Trump Launches New Communications Platform months after Twitter, Facebook Ban

[Orangeslice13]

For consistency we say that automotive and gun manufacturers can’t be sued for the way people use their products but does that change if those manufacturers restricted their products use by one group but not another.

 

[RockyTop85]

I've tried to point out here what 230 actually says, and you might as well be Copernicus arguing that the earth goes round the sun to these believers.

Having quoted from the 4th and 2nd circuits (who in turn quoted from the 9th) I endeavored last night to see what the other 9 circuits said. I ran out of steam before getting to D.C., the 8th, and the 11th but I’ve seen string cites with D.C. and 11th circuit cases, so I’m confident they subscribe to the Zeran analysis. The 8th is the only one I have no clue about right now.

Of the other 9 circuits, the only one that did not just adopt Zeran was the 7th. Where I ran out of steam was trying to understand how their approach was different in practice.

What it seems to boil down to is that they are considering alternative readings of 230(c)(1) to achieve a different outcome re: 230(e)* in cases where the service provider didn’t engage in content moderation and to allow state law liability. They’re allowing states to create an affirmative duty for service providers to moderate harmful content.

I’m probably not going to read through district court cases to see if this resulted in an outcome that the believers would appreciate. I doubt it did but I could see how it might.

Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F. 3d 655 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2003 - Google Scholar


* - 230(e) is the section that precludes liability under state laws that conflict with section 230. (I’d cc: the thread about Florida law except that this was already mentioned in the article there).

 

[Y9 Vol]

For consistency we say that automotive and gun manufacturers can’t be sued for the way people use their products but does that change if those manufacturers restricted their products use by one group but not another.

Let’s ask the bakery owner in California how that went for him.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Let’s ask the bakery owner in California how that went for him.

That was a stupid issue to fight over.
Still their right to but the whole religious angle doesn’t fly. Not from a Christian prospective anyway. Judging others behavior goes against everything messiah taught. “Judge not lest ye be judged”. “By the standard you judge, you will be judged “. “Don’t worry about the splinter in your neighbors eye, but the plank in your own “. (Slice paraphrasing). If you think people need to hear about messiah should your first step be “I’m not selling you a cake” or should you just present your case and let them decide what their sins are?

And there is no eternal torture for the lost. That’s just garbage Christians added to scripture to scare children and feel superior to people who disagree with them
sorry...pet peeve.....and way off topic

 

[RockyTop85]

Let’s ask the bakery owner in California how that went for him.

Is this different from the Colorado cake shop?

 

[Y9 Vol]

Is this different from the Colorado cake shop?

I stand corrected...to much celebration last night after the Slam!!

 

[RockyTop85]

I stand corrected...to much celebration last night after the Slam!!

I legit didn’t know if there was a different situation. The Colorado guy won. He’s being sued again by someone else but it’s on the same facts that the state of Colorado already bailed on so I don’t think it’s going anywhere.

Was an awesome way to end a game.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Was an awesome way to end a game.

I'm 47 years old and I've watched a lot of baseball. The only other time I've ever seen a walk off grand slam which won the game by 1 run was by Mike Schmidt of the Phillies against the Cubs in Wrigley... and that was in 1983.

 

[Grand Vol]

I have posted this in response to @hog88 two previous times. They were both in the "2020 Presidential Race" thread. He never replied to either one of those posts.

This is also for the benefit of @Grand Vol (who said I was talking out of my ass again, because I won't back up what I say), @VolStrom, @Orangeslice13, @Orangeburst (who asked for the top 3. I'm posting the top 10) and of course, @NCFisher.

Once again, here it is:

10 Times That Donald Trump Was Either Soft On Russia, or Did Putin's Bidding.

1) Trump and his aides softened the GOP platform on Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in the Ukraine. Ahead of the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump campaign aides blocked language from the party platform that called for the US government to send lethal weapons to Ukraine for its war against Russian proxies. While the Trump administration ultimately did supply arms and anti-tank weapons to the Ukraine, this was a hollow gesture, because the Ukrainians can't use the Javelin missiles in the conflict against pro-Russian separatists based on the terms of the sale. A top staffer in the US embassy in Ukraine testified in November of 2019 that the Javelins aren't "actively employed in combat operations right now."

