They just conveniently use the “yep, we were wrong but have changed our policy” excuse every time they get drug to The Hill. Then they laugh and go right back to it. It’s like a parent that counts to 3 but never punishes, kid learns quick it’s a bluff.

CRUZ: "Does Twitter have the ability to influence elections?"

DORSEY: "No"

CRUZ: "If you don't think you have the power to influence elections, why do you block anything?"

(10-28-2020 01:11 PM)green Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 01:07 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:58 PM)green Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:48 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  Yep. He dances around the issue by saying they can just login and get their account started again so long as they delete the original tweet. Then he says, they changed their policy to allow that specific article to be tweeted but the original has to be deleted. Why can't Twitter just delete, and then re-tweet it for them. Why is the onus on the NYP to fix their account now. That's the problem with all of this. The other problem is that flat out lies by media outlets like CNN are never called out, and their accounts are never suspended like this. That's the issue, and what they fail to answer for.

However, Twitter is a private company and users do sign an agreement to essentially play by "their rules" when they post on their outlet. Only way to defeat crap like this is for mass amounts of people to delete their accounts and find another service. Until then... shadow authoritarians like Dorsey do in fact, hold a lot of power whether or not they admit to it.

if the phone company, a private utility, decided to monitor your calls or texts ...

YOU COOL MAN

I'm not a fan of it either, but what you're suggesting already happens.

not without a court order ...

WIRETAPPING

Lying Clapper put an end to that myth almost a decade ago.

Thanks zerO!

(10-28-2020 12:46 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:24 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Lion Ted.

Trump gave them T shots. I'm so sick of prog filth. It's time to just get this thing started.

To be fair, Cruz has always been a lion. That's why the GOP RINOs and Dems hated him. He calls it like he sees it, and most of the time it was pointing to Establishment filth.

Was he a lion when he genuflected to trump after trump insulted his wife and basically accused his dad of killing JFK?

(10-28-2020 12:48 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:38 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:34 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Can the NY Post sue this company and this guy specifically for violation of their First Amendment rights? If they can they have a clear cut win solely because it is proven that they will not censor anti-Trump news but will happily censor anti-Bite'em news.

For one this would make a big dent in the news that Dorsey and his minions are dividing the nation with their biases, who knows it might even make the MSM news. But, I doubt it.

Dorsey epitomizes the classic Lib/Commie look.

No they are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Which is obvious they shouldn't be protected by anymore.

Yep. He dances around the issue by saying they can just login and get their account started again so long as they delete the original tweet. Then he says, they changed their policy to allow that specific article to be tweeted but the original has to be deleted. Why can't Twitter just delete, and then re-tweet it for them. Why is the onus on the NYP to fix their account now. That's the problem with all of this. The other problem is that flat out lies by media outlets like CNN are never called out, and their accounts are never suspended like this. That's the issue, and what they fail to answer for.

However, Twitter is a private company and users do sign an agreement to essentially play by "their rules" when they post on their outlet. Only way to defeat crap like this is for mass amounts of people to delete their accounts and find another service. Until then... shadow authoritarians like Dorsey do in fact, hold a lot of power whether or not they admit to it.

But it shouldn't be that way.

1. Twitter has a virtual monopoly on real time online conversation (although FB is making inroads). There is no real alternative. Congress could break it up, just like they did AT&T, but of course, Dems won't go along with it.

2. All these online tech giants are protected from liability for what is posted on their platforms by the "Section 230" clause, which classifies them as an aggregator of comments, news, etc.

However, as soon as they put their thumb on the scale and start deciding what can be posted and what cannot, they become a publisher, and should lose that protection. Again, Congress would have to act, and the Dems would block any move.

Those are the actions that SHOULD be taken, but will be blocked.

As for those who get blocked by Twitter, including the New York Post, for Pete's sake, kindly explain what other service they could use in place of Twitter that would have Twitter's audience.

Same with Google and YouTube. Only conservative voices get blocked there. Or some outright porn and such. What alternative is there to YouTube? None that is anywhere close to YT's audience.

FaceBook, same thing. Send all the conservatives to MySpace? Yeah, that's fair.

