@jbluhm86 said:

In a way, I hope that it does end social media as it currently stands. Social media companies today wield far too much power over the public domain, and they have demonstrated themselves to be unwilling or unable to be neutral arbiters of the political discourse. Companies like Facebook and Twitter have demonstrated numerous times that have a bias against conservative entities, and actively moderate/censor said views. 

Yeah and I watched that video in the PMs and I've seen the stories, and sorry, but I don't think there is some grand anti conservative conspiracy. There's also nothing stopping conservatives from making their own Twitter. 

If you think social media is, overall, negative towards society then that's fine. In that case removing these protections will basically destroy it. 

@mld-woody said:

If so, and I could be wrong, but if that protection were to go away it could basically end social media as we currently know it. There's no way an organization can effectively police all of the content posted to their platform. 

In a way, I hope that it does end social media as it currently stands. Social media companies today wield far too much power over the public domain, and they have demonstrated themselves to be unwilling or unable to be neutral arbiters of the political discourse. Companies like Facebook and Twitter have demonstrated numerous times that have a bias against conservative entities, and actively moderate/censor said views. 

WSS

@jbluhm86 said:

Not a good look for Facebook:

Stripping Facebook of Section 230 protection can't come fast enough. Tech companies won't change until it starts to hit them in their wallets.

Sorry man, but Veritas has been caught doing too much deceptive and underhanded shit for me to believe any of their edited videos. 

Also, and I could be wrong, but if that protection were to go away it could basically end social media as we currently know it. There's no way an organization can effectively police all of the content posted to their platform. 

Stripping Facebook of Section 230 protection can't come fast enough. Tech companies won't change until it starts to hit them in their wallets.

which contradicts the clause where they are not held responsible for content on their board...because they are not

themselves an opinion spewing org. once they take sides officially, they are no longer part of the 230 clause whatever.

  Censorship of extremely nasty content across the board isn't taking sides. I wish they WOULD do some legit censorship.

   Again, using a social platform to manipulate elections with slanted, one side only "censorship" is not a social media any longer.

It's another leftwing political weapon.

@hoorta said:

Bull shit.... 

Remove any censorship- and Twitter is going to have lots of porn, spam, and Russian collusion BS.

You’re right Larry...BULLSHIT.

You obviously haven’t spent much time on Twitter.

In the past 2-3 months I have seen videos of women getting raped, a dog skinned alive, 2 homosexuals buttfucking, roughly 25 to 30 teenagers lined up and shot in the back of the head, and some other shit I happily forgot.

That is the kind of shit Jack Dorsey needs to clean up, and forget about his pissing match with Trump.

BTW, I didn’t go looking for all of the aforementioned shit...it was there on my timeline, which is the disturbing part.

@hoorta said:

Bull shit.... 

I don't know how old you are- but sorry- some censorship and Moderation is 100% absolutely necessary- or else the Internet would rapidly devolve into anarchy.

That's true. It also underscores the truth which is that there is no such thing as freedom of speech. It is now, and always has been, situational. Was actually written in the law because the King was arresting people for shit talking the Brits.

Not because people had the right to say what they want unless it was Pro new government.

WSS

@gorka said:

You're really equating the two aren't you?

Weaponizing a government bureaucracy against conservative organizations for political gain is on par with Trumps acting on what he believes is censorship? Why not throw in the Russian Collusion conspiracy in place of "blah blah  blah"?

Yeah Trump has an ego, and you may be right about his "personal vendetta", but what you false equivalency knuckleheads are forgetting here is that his actions towards clamping down against censorship benefits everyone, not just Trump.

Bull shit.... 

I don't know how old you are- but sorry- some censorship and Moderation is 100% absolutely necessary- or else the Internet would rapidly devolve into anarchy. Remember USENET in the days before there were twit filters and Moderation? Well I sure as hell do. Copyright Flame Giant, Admiral Meowcat, yes- Ghoolie unchained, and Bernie@home.com- who as a troll made Ghoolie look like an amateur. In case you missed it- over on the Browns Forum we had a Ravens troll who was hiding behind a VPN that we would have been powerless to stop- if we didn't have some moderation controls to stop him. 