2) Trump repeatedly lobbied for Russia to be readmitted to the G 7, even after intelligence has continued to pile up concerning their cyber attacks against the DNC and American-based businesses.

3) Trump proposed a cyber unit with Russia. After the July 2017 meeting with G 20 leaders, Trump said he had spoken with Putin about "forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit" to combat "election hacking." Trump quickly backtracked after Congressional leaders from both parties said it would be ridiculous to work with Russia on cybersecurity because Russia was responsible for egregious hacks against American targets, including during the 2016 Presidential election.

4) Trump refused to impose new Russian sanctions despite a law passed almost unanimously by the US Congress over election hacking. In January of 2018, the Trump administration announced that it would not impose additional sanctions on Russia, despite the fact that Congress had passed a law allowing the President to do so. Those new sanctions would have required the US Treasury Department to penalize foreign governments and companies doing business with Russia's defense and intelligence sectors. Congress passed a bill in August of 2017, almost unanimously, that punished Russia for its alleged meddling in the 2016 Presidential election, and for their aggression in east Ukraine. Because the bill had passed with a veto-proof majority, Trump had no choice but to sign it into law, but he branded the bill "seriously flawed". Although the bill did allow for sanctions to be delayed or waived, any inaction would have to come with evidence presented to Congress that Russia was making progress in cutting back on cyber meddling. However, with further intrusions into the 2020 Presidential election, as well as the SolarWinds attack, it is apparent that no such progress was ever made while Donald Trump was the President of the United States... and no such evidence was ever presented to Congress as to why these additional sanctions shouldn't be imposed. As it turned out, they were never imposed while Trump was in office.

5) During the Helsinki Summit in July of 2018, President Trump memorably sided with Vladimir Putin's denial of Russian involvement in the hacking of the DNC, against the conclusion of his own appointed Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats. Trump later claimed that he had misspoken... but Trump has sided with Putin's denial since the Helsinki Summit, so that appears to have been another lie.

6) Trump eased sanctions on Russian oligarch and Putin confidant, Oleg Deripaska, along with the three companies linked to him. The US Treasury Department sanctioned Deripaska in 2016 over his support for Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a bi-partisan rebuke of the removal of these sanctions, 11 Senate Republicans supported a Democratic Party resolution calling for these sanctions to remain. However, Trump was undeterred, and still removed the sanctions, anyway.

7) Trump's withdrawal from Syria gave Vladimir Putin a key boost. Trump announced in October of 2019 that US troops were withdrawing from northern Syria. This abrupt move cleared the way for Turkey to conquer territories previously controlled by the US and allied Kurdish militias. It also gave Russia a golden opportunity to expand its influence and swiftly take over abandoned US outposts and checkpoints. This has been crucial for Putin's agenda in the region.

8) Trump consistently repeated Kremlin talking points on ISIS. After announcing the Syrian withdrawal, Trump repeated the Kremlin talking point that, "Russia hates ISIS as much as the United States does," and that they are equal partners in the fight. However, those comments don't reflect the reality on the ground. Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS.

9) Trump ordered US troops out of Germany. The plan to remove about one-third of the force drew serious concerns from the Pentagon because it would compromise European-based defenses against Russia. In a letter to Trump, nearly two dozen Republican lawmakers said his decision would "strengthen the position of Russia to our detriment." That seems to have been Trump's objective, however.

10) Finally, this past December, Trump tweeted that the SolarWinds cyber attack was being overblown by the media. He also said that China was more likely to have been responsible for it. Around this same time, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said in an interview that Russia was "pretty clearly" behind the attack which hit the State Department, among many other agencies and businesses. Attorney General, William Barr, sided with Pompeo while saying that the SolarWinds hack "certainly appears to be the Russians." Per the Associated Press, White House officials had prepared a statement calling Russia "the main actor" in the SolarWinds attack, but Trump ordered them not to release it.

Lmao!

1. Who actually sold/gave them lethal weapons instead of sleeping bags and field kitchens? Furthermore, which party decimated their stockpiles of weapons after the Cold War?

