Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms are the new digital town square which is the place where political discussions happen today. If we don't protect our right to free speech on social media we are going to lose it. Twitter, Facebook, and other social media websites need to quality as platforms to receive liability protection from the federal government. By the federal government granting liability protection to these social media publishers whose terms of service are biased against conservatives they are violating the universal human rights to free speech of all social media users around the world by continuing to grant section 230 of the Communications Decency Act liability protection. This is against the law because the First Amendment guarantees that the federal government does not have the power to sensor political speech, which is what they are doing by granting liability protection to these publishers. Twitter and Facebook bias their content to fit their political agenda by banning any contributors that go against their political agenda. The New York Times for example biases its content against conservatives too, but this is not a violation of the First Amendment because they are able to be held liable for any misleading content generated on their publication. Twitter and Facebook must allow conservatives the same opportunity to use their platform or we must force the federal government to comply with the our human right to free speach guarenteed by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment has nothing to do with Facebook, Twitter or the New York Times. If they wish, they can banish every Republican. No one has the right to speak on social media, or in a newspaper for that matter. All white supremacists can be banned, as can all “alt-right” Trumpists. Or Trump himself.

Has nothing whatever to do with the First Amendment. You should read it some time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smirking
The First Amendment has nothing to do with Facebook, Twitter or the New York Times. If they wish, they can banish every Republican. No one has the right to speak on social media, or in a newspaper for that matter. All white supremacists can be banned, as can all “alt-right” Trumpists. Or Trump himself.

Has nothing whatever to do with the First Amendment. You should read it some time.
Then by that token, we are letting a type of discrimination become normalized because “hey. It’s the other guys. Screw em”. Don’t know if that’s good for everybody

curious to know your opinion on the baker that wouldn’t make the wedding cake for the gay couple?
 
  • Like
Reactions: David G.
*Global pandemic starts in China and spreads throughout the entire world*

"oRaNgE mAn BaD!!!!!!!!!"
We still cannot test people in mass. We lack chemicals, we lack supplies, etc... We've known for 2 months and all we got was "it's just like the flu" ... well, it's not. Now we are unprepared to handle even the basics of what the country needs.
[automerge]1584020882[/automerge]
talk to the CDC not Apple, Trump...
The problem is he's not listening to the CDC.
 
Awww and I bet you guys STILL want the government to run our healthcare. But I know it’ll be ok cause it’ll be your team running it. Zero scandal healthcare, just like China.
[automerge]1583973566[/automerge]


he said the story that they were doing nothing was a hoax, not that the virus was a hoax. He’s also downplayed the severity of the virus, but that may actually be true. No sneezing, aching, runny head or stuffed head, just a reoccurring 8 hour fever.
That may actually be true? Go tell this to the doctors at italian emergency rooms. At this moment they are making choices about who is to live and who is to die! If the latter, then they will alone because their family Is not allowed to be with them. See the live report of an emergency nurse today. No hoax, a real live nurse.

With About 90.000 intensive care beds in the us you do not need to many people sick at the same time to fill them all and have the same situation.

No need for panic, but please be carefull people!
 
Last edited:
We still cannot test people in mass. We lack chemicals, we lack supplies, etc... We've known for 2 months and all we got was "it's just like the flu" ... well, it's not. Now we are unprepared to handle even the basics of what the country needs.

Far too many people are already infected for widespread testing to be of any real value. If you have flu-like symptoms, assume you have it and act accordingly. Italy has no shortage of tests and their healthcare system is collapsing. Is that Trump’s fault? Merkel said she expects 70% of Germans to get infected. Trump to blame for that too?

The time for mass testing was when the CCP first noticed the disease spreading in Wuhan. That was the only hope of containment through quarantine. The Chinese failed and allowed it to spread throughout the entire world. That ain’t Trump’s doing, no matter how much you want to blame him for all the world’s troubles.

Trump is not the head of the Chinese Communist Party. He’s not the president of Italy, nor is he the chancellor of Germany, or prime minister of Canada.
[automerge]1584091638[/automerge]
Trump is responsible for the disastrous response. This is the worst since Katrina. How do people manage to give him the benefit of the doubt?

In what manner has it been “disastrous” apart from you wanting it to be disastrous so as to hurt him politically? It may become a disaster, I concede that. But the situation in the US is very good compared to many countries at this time (it could change).

