Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) locked out by Twitter.

[CampingJosh]

Just fnn stop with this BS. You have been told so many times that they are getting special treatment from 230 and the law reads they must allow discourse. Our political system will not enforce our laws.

230 can't overrule the Constitution.

 

[CampingJosh]

Then take away their 230 protection.

You don't understand the implications of what you ask for.

The entire social internet--including INGO--would be shut down.

 

[actaeon277]

The government is "supporting" it with 230.
Therefore, is it really "private"?

 

[CampingJosh]

The government is "supporting" it with 230.
Therefore, is it really "private"?

You drive on roads; are you really a private citizen with any rights?

 

[churchmouse]

 

[actaeon277]

You drive on roads; are you really a private citizen with any rights?

Wow. Your argument is SO RELEVANT.
Are we banning conservatives from going on the road now?
No.
So, try a better argument.

I'm sure Brandon will give you a hug.

 

[Ingomike]

230 can't overrule the Constitution.

Go find someone else to peddle your BS to. If you want the carrot you must earn it. Just your usual trolling on this topic.

 

[Ingomike]

You don't understand the implications of what you ask for.

The entire social internet--including INGO--would be shut down.

Would not affect INGO at all. Just a scare tactic…

 

[CampingJosh]

Wow. Your argument is SO RELEVANT.
Are we banning conservatives from going on the road now?
No.
So, try a better argument.

I'm sure Brandon will give you a hug.

Twitter is a private company. Incorporation is just a way of organizing people, so corporations have the same rights as those people.

230 doesn't "support" Twitter.

 

[actaeon277]

Twitter is a private company. Incorporation is just a way of organizing people, so corporations have the same rights as those people.

230 doesn't "support" Twitter.

Then there is no problem removing it.

 

[BigRed]

Fix what? Do you not believe in the First Amendment? Twitter doesn't have to host any speech they don't want to.

Now let's do the natural rights documented in the Second Amendment.

 

[CampingJosh]

Go find someone else to peddle your BS to. If you want the carrot you must earn it. Just your usual trolling on this topic.

Would not affect INGO at all. Just a scare tactic…

Do you not see the irony in these two posts back-to-back? You accuse me of trolling as though there's only one acceptable viewpoint on INGO on this topic. But of course moderation based on viewpoint is exactly what you think Twitter should be punished for.

 

[Ingomike]

Do you not see the irony in these two posts back-to-back? You accuse me of trolling as though there's only one acceptable viewpoint on INGO on this topic. But of course moderation based on viewpoint is exactly what you think Twitter should be punished for.

I am unaware of any INGO official viewpoint, discussion is open here. Now other members may tell you off but never heard of the owner publishing rules of viewpoints acceptable to him.

 

[Ingomike]

Then there is no problem removing it.

They spend billions trying to keep it…

 

[Cameramonkey]

Hey now. I hear she worked her ***** and **** off to get that position.

 

[churchmouse]

Fellas.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Fellas.

What?!?!?!

(I couldnt resist, sorry. I've got nothin' more.)

(I had to self-edit that. You're welcome )

 

[jake blue]

I think the basic point of contention is whether social media sites should be considered public forum in the traditionally understood sense. On the one hand, Section 230 was probably intended to foster the kind of free speech space that social media represents in the 21st century. On the other hand, the space itself is privately owned therefore is the owner required to allow any and all free speech.

I think a cogent comparison might be holding a rally or debate in a mall (if those still exist). In many people's perspective that is a public space, generally unrestricted in it's access, and representative of a varied cross section of society. Yet the building and property it's on IS private property, therefore if the mall management or property owner doesn't approve of your message they seem to have every legal right to shut down your gathering for that reason alone.

In the 21st century it seems like social media is the most logical place to get your message out to the largest audience but if the owners of those spaces see fit to restrict that message they appear to be within their rights. Nothing in Section 230 mandates they allow all forms of speech, only that they will not be held responsible for the speech of others who use the service. It's also not just the social media sites themselves but also the hosting services that provide the site it's space on the internet. This was the fate of Parler, not that the website was particularly worried about the kinds of speech on their site but that the hosting service, in this case Amazon Web Services as I recall, didn't approve and shut them down overnight. That's like mall management approving your gathering but the property owner being offended so making them move the entire mall off the property overnight!

Let's hope the hosting service for this website doesn't suddenly become anti-2A and boot this site into nonexistence with a simple click of the mouse.

 

[KellyinAvon]

The Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service is in the Uniformed Services, NOT the Armed Forces (AKA the Military.)

The Blue-ID in my wallet says "Uniformed Services", not "Armed Forces" because I'm retired. PHS IDs say Uniformed Services because they ain't the Military.

No Enlisted Corps: they ain't the Military.

Dress like the Navy, not actually the Navy.

Admiral... not sure why they borrowed the Navy's rank structure. After all, they ain't the Military.

 

[flightsimmer]

So, any opinions on Trumps new social media website? I don't believe it has launched yet but I have pre-registered for it.

I've got a feeling that it might put the hurt to other social media websites.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Popcorn anyone?