2. Who cares? We allow China in and they do just as bad or worse.

3. Proposed, never went through.

4. So? It allowed him to do so, doesn't mean he had to and "penalizing" foreign governments might have meant alienating potential friends in the process.

5. To this day, there has never been any information released that the Russians helped sway the election to Trump. The only people that still carry on over that are butt-hurt imbeciles like yourself that still can't comprehend Hillary lost.

6. And? What reason was given to remove them? Furthermore, outside of petty nonsense, what was the reason to keep them?

7. This is completely insane. Russia didn't do any more than they already were and even after an order by the Commander in Chief of the US Military, troops remained in Syria. All Trump did was remove us from yet another endless conflict in the Middle East that the MIC wanted us involved in. ISIS was defeated and we had no business continuing to occupy a country where we weren't wanted and continue to throw away American lives over what? Give me one good reason we should have stayed in Syria if you can.

8. Back that up with proof please. Furthermore, which country was actuality there on the invitation of the sitting government?

9. The amount of bases we have in Europe is still a throwback to the Cold War. Plus, that was a punishment to Germany for continuing to do business with Russia or Did that slip your mind?

10. And?

Still not proving Trump was a "Russian Agent" or was soft on Russia. Because most of your points are stupid.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Lmao!

1. Who actually sold/gave them lethal weapons instead of sleeping bags and field kitchens? Furthermore, which party decimated their stockpiles of weapons after the Cold War?

2. Who cares? We allow China in and they do just as bad or worse.

3. Proposed, never went through.

4. So? It allowed him to do so, doesn't mean he had to and "penalizing" foreign governments might have meant alienating potential friends in the process.

5. To this day, there has never been any information released that the Russians helped sway the election to Trump. The only people that still carry on over that are butt-hurt imbeciles like yourself that still can't comprehend Hillary lost.

6. And? What reason was given to remove them? Furthermore, outside of petty nonsense, what was the reason to keep them?

7. This is completely insane. Russia didn't do any more than they already were and even after an order by the Commander in Chief of the US Military, troops remained in Syria. All Trump did was remove us from yet another endless conflict in the Middle East that the MIC wanted us involved in. ISIS was defeated and we had no business continuing to occupy a country where we weren't wanted and continue to throw away American lives over what? Give me one good reason we should have stayed in Syria if you can.

8. Back that up with proof please. Furthermore, which country was actuality there on the invitation of the sitting government?

9. The amount of bases we have in Europe is still a throwback to the Cold War. Plus, that was a punishment to Germany for continuing to do business with Russia or Did that slip your mind?

10. And?

Still not proving Trump was a "Russian Agent" or was soft on Russia. Because most of your points are stupid.

Your half-assed attempt at a "rebuttal" is void of any substance. You're dismissive just for the sake of it. The cumulative total of those completely valid and well-substantiated points that you replied to, is that Donald Trump has consistently gone out of his way to be a defender of, and an apologist for Vladimir Putin's hostile regime, and of Russia's acts of cyber-aggression against the United States, and attacks against American interests, both domestically and abroad. Trump's foreign policy assisted Putin's objectives across multiple international regions. Donald Trump clearly never had the courage, desire or intention of confronting Vladimir Putin over his acts of aggression against the United States... and the best you can come up with is "What about China?".

Your pathetic, opinionated, non-arguments address none of the core allegations contained within those points. Your post is purely superficial. It only serves to reveal that you are a very simple-minded person who is equal parts immature, unintelligent, uninformed, unsophisticated and woefully inarticulate. There is not a shred of actual news reporting, research or intellectual curiosity to be found in anything which you just posted here. It reads more like what a 10 year old would say after a classmate insulted their mama. You would come to the defense of Donald Trump regardless of the subject, but never with any actual substantive facts or data at your disposal, just childish name-calling, and a biased narrative.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I have posted this in response to @hog88 two previous times. They were both in the "2020 Presidential Race" thread. He never replied to either one of those posts.

This is also for the benefit of @Grand Vol (who said I was talking out of my ass again, because I won't back up what I say), @VolStrom, @Orangeslice13, @Orangeburst (who asked for the top 3. I'm posting the top 10) and of course, @NCFisher.