If you want disastrous, look at Italy. Look at China, where the virus originated and could not be contained, so it spread to the rest of the world. Look at Germany, where Merkel suspects 70% of Germans will be infected. It’s reportedly spreading throughout Canada. Is that Trump as well?

The only countries having success against this virus are those who are able and willing to seal their borders shut (Russia, South Korea, etc.)
 
Last edited:
But the situation in the US is very good compared to many countries at this time
.... Having less confirmed cases because you literally don't have enough tests to run them for all possible cases isn't "very good compared to many countries".

Also: your president (a) somehow didn't know people can die from the flu, and (b) compared the current virus to the flu virus, trying to downplay the seriousness of it - all while ignoring what's left of the CDC, after removing the team that would have been specifically responding to situations like this 18 months earlier.


But hey, trump said "we're doing OK" so I guess it must be true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PrincePoppycock
The First Amendment has nothing to do with Facebook, Twitter or the New York Times. If they wish, they can banish every Republican. No one has the right to speak on social media, or in a newspaper for that matter. All white supremacists can be banned, as can all “alt-right” Trumpists. Or Trump himself.

Has nothing whatever to do with the First Amendment. You should read it some time.

Sorry, but me, and more importantly Senator Ted Cruz of Texas disagree with you. Nobody has a right to tweet, but no publisher has the right to liability protection either.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: freedomlinux
What a joke. Did you watch the Presidents press conference where he declared a national emergency? Trump has been in close contact with multiple people who have tested positive for Coronavirus.

Do they look like they are standing 6ft apart ... with the entire Coronavirus team?

BB119Qn7.jpg
'

Is he shaking hands with everyone, including multiple business leaders?

Screen Shot 2020-03-13 at 5.13.46 PM.png


What the hell? What a joke. We need people who are serious to be running this Taskforce.
 
Sorry, but me, and more importantly Senator Ted Cruz of Texas disagree with you. Nobody has a right to tweet, but no publisher has the right to liability protection either.
Why don’t you try reading the First Amendment before you spread misinformation about what it means to Twitter, Facebook or any other private publisher. They can print whatever they want, and censor whatever they want. What you and Ted Cruz think is irrelevant and doesn’t matter in the slightest.

Who’s talking about liability protection anyway? Who even cares about that? I’ve never mentioned it once. I’d be happy to see Twitter, Facebook and any other online platform that spreads disinformation and propaganda sued out of existence. I’m sure the Russians and Trump would be upset, but I’d be thrilled beyond words.

But that has nothing at all to do with the First Amendment to the Constitution. Read it. In fact, I’ll make it easy for you. I’ll even highlight the relevant portion. Here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smirking
Why don't you stop abusing the term disinformation when you really mean information that you don't like? You're not listening to me, which is fine, I don't need you to, I just need everybody else to not to listen to you either.

The part you're missing is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants liability protection to online publications provided that they remain open platforms that do not discriminate against contributors based on their political and religious beliefs. Twitter and Facebook have violated this agreement by censoring conservatives on their publication and have included terms of service that restrict political beliefs in ways that the SCOTUS has deemed to be unlawful censorship in other instances. By Congress continuing to grant these social media publishers that restrict the political beliefs of their contributors they have made a law that abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The law that Congress has passed that has violated the freedom of speech is Section 230 of the Communications Act because Congress has misapplied it to cover these social media publishers when it should not. Maybe you think that this is irrelevant, but Ted Cruz does not, and he is fighting for your right to the freedom of speech and mine whether you like him or not.

If Twitter or Facebook were to do as you say and ban all conservatives or ban President Trump they would be even more clearly out of scope for Section 230 liability protections. If Congress did not immediately suspend the section 230 protections that they currently extend to Twitter they would be even more clearly violating the First Amendment then they already are. Twitter and Facebook could ban all conservatives and give up their section 230 protections but then any Tweet or any Facebook post that contains misinformation made by any contributor to their publication would open them up to liability like any other publisher which would destroy their business so they probably don't want to do that. Right now these companies are walking a fine line trying to have their cake and eat it too by banning conservatives while still enjoying illegally obtained section 230 liability protection from Congress. This must end if we are going to remain a nation that champions the free exchange of ideas online.

Your suggestion that President Trump should be banned from Twitter clearly demonstrates that you have no respect for the freedom of speech anyway. You don't care about political speech that isn't coming from someone on your side of the political spectrum and would rather do away with it. That's fine, as long as you and your ilk remain in the electoral minority.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Breezygirl
The part you're missing is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants liability protection to online publications provided that they remain open platforms that do not discriminate against contributors based on their political and religious beliefs.
The part you're missing is that, no, it doesn't say that at all.

