1) removing isn't...that's fine....but when they add editorials they are. Sorry...you keep ignoring that cold hard fact. 2) the first amendment does not give Twitter immunity from Govt....what in the world did you get that crazy idea? 3) No it does...nothing in the first amendment forbids a President from asking to agencies to review if a company is in compliance with a Federal law. Fact checking is publishing, when you the publish information about what you "fact check" sorry...it's just true...that's why all these "fact checker" websites aren't covered by Section 230. Show me where in Section 230 they still have immunity from when they "fact check" you have provided no Constitutional law...in fact, the Constitution has nothing to do with the issue. You clearly continue to have no grasp of what the issue is that is being discussed... White flag noted
fact checking does not make them a publisher. sorry. constitutional law. you don't understand it, which is why you are so confused. the government can do nothing to twitter for fact checking the president. fact checking is not publishing. the government, which includes trump, can do nothing to twitter for fact checking him. his EO is unenforceable, as it violates the 1st amendment. Show me where in Section 230 they still have immunity from when they "fact check" proven false proven false, and you are confused again. directly refuting your bullshit is not a white flag.
wow....you just go round and round....not accepting reality. Not sure how you have "proven false" something....when all I am doing is asking you to provide the information. You continue to dodge those request, which means you clearly can't support your claims...hence why your white flag is noted.
no, I go round and round refuting your bullshit. you're perfectly aware that I've proven your claims false. And you are still showing us you are confused. Refuting your bullshit, directly, is not a white flag.
At no time has trump ever been censored by twitter. Twitter simply pointed out that the claims trump made were demonstrably false. There is nothing at all trump or anyone else in government can do about that, as the constitution precludes it. But I love how the right so openly advocates fascism when they get their little feelings hurt, lol.
twitter is radicalising terrorists by calling the President a liar, the insurrection act will allow him to assume command of private communications.
[ It depends on what that private company is. If they are a publisher like New York times then sure they can. If there a platform video they can't.
Don’t know. I’m not on Twitter. I’m not entirely sure if it was in the Tweet, in a link or was a subsequent explanation. It’s kind of irrelevant. I was responding to someone who claimed Trump’s original tweet was only an opinion and not subject to being fact checked. I proved that was wrong - that Trump made an assertion of fact that was incorrect, and it was that falsehood that Twitter identified. Not an opinion.
Are you suggesting that Twitter’s statement was inaccurate, and trump’s was accurate? I was really just showing that Trump’s tweet contained an assertion of fact that could be independently and objectively checked, and was not his mere opinion.
No, they're right about what Trump said, but the sources which the fact check cites make claim that mail in ballots don't lead to voter fraud. And that assertion of fact in your mind is that "California will send mail-in ballots to anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there?" By the way, where did you get that quote from?
I'm guessing that @TheImmortal meant that if Section 230 is removed, then if will force Twitter to stop allowing users to publish tweets or go out of business from a plethora of lawsuits. My point is, that allowing users to publish Tweets IS their business! So they will go out of business long before any "plethora of lawsuits" comes along!
JUST Twitter? Won't the removal of Section 230 apply to all websites? They they won't even exist anymore, let alone be a "social media platform that doesn’t censor or truth check their posters with a clear undeniable bias in favor of liberal posts."
I mean which law says that a private company cannot censor the Commander in Chief if the company is a video platform?
It was an elected official that had blocked somebody and the Supreme Court ruled that they couldn't do that it was a First Amendment issue. So if a politician can't do it because of a First Amendment issue why is it okay for a tech company to do it? A violation of free speech is a violation of free speech.