Once again, here it is:

10 Times That Donald Trump Was Either Soft On Russia, or Did Putin's Bidding.

1) Trump and his aides softened the GOP platform on Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in the Ukraine. Ahead of the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump campaign aides blocked language from the party platform that called for the US government to send lethal weapons to Ukraine for its war against Russian proxies. While the Trump administration ultimately did supply arms and anti-tank weapons to the Ukraine, this was a hollow gesture, because the Ukrainians can't use the Javelin missiles in the conflict against pro-Russian separatists based on the terms of the sale. A top staffer in the US embassy in Ukraine testified in November of 2019 that the Javelins aren't "actively employed in combat operations right now."

2) Trump repeatedly lobbied for Russia to be readmitted to the G 7, even after intelligence has continued to pile up concerning their cyber attacks against the DNC and American-based businesses.

3) Trump proposed a cyber unit with Russia. After the July 2017 meeting with G 20 leaders, Trump said he had spoken with Putin about "forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit" to combat "election hacking." Trump quickly backtracked after Congressional leaders from both parties said it would be ridiculous to work with Russia on cybersecurity because Russia was responsible for egregious hacks against American targets, including during the 2016 Presidential election.

4) Trump refused to impose new Russian sanctions despite a law passed almost unanimously by the US Congress over election hacking. In January of 2018, the Trump administration announced that it would not impose additional sanctions on Russia, despite the fact that Congress had passed a law allowing the President to do so. Those new sanctions would have required the US Treasury Department to penalize foreign governments and companies doing business with Russia's defense and intelligence sectors. Congress passed a bill in August of 2017, almost unanimously, that punished Russia for its alleged meddling in the 2016 Presidential election, and for their aggression in east Ukraine. Because the bill had passed with a veto-proof majority, Trump had no choice but to sign it into law, but he branded the bill "seriously flawed". Although the bill did allow for sanctions to be delayed or waived, any inaction would have to come with evidence presented to Congress that Russia was making progress in cutting back on cyber meddling. However, with further intrusions into the 2020 Presidential election, as well as the SolarWinds attack, it is apparent that no such progress was ever made while Donald Trump was the President of the United States... and no such evidence was ever presented to Congress as to why these additional sanctions shouldn't be imposed. As it turned out, they were never imposed while Trump was in office.

5) During the Helsinki Summit in July of 2018, President Trump memorably sided with Vladimir Putin's denial of Russian involvement in the hacking of the DNC, against the conclusion of his own appointed Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats. Trump later claimed that he had misspoken... but Trump has sided with Putin's denial since the Helsinki Summit, so that appears to have been another lie.

6) Trump eased sanctions on Russian oligarch and Putin confidant, Oleg Deripaska, along with the three companies linked to him. The US Treasury Department sanctioned Deripaska in 2016 over his support for Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a bi-partisan rebuke of the removal of these sanctions, 11 Senate Republicans supported a Democratic Party resolution calling for these sanctions to remain. However, Trump was undeterred, and still removed the sanctions, anyway.

7) Trump's withdrawal from Syria gave Vladimir Putin a key boost. Trump announced in October of 2019 that US troops were withdrawing from northern Syria. This abrupt move cleared the way for Turkey to conquer territories previously controlled by the US and allied Kurdish militias. It also gave Russia a golden opportunity to expand its influence and swiftly take over abandoned US outposts and checkpoints. This has been crucial for Putin's agenda in the region.

8) Trump consistently repeated Kremlin talking points on ISIS. After announcing the Syrian withdrawal, Trump repeated the Kremlin talking point that, "Russia hates ISIS as much as the United States does," and that they are equal partners in the fight. However, those comments don't reflect the reality on the ground. Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS.

9) Trump ordered US troops out of Germany. The plan to remove about one-third of the force drew serious concerns from the Pentagon because it would compromise European-based defenses against Russia. In a letter to Trump, nearly two dozen Republican lawmakers said his decision would "strengthen the position of Russia to our detriment." That seems to have been Trump's objective, however.