Ted Cruz said (emphasis mine):
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

This is a good provision. It means that, for example, if you run a blogging platform and someone posts a terrorist threat in the comments section, you’re not treated as the person making the threat. Without Section 230, many social media networks could be functionally unable to operate.

In order to be protected by Section 230, companies like Facebook should be “neutral public forums.” On the flip side, they should be considered to be a “publisher or speaker” of user content if they pick and choose what gets published or spoken.

The act doesn't include any reference to what he says it "should". And it specifically says that moderation of content is protected by the very act itself:

(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

Your suggestion that President Trump should be banned from Twitter clearly demonstrates that you have no respect for the freedom of speech anyway.

Freedom of Speech is very specifically related to the government preventing people from saying something they want to say. That's literally it.

What you (and so many "right wingers" who misuse that term) actually want, is a return to "Fairness Doctrine", which was a policy requiring TV broadcasters to present "both sides" of a controversial topic. It was scrapped 33 years ago.

However, if enacted today and somehow applied to the internet, I imagine you'd end up with essentially platform-built memes that you don't agree with. For every Trump tweet about how "3 million illegal votes" you'd have an automatic Arrested Development style "Narrator: there weren't" "response", because the the Fairness Doctrine required that the broadcasts be (in the FCC's view): "honest, equitable, and balanced".


But hey, bring it on. Things might actually improve if "platforms" had to ensure that what's published is "honest, equitable and balanced". I'd wager that 80% of what streams out of your orange messiah's burger-hole wouldn't pass the first requirement: 'honest'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PickUrPoison
Why don't you stop abusing the term disinformation when you really mean information that you don't like? You're not listening to me, which is fine, I don't need you to, I just need everybody else to not to listen to you either.

The part you're missing is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants liability protection to online publications provided that they remain open platforms that do not discriminate against contributors based on their political and religious beliefs. Twitter and Facebook have violated this agreement by censoring conservatives on their publication and have included terms of service that restrict political beliefs in ways that the SCOTUS has deemed to be unlawful censorship in other instances. By Congress continuing to grant these social media publishers that restrict the political beliefs of their contributors they have made a law that abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The law that Congress has passed that has violated the freedom of speech is Section 230 of the Communications Act because Congress has misapplied it to cover these social media publishers when it should not. Maybe you think that this is irrelevant, but Ted Cruz does not, and he is fighting for your right to the freedom of speech and mine whether you like him or not.

If Twitter or Facebook were to do as you say and ban all conservatives or ban President Trump they would be even more clearly out of scope for Section 230 liability protections. If Congress did not immediately suspend the section 230 protections that they currently extend to Twitter they would be even more clearly violating the First Amendment then they already are. Twitter and Facebook could ban all conservatives and give up their section 230 protections but then any Tweet or any Facebook post that contains misinformation made by any contributor to their publication would open them up to liability like any other publisher which would destroy their business so they probably don't want to do that. Right now these companies are walking a fine line trying to have their cake and eat it too by banning conservatives while still enjoying illegally obtained section 230 liability protection from Congress. This must end if we are going to remain a nation that champions the free exchange of ideas online.

Your suggestion that President Trump should be banned from Twitter clearly demonstrates that you have no respect for the freedom of speech anyway. You don't care about political speech that isn't coming from someone on your side of the political spectrum and would rather do away with it. That's fine, as long as you and your ilk remain in the electoral minority.

where are the checks and balances in your story? please do not confuse the right/freedom to speak with the right to insult or lie. thruth may seem not to have any value at this moment, but will prevail. it is not banning a person, but the message.
 
Why don't you stop abusing the term disinformation when you really mean information that you don't like? You're not listening to me, which is fine, I don't need you to, I just need everybody else to not to listen to you either.

The part you're missing is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants liability protection to online publications provided that they remain open platforms that do not discriminate against contributors based on their political and religious beliefs. Twitter and Facebook have violated this agreement by censoring conservatives on their publication and have included terms of service that restrict political beliefs in ways that the SCOTUS has deemed to be unlawful censorship in other instances. By Congress continuing to grant these social media publishers that restrict the political beliefs of their contributors they have made a law that abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The law that Congress has passed that has violated the freedom of speech is Section 230 of the Communications Act because Congress has misapplied it to cover these social media publishers when it should not. Maybe you think that this is irrelevant, but Ted Cruz does not, and he is fighting for your right to the freedom of speech and mine whether you like him or not.