Remove any censorship- and Twitter is going to have lots of porn, spam, and Russian collusion BS.  

There's a difference between censorship- and fact checking. Trump has his own set of "facts" which aren't necessarily reality.  But he thinks he has the right to spew regardless of what he's spewing has any basis in fact.  DT doesn't like who's doing the fact checking boo-hoo. Start you own Twatter Right Wing View Donald- and spew away- your 2 million or so lemmings will lap it all up- I'm certain.    

@westside-steve said:

Of course that's a gray area isn't it? Supposedly you can't fire somebody because of his race color or Creed? Unless his creed pisses off the politically correct bunch.

WSS

Political affiliation is not a protected trait. 

Twitter has the power to moderate under their terms of use as they see fit. Even if they really were going after conservatives (remember, the platform has basically enabled Trump to the highest office in the land so acting like they're trying to stop conservatives is hilarious) there is nothing that says they can't. 

They aren't a government agency. This isn't censorship. His first amendment rights aren't being infringed upon. 

I still want someone to tell me what they think Trump is going to do about it or what they think he should do. We can skip the part where he's completely unjustified in doing something and just talk about his response.

@mld-woody said:

It isn't censorship. Also, you aren't "subject" to anything. You can choose to use or not use any social media site you like. 

Of course that's a gray area isn't it? Supposedly you can't fire somebody because of his race color or Creed? Unless his creed pisses off the politically correct bunch.

WSS

@gorka said:

Um..the 2nd amendment..not having to be subject to censorship based on political views?

It isn't censorship. Also, you aren't "subject" to anything. You can choose to use or not use any social media site you like. 

@mld-woody said:

This is quite the non answer 

It's a valid answer. What exactly is it you're looking for?

You insist that Trump is not being censored. If that is true, then he should shut up and deal with the consequences of being a Twitter user.

If he is being censored then he should deal with it with whatever power he has to do so.

What don't you get?

@mld-woody said:

And how do his actions benefit everyone?

Um..Twitter users..the 2nd amendment..not having to be subject to censorship based on political views?

@gorka said:

If your insistence that Trump is not being censored is truth, then Trump shouldn't to do anything.

If censoring is what is going on here, then he should do everything in his power to stop it.

Easy enough.

This is quite the non answer 

@gorka said:

Yeah Trump has an ego, and you may be right about his "personal vendetta", but what you false equivalency knuckleheads are forgetting here is that his actions towards clamping down against censorship benefits everyone, not just Trump.

And how do his actions benefit everyone?

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Fuck off bitch tits.

Bitch slapped into a libtard you were you little c u n t. lol

@tiamat63 said:

Weapoizing the office for personal vendetta quite blatantly... Is never a good idea.

Yes, Cal... Obama and the IRS blah blah blah.

You're really equating the two aren't you?

Weaponizing a government bureaucracy against conservative organizations for political gain is on par with Trumps acting on what he believes is censorship? Why not throw in the Russian Collusion conspiracy in place of "blah blah  blah"?

Yeah Trump has an ego, and you may be right about his "personal vendetta", but what you false equivalency knuckleheads are forgetting here is that his actions towards clamping down against censorship benefits everyone, not just Trump.

@gorka said:

If your insistence that Trump is not being censored is truth, then Trump shouldn't to do anything.

If censoring is what is going on here, then he should do everything in his power to stop it.

Easy enough.

Fuck off bitch tits.

@mld-woody said:

What actions do you want Trump to take against Twitter and why do you feel he is justified in those actions?

There, easy enough. 

If your insistence that Trump is not being censored is truth, then Trump shouldn't to do anything.

If censoring is what is going on here, then he should do everything in his power to stop it.

Easy enough.