10) Finally, this past December, Trump tweeted that the SolarWinds cyber attack was being overblown by the media. He also said that China was more likely to have been responsible for it. Around this same time, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said in an interview that Russia was "pretty clearly" behind the attack which hit the State Department, among many other agencies and businesses. Attorney General, William Barr, sided with Pompeo while saying that the SolarWinds hack "certainly appears to be the Russians." Per the Associated Press, White House officials had prepared a statement calling Russia "the main actor" in the SolarWinds attack, but Trump ordered them not to release it.

I appreciate being on the list but I really don’t care that much about this issue. I’m pretty sure I never asked you to prove anything. Edit: in relation to trump and Russia

 

[BowlBrother85]

I appreciate being on the list but I really don’t care that much about this issue. I’m pretty sure I never asked you to prove anything. Edit: in relation to trump and Russia

I may have confused a post from @hog88 with yours...

 

[BowlBrother85]

Your list has been decimated by actual facts.

...and let's take note that aside from this drive-by... he has still not responded to that damn list he wanted so badly.

 

[hog88]

...and let's take note that aside from this drive-by... he has still not responded to that damn list he wanted so badly.

Sorry, I had our sons BFs wedding to deal with all day yesterday.

I read your list and 90% has been proven false or was BS to begin with.

 

[Orangeburst]

Rotten minds from so many years of media propoganda.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Sorry, I had our sons BFs wedding to deal with all day yesterday.

I read your list and 90% has been proven false or was BS to begin with.

Congrats for your son's wedding... "Mazel tov".

... but no, it hasn't and it wasn't. LOL.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Dude, he was more divisive than most politicians and all presidents (at least in my lifetime) and this is not debatable. Politicians beef, but you can't deny that he is the biggest common denominator we've ever seen. He literally beefed with everybody, including many members of his staff and supporters within the Republican party. Imagine George W Bush calling Rand Paul a "truly weird senator" and saying "he reminds me of a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain" because Trump did that. I don't remember any president ever sayng anything like that. I have a hard time thinking of any politician who has said something like that. He was calling NFL players sons of bitches and telling their bosses how to handle them. The **** just goes on and on. Maybe you can show me some examples of a president being this divisive? I doubt it.

Y'all can't see the forest for the trees.

So?

 

[VolStrom]

So?

Huff had his feelz hurt so he would rather us lose global power to China instead.

 

[NCFisher]

Let’s try a section 230 primer.

TL;DR: there is no publisher/platform dichotomy in section 230. Section 230 protects all websites (and their users) from being liable for content that appears on the site but that the site did not produce. A website can still be liable for content it produces. A user can still be liable for content they produce. In that situation, they are a content provider. The operative question in determining liability is “who is responsible for the unlawful character of the content?”

A more thorough explanation:
First, the language of section 230, itself. Note the complete absence of the term “platform.” (Seriously, click the link and ctrl+f). It uses content provider and service provider, defined terms, that have absolutely nothing to do with content neutrality, unbiased moderation, algorithms, etc. etc.. You can click the links below to see their definitions, but having given a rough outline above, I’ve only quoted the statute’s operative language, here:

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material



Here is the fourth circuit’s 1997 opinion, which came out a year after the law was published and is still settled law and generally observed by all circuits:
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F. 3d 327 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1997 - Google Scholar



As you can see, the current legal framework does not create a platform/publisher dichotomy and does not allow for any liability for merely hosting content. This is because neither the plain language of the statute (see above) nor the legislative intent support such a reading.

Again, the relevant inquiry is to determine who imbued the content with its wrongfulness. Whether the service provider moderates, amplifies, or removes content (even if it does so with bias) is irrelevant.

Don’t take my word for it, here’s the second circuit, from 2019, in a case involving Facebook:

Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F. 3d 53 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2019 - Google Scholar

The plaintiff here is trying to construe Facebook as the Internet Content Provider (what you would call the publisher). Basically they’re trying a number of theories under which the court could find that Facebook was more than a mere host of third party content. The court says no to all of them (emphasis mine)

I suggest that you identify any source telling you that only platforms have protections and stop listening to them.