If Twitter or Facebook were to do as you say and ban all conservatives or ban President Trump they would be even more clearly out of scope for Section 230 liability protections. If Congress did not immediately suspend the section 230 protections that they currently extend to Twitter they would be even more clearly violating the First Amendment then they already are. Twitter and Facebook could ban all conservatives and give up their section 230 protections but then any Tweet or any Facebook post that contains misinformation made by any contributor to their publication would open them up to liability like any other publisher which would destroy their business so they probably don't want to do that. Right now these companies are walking a fine line trying to have their cake and eat it too by banning conservatives while still enjoying illegally obtained section 230 liability protection from Congress. This must end if we are going to remain a nation that champions the free exchange of ideas online.

Your suggestion that President Trump should be banned from Twitter clearly demonstrates that you have no respect for the freedom of speech anyway. You don't care about political speech that isn't coming from someone on your side of the political spectrum and would rather do away with it. That's fine, as long as you and your ilk remain in the electoral minority.
You are the one who isn’t listening. So listen up: the First Amendment has nothing to do with private platforms. Twitter, Facebook etc can ban every Democratic tweet or post, or every Republican tweet/post if they so choose. THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

Your right to free speech under the Constitution means the government can’t regulate speech. A private publishing platform, however, can do whatever it wants. A Democratic post or poster can be banned or removed just as a Republican post or user can be. No one has a right to post whatever they want. Twitter decides. Facebook decides. Reddit and 4chan and 8chan decide. And Apple decides what they want to allow on the App Store.

Those are facts. Not my opinion. You may not like it, but that’s irrelevant. If you want the Constitution changed, there’s a process to do that. It is what it is, and it doesn’t give any internet rando the right to say whatever they want wherever they want.

MacRumors decides if what you say is allowed and if what I say is allowed. Period. You have no right to ”free speech” here, on Twitter, Facebook or anywhere else. Your right to free speech means the government can't decide what you say or don’t say.

Of course, there are limits. For instance, it’s often said you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. You can’t make threats against others. You can’t libel or slander private individuals.

No right is absolute, and even Constitutional rights have some limits. But you have no right to any speech at all on private platforms. None. You may not like it, but that’s just tough. You don’t have to like it 🤷‍♂️

And yes, I would like Trump and all other Russian propagandists to be banned from all social media. And all non-Russian propagandists too, for that matter. Social media isn’t required to let them spread their disinformation so easily.

PS Nobody cares about “liability protection” so you can drop the section 230 talking point. No one cares. If you think those platforms have lost their “liability protection”, feel free to file suit against them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: smirking
.... Having less confirmed cases because you literally don't have enough tests to run them for all possible cases isn't "very good compared to many countries".

Also: your president (a) somehow didn't know people can die from the flu, and (b) compared the current virus to the flu virus, trying to downplay the seriousness of it - all while ignoring what's left of the CDC, after removing the team that would have been specifically responding to situations like this 18 months earlier.

First of all, I’m Canadian. That would make President Trump your president, not mine (assuming you are American).

Secondly, you don’t need widespread testing to understand the US is holding up much better than Italy, although that could change. Ensuring the healthcare system doesn’t buckle is priority #1 at this stage. Containment is completely out the window in a nation that doesn’t have control over its borders like the US.

I understand you are hoping for the worst outcome possible. Like many on the left, you see a loss for your country (and the world) as a victory for “your team”. Your obsessive hatred of Trump outweighs all other concerns.

The fact that you’re using this time to rail against Trump is grotesque, honestly. Especially at a time when the US is fairing no worse than most other western nations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Breezygirl
There you go StephenP right there in Section 230 it says that Facebook and Twitter must be “neutral public forums” to qualify for liability protections. Twitter and Facebook are not neutral public forums because they bias their editorial content by banning any contributors who’s opinions they don’t like and give blue check marks to those they do. This is not to combat harassment or abuse but simply to try and silence voices who provide facts and opinions they do not approve of. Dozens of prominent conservatives have been permanently banned from Twitter and Facebook for doing simply this vs. almost nobody on the so-called liberal side of the fence despite for example Kathy Griffen calling for violence against and doxxing of conservatives.
 