Start new services? No, those need to be broken up or lose their liability protection. Period. I understand that AT&T is a public utility, but these companies, although "private," have become giant monopolies with greater power for bad to the consumer than AT&T ever had.

IMO, the internet is now a public utility, and all these "private" companies couldn't operate without it.

(10-28-2020 01:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:48 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:38 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:34 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Can the NY Post sue this company and this guy specifically for violation of their First Amendment rights? If they can they have a clear cut win solely because it is proven that they will not censor anti-Trump news but will happily censor anti-Bite'em news.

For one this would make a big dent in the news that Dorsey and his minions are dividing the nation with their biases, who knows it might even make the MSM news. But, I doubt it.

Dorsey epitomizes the classic Lib/Commie look.

No they are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Which is obvious they shouldn't be protected by anymore.

Yep. He dances around the issue by saying they can just login and get their account started again so long as they delete the original tweet. Then he says, they changed their policy to allow that specific article to be tweeted but the original has to be deleted. Why can't Twitter just delete, and then re-tweet it for them. Why is the onus on the NYP to fix their account now. That's the problem with all of this. The other problem is that flat out lies by media outlets like CNN are never called out, and their accounts are never suspended like this. That's the issue, and what they fail to answer for.

However, Twitter is a private company and users do sign an agreement to essentially play by "their rules" when they post on their outlet. Only way to defeat crap like this is for mass amounts of people to delete their accounts and find another service. Until then... shadow authoritarians like Dorsey do in fact, hold a lot of power whether or not they admit to it.

But it shouldn't be that way.

1. Twitter has a virtual monopoly on real time online conversation (although FB is making inroads). There is no real alternative. Congress could break it up, just like they did AT&T, but of course, Dems won't go along with it.

2. All these online tech giants are protected from liability for what is posted on their platforms by the "Section 230" clause, which classifies them as an aggregator of comments, news, etc.

However, as soon as they put their thumb on the scale and start deciding what can be posted and what cannot, they become a publisher, and should lose that protection. Again, Congress would have to act, and the Dems would block any move.

Those are the actions that SHOULD be taken, but will be blocked.

As for those who get blocked by Twitter, including the New York Post, for Pete's sake, kindly explain what other service they could use in place of Twitter that would have Twitter's audience.

Same with Google and YouTube. Only conservative voices get blocked there. Or some outright porn and such. What alternative is there to YouTube? None that is anywhere close to YT's audience.

FaceBook, same thing. Send all the conservatives to MySpace? Yeah, that's fair.

Start new services? No, those need to be broken up or lose their liability protection. Period. I understand that AT&T is a public utility, but these companies, although "private," have become giant monopolies with greater power for bad to the consumer than AT&T ever had.

IMO, the internet is now a public utility, and all these "private" companies couldn't operate without it.

Oh, I 100% agree with all of this. At this point, the only remotely close option is Parler, and that isn't even close in terms of using another service. I'm not arguing at all that Twitter should be allowed to do what they're doing, but that they're quite adept at doing business in between the black and white in that political "gray" area.

Cruz to Dorsey: "Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you, and put you in charge of what the media's allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear?"

If I had been Dorsey would have shoved that up Cruz's ass like this: "Senator, no one in America CAN BE EVER be elected to be in charge of what the media reports, and that includes you Senator Cruz. Twitter is the free press, and the First Amendment explicitly protects Twitter from your attempts to coerce our editorial decisions.

I hate Twitter and what they did, but they have the right to do it and they shouldn't mealy mouth around. They should fight back.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey falsely tells senators company lifted ban on Post exposé

What a lying p.o.s. this guy is.

Quote:Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday falsely told senators that his company lifted a ban on users tweeting articles from The Post’s Hunter Biden exposé, despite the fact that the ban remained on one of The Post’s bombshell stories and was only lifted after he made the claim.

“Anyone can tweet these articles,” Dorsey told Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) about The Post’s articles on emails implicating Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in his son’s work in China and Ukraine.

But Twitter users quickly noted that the social network still banned distribution of The Post’s article describing a business proposal in China involving Hunter Biden and a document indicating a 10 percent set-aside for “the big guy.”

