
I would add that the D.C. ban on discrimination based on "political affiliation" in places of public accommodations is limited to discrimination based on "belonging to or endorsing any political party." Discrimination on mere ideological beliefs is not covered, as the D.C. Court of Appeals expressly held in Blodgett v. University Club (D.C. 2007).
I also think that 47 U.S.C. § 230 would preclude liability for service providers' decision to block material that they view as offensive. And I think (though here matters are less firmly established) that state and D.C. public accommodations laws can't apply to this fundamentally interstate medium, given the dormant Commerce Clause. But the court didn't have occasion to reach those questions."
Reason
In Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google Inc., decided today by D.C. Circuit Judges Judith Rogers, Thomas Griffith, and Raymond Randolph, Freedom Watch and Loomer sued "Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple … alleging that they conspired to suppress conservative political views." No, said the court (correctly, in my view):
"[A.] The plaintiffs' First Amendment claim failed because "the First Amendment 'prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech.'" (Recall that the First Amendment says "Congress shall …" and the Fourteenth Amendment says "No state shall ….")
[B.] The plaintiffs' antitrust claim failed because there was no evidence of an anticompetitive behavior by platforms:
[C.] The plaintiffs' claim under D.C.'s public accommodation statute failed because the statute doesn't apply to online service providers:
I would add that the D.C. ban on discrimination based on "political affiliation" in places of public accommodations is limited to discrimination based on "belonging to or endorsing any political party." Discrimination on mere ideological beliefs is not covered, as the D.C. Court of Appeals expressly held in Blodgett v. University Club (D.C. 2007).
I also think that 47 U.S.C. § 230 would preclude liability for service providers' decision to block material that they view as offensive. And I think (though here matters are less firmly established) that state and D.C. public accommodations laws can't apply to this fundamentally interstate medium, given the dormant Commerce Clause. But the court didn't have occasion to reach those questions."
Posted on 5/28/20 at 2:27 pm to MrLSU
quote:
Unfortunately Trumps EO is really a paper tiger
What does any of that have to do with classifying them as a publisher?
I agree with the explanation you posted; I don’t view this as a free speech or public accommodation issue, although arguments could probably be made for the latter. But I don’t see what it has to do with the platform/publisher issue.
Posted on 5/28/20 at 4:49 pm to troyt37
quote:
You're nothing but a gigantic waste of time. Free speech, scooter. Nobody with enough brain cells to log on to the internet is this ignorant. You continue to be willfully ignorant, which is a whole other category. Congrats. Nearly everyone has given up trying to use logic with you.
Your free speech isn’t being violated. The government isn’t telling you what you can and can’t say.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News