Florida Bill Will Ban Censorship

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

No it isn’t. You keep claiming they were banned for violating the TOS. Fine, name the rule. I don’t even want a link.

Hint: They weren’t. They were banned for the potential for violence from their “disputed claims”.

Prior restraint.

Wrongspeak.

Knock yourself out

The Twitter rules: safety, privacy, authenticity, and more

Here’s something interesting

Authenticity

Platform manipulation and spam: You may not use Twitter’s services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people’s experience on Twitter. Learn more.

Civic Integrity: You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes. This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress participation or mislead people about when, where, or how to participate in a civic process. Learn more.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

A multi-billion dollar garbage dump populated by mouth breathing morons incapable of critical thinking.

Trump made them into a multi billion dollar company? oh man

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

What did Trump or Greene tweet that was clearly violent?

Understand before you answer I agree Trump incited the 1/6 riot.

“Clearly violent” isn’t Twitters standard

Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. Learn more about our violent threat and glorification of violence policies.

Further…

What is in violation of this policy?

Under this policy, you can’t glorify, celebrate, praise or condone violent crimes, violent events where people were targeted because of their membership in a protected group, or the perpetrators of such acts. We define glorification to include praising, celebrating, or condoning statements, such as “I’m glad this happened”, “This person is my hero”, “I wish more people did things like this”, or “I hope this inspires others to act”.

Violations of this policy include, but are not limited to, glorifying, praising, condoning, or celebrating:

• violent acts committed by civilians that resulted in death or serious physical injury, e.g., murders, mass shootings;
• attacks carried out by terrorist organizations or violent extremist groups (as defined by our terrorism and violent extremism policy); and
• violent events that targeted protected groups, e.g., the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide.

Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. Learn more.

[WuWei]

I posted it in the other thread. Wrongspeak. Response to dems complaints of “fake news”.

[WuWei]

Did they do that? Let’s see it.

“Clearly violent” seems to be Twitter’s standard.

Oh and BLM supporters are in trouble.

[SottoVoce]

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

What did Trump or Greene tweet that was clearly violent?

Understand before you answer I agree Trump incited the 1/6 riot.

“Clearly violent” isn’t Twitters standard

Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. Learn more about our violent threat and glorification of violence policies.

Further…

What is in violation of this policy?

Under this policy, you can’t glorify, celebrate, praise or condone violent crimes, violent events where people were targeted because of their membership in a protected group, or the perpetrators of such acts. We define glorification to include praising, celebrating, or condoning statements, such as “I’m glad this happened”, “This person is my hero”, “I wish more people did things like this”, or “I hope this inspires others to act”.

Violations of this policy include, but are not limited to, glorifying, praising, condoning, or celebrating:

• violent acts committed by civilians that resulted in death or serious physical injury, e.g., murders, mass shootings;
• attacks carried out by terrorist organizations or violent extremist groups (as defined by our terrorism and violent extremism policy); and
• violent events that targeted protected groups, e.g., the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide.

Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. Learn more.

Likewise, this site would need to change their TOS.

XI. Modification/Termination by iHeartMedia
iHeartMedia reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify, suspend, or terminate this iHeartMedia Site and/or any portion thereof, including any iHeartMedia Internet Service, and/or your account, password, or use of any iHeartMedia Internet Service, or any portion thereof, at any time for any reason with or without notice to you.

[WuWei]

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Love it! You?

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Love it! You?

I don’t have to love it or hate it. A private entity gets to decide how it runs its business within the context of the law. I might not agree on the “why” a business would refuse service but that doesn’t mean I can force them one way or another. Again, as long as what they’re doing is lawful.

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce

within the context of the law.

Nice caveat.

The law is the problem, not the banning.

[WorldWatcher]

@WuWei

@hwyflier

@WuWei

You can’t name it. I already said what they stated for Greene.

Naming TOS rules is your argument, not mine.

No it isn’t. You keep claiming they were banned for violating the TOS. Fine, name the rule. I don’t even want a link.

Hint: They weren’t. They were banned for the potential for violence from their “disputed claims”.

Prior restraint.

Wrongspeak.

FYI…
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

[WuWei]

Did not do it. FYI

[WorldWatcher]

@WuWei

Did not do it. FYI

All in good humor.

I find it humorous that in a thread about moderators for a private company having the ability to determine how their platform is used and as a Mod on a forum that ban’s people for speech there seems to be a problem with another social media platform banning people for speech.

.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

[WuWei]

I found it humorous that nobody has asked me if I have a problem with a private company making its rules.

And the double standard.

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

within the context of the law.

Nice caveat.

The law is the problem, not the banning.

In the case the constitution is the “problem.” As in what Florida would attempt to do violates it.

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

within the context of the law.

Nice caveat.

The law is the problem, not the banning.

In the case the constitution is the “problem.” As in what Florida would attempt to do violates it.

Hopefully we’ll see.

[zantax]

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

within the context of the law.

Nice caveat.

The law is the problem, not the banning.

In the case the constitution is the “problem.” As in what Florida would attempt to do violates it.

How so? Which part? Why did we even need section 230 if what it prevents was already unconstitutional?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

How so? Which part? Why did we even need section 230 if what it prevents was already unconstitutional?

Preemption is a Constitution function.

[zantax]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@zantax

How so? Which part? Why did we even need section 230 if what it prevents was already unconstitutional?

Preemption is a Constitution function.

Only a problem if section 230 isn’t rewritten or invalidated in some way. I have already acknowledged they can’t do it as long as 230 stays in force as is.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@zantax

How so? Which part? Why did we even need section 230 if what it prevents was already unconstitutional?

Preemption is a Constitution function.

I disagree with function.

[FloridaYankee]

@zantax

@wonderingrover

@Ceasar

@wonderingrover

So the GOP is now for big government regulation? My how things have changed since I departed the GOP.

No, we are for freedom of speech & are anti trust.

Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from the consequences of that speech. If you type something that is against the TOS of a platform that you are using, they have every right to enforce the contract you agreed to when you joined said platform - just as this forum (as an example) does.

Government regulates what is legally enforceable in contracts routinely. Ask Elizabeth Warren.

More like what is not enforceable.