Texas governor signs bill prohibiting social media giants from blocking users based on viewpoint

All Section 230 does is ensure that media companies can't be sued for allowing RINO toxicity on their platform. Without that, we probably wouldn't have this forum.

 

You cannot stifle speech just because YOU don't believe it. YOU are not the judge and jury about what is true and what is not. Dictators think that way though, so you are not alone.

Your silly assertion that Trump incited violence, something totally debunked, shows that you are totally brainwashed. I know you love seeing folks that disagree with you banned fro social media. You would have loved a guy named Joseph Goebbels.

 

What about liberal toxicity? Like leaving Americans stranded in Aghanistan is just dandy. That Biden is as sharp as a tack. That there is no inflation. That its ok to let illegals with COVID spread across America without any resting or vaccination while Americans can't get a sandwich without showing they've been vaxed? Hey pal... what's good for Repubs is good for the Dems... or are you an elitist? Do you hate fairness and freedom THAT much?

 

Where does the law say "RINO's"???

 

You sure post broadly about a pretty narrow issue.

Why should a privately owned entity be required to allow even outright lies on their platform?

 

I read the part which the moderator deleted. Well said.

 

Where? That has never been the case on a privately owned media platform.

 

Exactly. Maybe it will help them understand this if they imagine the kind of overreach desired and being attempted by Trump, DeSatan and Abbott, but being done by some authoritarian with whom they disagree. I can't think of anyone specific right now since all of the authoritarians in today's American politics are infesting the former Republican Party, but maybe they could imagine AOC having a stroke and becoming evil or whatever.

 

If I owned a social media platform, I could write and update the rules as I see fit. In fact, I'm pretty sure I could ban people as I saw fit even without rules. I've seen what happens when a forum is so managed and it isn't good for the forum, in fact, and that forum no longer exists. People tend not to stick around on such a platform.

As for Goebbels, he was into repeating big lies, just like Trump is. He probably would have been banned from Twitter too.

 

Congress passed legislation to protect social media from legal action when they censored posts. Publishers are NOT exempt. The rationale was that social media had no time for review so they could decide. Since social media is protected by Congress, and Congress is prohibited from enacting laws which interfere with the freedom of speech, the whole thing is illegal. We celebrate Abbott protecting the freedom of speech.

 

Can you NAME some of Trump's "Big Lies"???

 

I'm pretty sure you could. You don't need my help.

 

Ahh... so you can't NAME any such lies (I didn't think you could)... thanks for being honest

 

Why don't you want to name it? I know you could. You can't be this obsessed over Trump's social media banning without understanding why he was banned. You know what his Big Lie is.

 

I cannot think of a single significant lie Trump ever said. Its not that I don't WANT to name a lie. I don't know of any. Hey, it was YOU that said he lied. Its up to YOU to name a lie. Do your own homework kid.

 

If you're not even going to attempt an honest debate, then there is no debate.

 

LOLO... ok... you say Trump lied but you cannot name a lie... LOLOL... ok... ok.... we got it... LOL.

 

You know why Trump was banned. Why are you afraid to say it?

 

You got it upside down. The law says you can't sue them for content posted by the members, meaning they are not responsible for the crap people post. Would it make sense that this forum could be sued for something that you post? No, it makes no sense whatsoever. In a free country the owners of the platform should be able to decide what they moderate, and what they don't moderate, but now we have people like Abbott getting the government involved in forcing them to make their property available to be used to push ruling party propaganda.

Who decides what is considered "conservative speech"? Should social media be forced to air prisoner executions in Texas? Is that "conservative speech"? Sure sounds like a good example. What else should they be forced to publish? Spanking of kids? When the government decides, then who knows what they'll be forced to do.

 

Ok, I know exactly why he was banned. Because "Orange man bad!" brainwashing. I admit it... why don't you?

 

The government isn't forcing them to post anything. Abbott is simply keeping social media from being pure propaganda tool of the libs. Its not a difficult concept to grasp. You can't say "Biden good!"... "Orange man bad"" and keep people from talking about it freely. That's all abbott is doing... keeping the discussion fair and open. All your talk about "public executions" is pure red herring gobbledygook... and you know it.

 

*LOL*

Yeah, I guess Trump never lied. Good debating.

 

You say Trump lied and can't name a lie. You are obviously confused and befuddled. Is it ok for to say you are a thief without naming anything you stole? Ok... by your standard it is.

 

This list is from 2017. There are a lot more after the date of the article. Damn, that Orange Dude was a prolific liar.

Have fun.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

 

When I go to that site, it wants me to give them money before proceeding. Do you have anything else? C'mon... first you can't name any lies... then you send me to a pay site... this gets sillier and sillier.