I'll defer to the authors - Chris Cox and Ron Wyden - of 230:
[1] Since 1996, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act[1] has governed the allocation of liability for online torts and crimes among internet content creators, platforms, and service providers. The statute’s fundamental principle is that content creators should be liable for any illegal content they create. Internet platforms are generally protected from liability for third-party content, unless they are complicit in the development of illegal content, in which case the statute offers them no protection. The Origins and Original Intent of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

That's Cox; Wyden echoes it. What they referred to as internet, interactive computer services in this nascent stage, is what they - and EVERYONE else - today terms platforms (immunized), vs. creators - editors, publishers, speakers and such (liable). The dichotomy is inherent and distinguished in (c) 1 and 2 between what are today referred to as platforms, and creators. So, let's not mince words.

Lastly, I'm not advocating judicial relief since they are clearly platforms hosting 3rd-party content and such relief doesn't exist under law as written. Indeed, Wyden and Cox attest that neutrality was not the goal; to your point of bias being irrelevant, which I knew. The change will have to be a legislative and market based.

Unless I express a viewpoint, no need to assume one.

 

[Velo Vol]

Having quoted from the 4th and 2nd circuits (who in turn quoted from the 9th) I endeavored last night to see what the other 9 circuits said. I ran out of steam before getting to D.C., the 8th, and the 11th but I’ve seen string cites with D.C. and 11th circuit cases, so I’m confident they subscribe to the Zeran analysis. The 8th is the only one I have no clue about right now.

Sounds like you did more work than anyone other than someone litigating or writing an article about this would do.

 

[NCFisher]

Again, agreeing with our intelligence services that Russia attempted to influence the election is absolutely not the same as saying the election was rigged, and neither is bitching about the electoral college. And I'm pretty sure Biden went ahead and certified those electors. None of that is remotely the equivalent of literally alleging election fraud by your opponent and the US government.

And I'm not sure what you thought you were gaining by posting those poll numbers, as that doesn't relate to the discussion we were having about using social media to spew propaganda. That said if we are trying to deflect onto silly beliefs by party voters at large, we can certainly go that route.

When they use the word illegitimate or stolen, they ain't talking about some Facebook ads nor the electoral college since that's HOW WE ELECT presidents. They're propagandizing. That's how 2/3rds of Democrats come to believe Russian actually changed votes, and why 3/4s of Democrats think millions of illegal votes were cast. It's how they came to believe it was "rigged."

Let's recall your comment:

Falsely claiming the election was stolen was absolutely propaganda that should be offensive to anyone living in a country with a long tradition of representative democracy.

"Absolute propaganda" that worked like a charm, eh? What is plain is that Democrats are no less guilty of such claims.

So, media ban all the propagandizers or just the Trump ones?

 

[RockyTop85]

I'll defer to the authors - Chris Cox and Ron Wyden - of 230:
[1] Since 1996, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act[1] has governed the allocation of liability for online torts and crimes among internet content creators, platforms, and service providers. The statute’s fundamental principle is that content creators should be liable for any illegal content they create. Internet platforms are generally protected from liability for third-party content, unless they are complicit in the development of illegal content, in which case the statute offers them no protection. The Origins and Original Intent of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

That's Cox; Wyden echoes it. What they referred to as internet, interactive computer services in this nascent stage, is what they - and EVERYONE else - today terms platforms (immunized), vs. creators - editors, publishers, speakers and such (liable). The dichotomy is inherent and distinguished in (c) 1 and 2 between what are today referred to as platforms, and creators. So, let's not mince words.

Lastly, I'm not advocating judicial relief since they are clearly platforms hosting 3rd-party content and such relief doesn't exist under law as written. Indeed, Wyden and Cox attest that neutrality was not the goal; to your point of bias being irrelevant, which I knew. The change will have to be a legislative and market based.

Unless I express a viewpoint, no need to assume one.

Here’s the legislative record.
https://www.congress.gov/104/crec/1995/08/04/CREC-1995-08-04-pt1-PgH8460.pdf

Discussion of the Wyden-Cox amendment starts around the middle of the center column in page 10.

Sorry for reading “They can either function as platforms - the basis they alleged to operate under for Section 230 protections - or cease to have that protection and censor at will.” To express the viewpoint that the current law did not allow them to censor at will and still remain protected.