“Jack Dorsey of Twitter just told Senator Cruz that anyone could now share the NY Post’s bombshell stories on Twitter. Dorsey is lying,” tweeted Abigail Marone, a rapid response official on President Trump’s re-election campaign, linking to a screen recording of the app blocking the post.

“Twitter is STILL blocking the URL for the NY Post story about the Biden’s foreign corruption & China dealings,” Marone wrote in a tweet shared by White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on her personal account.

Users were not able to share a link to the article on the proposed China business deal until just hours ago, which last week was corroborated by former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski.

“Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot,” an error message informed Twitter users.

Twitter said of the article: “We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful. Visit our Help Center to learn more.”

Trump rails against Twitter as CEO struggles to defend Post censorship
Dorsey claimed repeatedly in his testimony that Twitter had lifted its ban on sharing The Post’s articles, which Twitter initially censored under a “hacked materials” policy, despite no evidence that the records were hacked.

“Our team made a fast decision. The enforcement action, however, of blocking URLs, both in tweets and in DM direct messages we believe was incorrect and we changed it,” Dorsey claimed.

Cruz insisted: “You’re still blocking. You’re still blocking their posts, right now today you’re blocking their posts.”

https://nypost.com/2020/10/28/twitter-ce...ensorship/

(10-28-2020 01:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:46 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:24 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Lion Ted.

Trump gave them T shots. I'm so sick of prog filth. It's time to just get this thing started.

To be fair, Cruz has always been a lion. That's why the GOP RINOs and Dems hated him. He calls it like he sees it, and most of the time it was pointing to Establishment filth.

Was he a lion when he genuflected to trump after trump insulted his wife and basically accused his dad of killing JFK?

Nah, that was lyin' Ted.

See? Nice smooth transition.

(10-28-2020 02:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  Cruz to Dorsey: "Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you, and put you in charge of what the media's allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear?"

If I had been Dorsey would have shoved that up Cruz's ass like this: "Senator, no one in America CAN BE EVER be elected to be in charge of what the media reports, and that includes you Senator Cruz. Twitter is the free press, and the First Amendment explicitly protects Twitter from your attempts to coerce our editorial decisions.

I hate Twitter and what they did, but they have the right to do it and they shouldn't mealy mouth around. They should fight back.

No, that would be Section 230. The First Amendment doesn't keep Twitter from being sued. Section 230 does.

(10-28-2020 01:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:46 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:24 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Lion Ted.

Trump gave them T shots. I'm so sick of prog filth. It's time to just get this thing started.

To be fair, Cruz has always been a lion. That's why the GOP RINOs and Dems hated him. He calls it like he sees it, and most of the time it was pointing to Establishment filth.

Was he a lion when he genuflected to trump after trump insulted his wife and basically accused his dad of killing JFK?

You could change too. You dont have to accept your fate as cucktom.

(10-28-2020 02:56 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 02:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  Cruz to Dorsey: "Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you, and put you in charge of what the media's allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear?"

If I had been Dorsey would have shoved that up Cruz's ass like this: "Senator, no one in America CAN BE EVER be elected to be in charge of what the media reports, and that includes you Senator Cruz. Twitter is the free press, and the First Amendment explicitly protects Twitter from your attempts to coerce our editorial decisions.

I hate Twitter and what they did, but they have the right to do it and they shouldn't mealy mouth around. They should fight back.

No, that would be Section 230. The First Amendment doesn't keep Twitter from being sued. Section 230 does.

Yeah, that’s what some people miss. Twitter is a private company and could do whatever they wanted IF they were subject to the same liability as other private companies. You don’t get to be insulated and do whatever you want. That insulation is defined and they are overstepping.

(10-28-2020 01:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:48 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:38 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:34 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Can the NY Post sue this company and this guy specifically for violation of their First Amendment rights? If they can they have a clear cut win solely because it is proven that they will not censor anti-Trump news but will happily censor anti-Bite'em news.

For one this would make a big dent in the news that Dorsey and his minions are dividing the nation with their biases, who knows it might even make the MSM news. But, I doubt it.

Dorsey epitomizes the classic Lib/Commie look.

No they are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Which is obvious they shouldn't be protected by anymore.