That would make President Trump your president, not mine (assuming you are American).
Assumption is the mother of all **** ups. He's most definitely not my president, mate.

Secondly, you don’t need widespread testing to understand the US is holding up much better than Italy,
Ok so here's some basic logic: the symptoms present similar to a common cold or flu. If you don't test people, you have no idea if they're infected or not. If you don't know how many people are infected, you have no way to know how well you're "holding up" compared to any other country, where they are doing testing.

I understand you are hoping for the worst outcome possible. Like many on the left, you see a loss for your country (and the world) as a victory for “your team”. Your obsessive hatred of Trump outweighs all other concerns.

I know "right wingers" love conspiracy theories but this is pretty bizarre even for you guys.

The fact that you’re using this time to rail against Trump is grotesque, honestly. Especially at a time when the US is fairing no worse than most other western nations.
He's as incompetent as he's ever been. That a lot of people are going to get sick and some people are going to die because of this pandemic is no reason to give Trump a pass for his continued incompetence.
[automerge]1584188520[/automerge]
There you go StephenP
Really? P and R are about as far apart as letters get on the keyboard, how did you **** that up?

right there in Section 230 it says that Facebook and Twitter must be “neutral public forums” to qualify for liability protections
Where? Where does it say that? Here's the full text, for you, btw: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

who provide facts and opinions they do not approve of

I know you don't want to hear this, but what Trump/etc call "alternative facts" have another name, thats been used much longer: "lies".

You can believe those "alternative facts" all you want. That doesn't make them any more true.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PickUrPoison
Ok so here's some basic logic: the symptoms present similar to a common cold or flu. If you don't test people, you have no idea if they're infected or not. If you don't know how many people are infected, you have no way to know how well you're "holding up" compared to any other country, where they are doing testing.

Are you trolling at this point? You don’t need testing to determine whether your health care system is collapsing, hospitals are overcrowding and corpses are piling up. That’s happening in Italy. It’s not (yet) happening in the United States. Although I’m sure you are hoping it does.

You need to be a special kind of evil to leverage a global pandemic to take pot shots at someone you perceive to be political enemy.

What country are you from? How are things going where you live? Shouldn’t you be more concerned with that than “Drumpf!!!”.
 
You don’t need testing to determine whether your health care system is collapsing
But you do need testing to know how many people are infected. Without knowing the number of currently infected you don't know how far the virus has spread or how quickly.

You (and others? Or was it you as well? I don't know) keep suggesting that I "want" this to happen - (a) I find that offensive. I'll leave it to your imagination what my response in a non-moderated medium would be. (b) If you want to assume someone "wants" it to happen, start by looking at the guy who's actions have directly, negatively impacted the US' ability to respond to this situation. Hint: he lives in a White House and thinks it's going to be cured "like a miracle".
 
But you do need testing to know how many people are infected. Without knowing the number of currently infected you don't know how far the virus has spread or how quickly.

You (and others? Or was it you as well? I don't know) keep suggesting that I "want" this to happen - (a) I find that offensive. I'll leave it to your imagination what my response in a non-moderated medium would be. (b) If you want to assume someone "wants" it to happen, start by looking at the guy who's actions have directly, negatively impacted the US' ability to respond to this situation. Hint: he lives in a White House and thinks it's going to be cured "like a miracle".

You can’t help yourself. It’s gross.

I also didn’t miss that you dodged the question about where you live. Likely because it’s a country faring far worse than the US.
 
You can’t help yourself.
...? From highlighting basic logic to you? If you aren't testing people, how can you possibly expect to know "how bad" the situation is?

I also didn’t miss that you dodged the question about where you live. Likely because it’s a country faring far worse than the US.
I mean it says it right there below my name but ok, sure.

I live in Thailand. Population, ~70M. Confirmed cases: 114; ; Deaths: 1Recovered: 35. So, 1 in 614K people have been confirmed infected.

We're talking about the US. Population, ~328M. Confirmed cases: 3737; Deaths: 68; Recovered: 8. So, 1 in 87K people have been confirmed infected.

Could the Thai government (note: not my government, because I am not a citizen and thus cannot vote here) be doing more/better things to alleviate the situation? Yep, you betcha. Have members of this government said incredibly stupid things about the situation? Yep, you betcha. Does any of that change that the US situation is a fluster cluck? Nope. Not at all.

Any more ******** questions?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.