I do think you’re completely wrong to say that the way “everyone” uses “platform” and “publisher” is consistent with the what the authors said in that article or with the dichotomy that’s actually created by the law, the courts, and the legislative record.

Reality is that those sources all say that unless you create or meaningfully and directly contribute to the illegal portion of the content, then you’re protected.

On the other hand, many of the reality deniers insist that a company was intended to become a publisher of all content on its site by moderating any content in a way that the reality deniers don’t approve of.

This is where these less informed people tend to bring up (c)(2) and it’s good faith requirement. But the courts have all held that (c)(2) has no effect on the immunity granted by (c)(1). It doesn’t contribute to the dichotomy at all. It simply indemnified service providers from civil liability they might incur from the act of censoring a content provider.

Here’s what the 7th circuit, the only circuit whose opinion re: (c)(1) might be read to allow for the outcome preferred by reality deniers, says about (c)(2):

Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F. 3d 655 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2003 - Google Scholar

Section 230(c)(2) tackles this problem not with a sword but with a safety net. A web host that does filter out offensive material is not liable to the censored customer. Removing the risk of civil liability may induce web hosts and other informational intermediaries to take more care to protect the privacy and sensibilities of third parties.

Again, they read it to encourage a robust pattern of censorship and to allow the market, rather than the government, to decide what is objectionable content. Which is exactly what the congressional record indicates it was intended to do. And that is exactly what happened.

That said, as long as it’s evident that you’re saying “this is what I think it should be” and not “this is what it is” I don’t have a huge problem with it. But that’s clearly not all that much of what happens here.

 

[tvolsfan]

When they use the word illegitimate or stolen, they ain't talking about some Facebook ads nor the electoral college since that's HOW WE ELECT presidents. They're propagandizing. That's how 2/3rds of Democrats come to believe Russian actually changed votes, and why 3/4s of Democrats think millions of illegal votes were cast. It's how they came to believe it was "rigged."

Let's recall your comment:


"Absolute propaganda" that worked like a charm, eh? What is plain is that Democrats are no less guilty of such claims.

So, media ban all the propagandizers or just the Trump ones?

Maybe I should rephrase. “Claiming that he won an election he clearly lost was absolutely propaganda. Claiming his defeat was a result of fraudulent ballots was propaganda.” Twitter has no obligation to let him use their platform to spread his undemocratic tripe, and in any case, I’m pretty sure they actually only kicked him off for inciting violence.

So get lost with that false equivalency bull****.

 

[Sandman 423]

Maybe I should rephrase. “Claiming that he won an election he clearly lost was absolutely propaganda. Claiming his defeat was a result of fraudulent ballots was propaganda.” Twitter has no obligation to let him use their platform to spread his undemocratic tripe, and in any case, I’m pretty sure they actually only kicked him off for inciting violence.

So get lost with that false equivalency bull****.

Do you really believe they kicked him off for inciting violence? If so, Why are others that incite violence still there? Keep in mind..... I could give two ----- what twitter does, however lets not act as though they weren't looking for a reason to get rid of him.

 

[Sandman 423]

I have posted this in response to @hog88 two previous times. They were both in the "2020 Presidential Race" thread. He never replied to either one of those posts.

This is also for the benefit of @Grand Vol (who said I was talking out of my ass again, because I won't back up what I say), @VolStrom, @Orangeslice13, @Orangeburst (who asked for the top 3. I'm posting the top 10) and of course, @NCFisher.

Once again, here it is:

10 Times That Donald Trump Was Either Soft On Russia, or Did Putin's Bidding.

1) Trump and his aides softened the GOP platform on Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in the Ukraine. Ahead of the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump campaign aides blocked language from the party platform that called for the US government to send lethal weapons to Ukraine for its war against Russian proxies. While the Trump administration ultimately did supply arms and anti-tank weapons to the Ukraine, this was a hollow gesture, because the Ukrainians can't use the Javelin missiles in the conflict against pro-Russian separatists based on the terms of the sale. A top staffer in the US embassy in Ukraine testified in November of 2019 that the Javelins aren't "actively employed in combat operations right now."