Yep. He dances around the issue by saying they can just login and get their account started again so long as they delete the original tweet. Then he says, they changed their policy to allow that specific article to be tweeted but the original has to be deleted. Why can't Twitter just delete, and then re-tweet it for them. Why is the onus on the NYP to fix their account now. That's the problem with all of this. The other problem is that flat out lies by media outlets like CNN are never called out, and their accounts are never suspended like this. That's the issue, and what they fail to answer for.

However, Twitter is a private company and users do sign an agreement to essentially play by "their rules" when they post on their outlet. Only way to defeat crap like this is for mass amounts of people to delete their accounts and find another service. Until then... shadow authoritarians like Dorsey do in fact, hold a lot of power whether or not they admit to it.

But it shouldn't be that way.

1. Twitter has a virtual monopoly on real time online conversation (although FB is making inroads). There is no real alternative. Congress could break it up, just like they did AT&T, but of course, Dems won't go along with it.

2. All these online tech giants are protected from liability for what is posted on their platforms by the "Section 230" clause, which classifies them as an aggregator of comments, news, etc.

However, as soon as they put their thumb on the scale and start deciding what can be posted and what cannot, they become a publisher, and should lose that protection. Again, Congress would have to act, and the Dems would block any move.

Those are the actions that SHOULD be taken, but will be blocked.

As for those who get blocked by Twitter, including the New York Post, for Pete's sake, kindly explain what other service they could use in place of Twitter that would have Twitter's audience.

Same with Google and YouTube. Only conservative voices get blocked there. Or some outright porn and such. What alternative is there to YouTube? None that is anywhere close to YT's audience.

FaceBook, same thing. Send all the conservatives to MySpace? Yeah, that's fair.

Start new services? No, those need to be broken up or lose their liability protection. Period. I understand that AT&T is a public utility, but these companies, although "private," have become giant monopolies with greater power for bad to the consumer than AT&T ever had.

IMO, the internet is now a public utility, and all these "private" companies couldn't operate without it.

It's coming. They about to get regulated.

(10-28-2020 01:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:46 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 12:24 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Lion Ted.

Trump gave them T shots. I'm so sick of prog filth. It's time to just get this thing started.

To be fair, Cruz has always been a lion. That's why the GOP RINOs and Dems hated him. He calls it like he sees it, and most of the time it was pointing to Establishment filth.

Was he a lion when he genuflected to trump after trump insulted his wife and basically accused his dad of killing JFK?

What does that have to do with this thread??

(10-28-2020 02:56 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 02:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  Cruz to Dorsey: "Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you, and put you in charge of what the media's allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear?"

If I had been Dorsey would have shoved that up Cruz's ass like this: "Senator, no one in America CAN BE EVER be elected to be in charge of what the media reports, and that includes you Senator Cruz. Twitter is the free press, and the First Amendment explicitly protects Twitter from your attempts to coerce our editorial decisions.

I hate Twitter and what they did, but they have the right to do it and they shouldn't mealy mouth around. They should fight back.

No, that would be Section 230. The First Amendment doesn't keep Twitter from being sued. Section 230 does.

I don’t see why Congress would need to act to remove the section 230 protection course it would depend on the wording of the law but if They ceased to be a mere platform (edited) they should no longer be protected

(10-28-2020 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 02:56 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 02:41 PM)Claw Wrote:  Cruz to Dorsey: "Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you, and put you in charge of what the media's allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear?"

If I had been Dorsey would have shoved that up Cruz's ass like this: "Senator, no one in America CAN BE EVER be elected to be in charge of what the media reports, and that includes you Senator Cruz. Twitter is the free press, and the First Amendment explicitly protects Twitter from your attempts to coerce our editorial decisions.

I hate Twitter and what they did, but they have the right to do it and they shouldn't mealy mouth around. They should fight back.

No, that would be Section 230. The First Amendment doesn't keep Twitter from being sued. Section 230 does.

I don’t see why Congress would need to act to remove the section 230 protection course it would depend on the wording of the law but if They ceased to be a publisher they should no longer be protected

You mean if they became a Publisher (who edits content on their platform), then they should no longer be protected.