2) Trump repeatedly lobbied for Russia to be readmitted to the G 7, even after intelligence has continued to pile up concerning their cyber attacks against the DNC and American-based businesses.

3) Trump proposed a cyber unit with Russia. After the July 2017 meeting with G 20 leaders, Trump said he had spoken with Putin about "forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit" to combat "election hacking." Trump quickly backtracked after Congressional leaders from both parties said it would be ridiculous to work with Russia on cybersecurity because Russia was responsible for egregious hacks against American targets, including during the 2016 Presidential election.

4) Trump refused to impose new Russian sanctions despite a law passed almost unanimously by the US Congress over election hacking. In January of 2018, the Trump administration announced that it would not impose additional sanctions on Russia, despite the fact that Congress had passed a law allowing the President to do so. Those new sanctions would have required the US Treasury Department to penalize foreign governments and companies doing business with Russia's defense and intelligence sectors. Congress passed a bill in August of 2017, almost unanimously, that punished Russia for its alleged meddling in the 2016 Presidential election, and for their aggression in east Ukraine. Because the bill had passed with a veto-proof majority, Trump had no choice but to sign it into law, but he branded the bill "seriously flawed". Although the bill did allow for sanctions to be delayed or waived, any inaction would have to come with evidence presented to Congress that Russia was making progress in cutting back on cyber meddling. However, with further intrusions into the 2020 Presidential election, as well as the SolarWinds attack, it is apparent that no such progress was ever made while Donald Trump was the President of the United States... and no such evidence was ever presented to Congress as to why these additional sanctions shouldn't be imposed. As it turned out, they were never imposed while Trump was in office. This was in direct defiance of a bill which Trump himself had signed into law.

5) During the Helsinki Summit in July of 2018, President Trump memorably sided with Vladimir Putin's denial of Russian involvement in the hacking of the DNC, against the conclusion of his own appointed Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats. Trump later claimed that he had misspoken... but Trump has sided with Putin's denial since the Helsinki Summit, so that appears to have been another lie.

6) Trump eased sanctions on Russian oligarch and Putin confidant, Oleg Deripaska, along with the three companies linked to him. The US Treasury Department sanctioned Deripaska in 2016 over his support for Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a bi-partisan rebuke of the removal of these sanctions, 11 Senate Republicans supported a Democratic Party resolution calling for these sanctions to remain. However, Trump was undeterred, and still removed the sanctions, anyway.

7) Trump's withdrawal from Syria gave Vladimir Putin a key boost. Trump announced in October of 2019 that US troops were withdrawing from northern Syria. This abrupt move cleared the way for Turkey to conquer territories previously controlled by the US and allied Kurdish militias. It also gave Russia a golden opportunity to expand its influence and swiftly take over abandoned US outposts and checkpoints. This has been crucial for Putin's agenda in the region.

8) Trump consistently repeated Kremlin talking points on ISIS. After announcing the Syrian withdrawal, Trump repeated the Kremlin talking point that, "Russia hates ISIS as much as the United States does," and that they are equal partners in the fight. However, those comments don't reflect the reality on the ground. Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS.

9) Trump ordered US troops out of Germany. The plan to remove about one-third of the force drew serious concerns from the Pentagon because it would compromise European-based defenses against Russia. In a letter to Trump, nearly two dozen Republican lawmakers said his decision would "strengthen the position of Russia to our detriment." In retrospect, that seems to have been Donald Trump's main foreign policy objective as President of the United States, however.

10) Finally, this past December, Trump tweeted that the SolarWinds cyber attack was being overblown by the media. He also said that China was more likely to have been responsible for it. Around this same time, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said in an interview that Russia was "pretty clearly" behind the attack which hit the State Department, among many other agencies and businesses. Attorney General, William Barr, sided with Pompeo while saying that the SolarWinds hack "certainly appears to be the Russians." Per the Associated Press, White House officials had prepared a statement calling Russia "the main actor" in the SolarWinds attack, but Trump ordered them not to release it.

Since you obviously have a little free time, why don't you do a comparative list of Trump and foreign governments that interfered on his behalf vs Clinton and foreign governments that interfered on her behalf.