Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 59

Thread: Yuuuge

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,026

    Default

    Rush explained this well today. The Twits added content.
    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    47,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dubs View Post
    Here is my question, how does that work with a private business/company? Should a platform that is private/citizen owned be forced by the government to do such a thing? I thought we were against government intervention in private business??
    the .gov can regulate any business.
    see credit card companies years back....
    Ugh. Stupid people piss me off.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    637

    Default

    What’s he gonna say?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    28,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DRDUCK View Post
    Please Move then.
    I voted for him and plan to vote for him again,
    doesn't change the fact that he acts like a Yankee douche and hurls insults like a 12 year old fat ass school yard bully every time someone says
    something about him that he doesn't like. Hmmm, sounds familiar huh?
    Last edited by ecu1984; 05-28-2020 at 08:38 AM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spartanburg
    Posts
    49,653

    Default

    If twitter, FB or any other social media platform hurt my feelings I'd just stay off of it. It's not like you HAVE to have an account.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ecu1984 View Post
    I voted for him and plan to vote for him again,
    doesn't change the fact that he acts like a Yankee douche and hurls insults like a 12 year old fat ass school yard bully every time someone says
    something about him that he doesn't like. Hmmm, sounds familiar huh?
    Did even try to explain with that guy.

    The left wants Trump off Twitter and TV. Twitter had worked for him. Daily briefings did not. The Scarborough tweets are insane.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn View Post
    If twitter, FB or any other social media platform hurt my feelings I'd just stay off of it. It's not like you HAVE to have an account.
    Or, with his resources, start your own platform and profit off the whole mishegas...

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spartanburg
    Posts
    49,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    Or, with his resources, start your own platform and profit off the whole mishegas...
    You mean like a free market capitalist and NOT an authoritarian?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,812

    Default

    Call it Trumpet and start posting your nonstop crazy there instead of Twitter. Immediately capture 50% of the market and watch the other 50% glued to it all day. No brainer...

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    28,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GMAC View Post
    It's not a free speech issue. Those social media companies enjoy statutory immunity from lawsuits because they posed as neutral platforms that simply hosted third party content. The moment they start suppressing certain content, "fact checking" the president, they are editorializing. They should lose that immunity. Can't have it both ways.
    and I agree with this 100%

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Redstone Arsenal, AL
    Posts
    3,000

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    Call it Trumpet and start posting your nonstop crazy there instead of Twitter. Immediately capture 50% of the market and watch the other 50% glued to it all day. No brainer...
    Agreed
    Btw, you won't hear me apologize often, so you may want to put that in your sigfile. ~Mergie

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    28,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    Call it Trumpet and start posting your nonstop crazy there instead of Twitter. Immediately capture 50% of the market and watch the other 50% glued to it all day. No brainer...
    brilliant, let's get to work copyrighting that
    Last edited by ecu1984; 05-28-2020 at 09:41 AM.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Redstone Arsenal, AL
    Posts
    3,000

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Tape View Post
    Rush explained this well today. The Twits added content.
    So now, JAB can’t run this site as he sees fit?
    The L word can no longer be auto-censored?
    You can freely use the N word here with no repercussion?
    Anyone getting banned for breaking this site’s rules can sue?
    Last edited by Roddie; 05-28-2020 at 09:53 AM.
    Btw, you won't hear me apologize often, so you may want to put that in your sigfile. ~Mergie

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,812

    Default

    I will wait until the strong legal minds have had time to digest it and opine before I take a crack at understanding what it will mean. I haven't even read it or a summary yet.

    The answer wasn't regulation in any case...

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spartanburg
    Posts
    49,653

    Default

    Will we still be able to make fun of latinos, asians and honkies?

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,812

    Default

    And Canadian Indians.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Gobbler's Knob, GA/ Bamberg,SC
    Posts
    21,442

    Default

    Labhumper??
    F**K Cancer

    Just Damn.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    1
    Posts
    231

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rock Hill SC
    Posts
    9,154

    Default

    https://www.npr.org/2020/05/28/86393...edia-companies

    Updated at 7:55 p.m. ET

    President Trump signed an executive order Thursday aimed at limiting the broad legal protections enjoyed by social media companies, two days after he tore into Twitter for fact-checking two of his tweets.

    "We're here today to defend free speech from one of the gravest dangers it has faced in American history, frankly," Trump said from the Oval Office. "A small handful of powerful social media monopolies control the vast portion of all private and public communications in the United States."

    The president said the tech companies have "unchecked power to censor, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter" a large sphere of human interaction. "They have points of view," he said.

    The Trump administration hopes the order will eventually set the stage for new regulations on tech platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.

    Trump Threatens To Shut Down Social Media After Twitter Adds Warning To His Tweets
    BUSINESS
    Trump Threatens To Shut Down Social Media After Twitter Adds Warning To His Tweets
    But legal experts said they were doubtful the move would have any practical effect on the tech giants. Legal observers described the action as "political theater," arguing that the order does not change existing federal law and will have no bearing on federal courts.

    The president's latest confrontation with Twitter was set off after the tech company placed fact-checking warnings on two of his tweets that claimed, without evidence, that casting ballots by mail allows for voter fraud. Both Democratic and Republican states have used voting by mail for years without reports of widespread fraud.

    Trump lashed out at Twitter, comparing the fact-checking labels to censorship and accusing the social media giant of stifling conservative voices, though the president did not provide any examples to back up his assertion.

    Article continues after sponsor message

    The president, who often uses Twitter as a megaphone to tout his victories and blast his critics to his more than 80 million followers, said Thursday that if he had the legal authority to do so, he would completely shut down Twitter.

    "I think I'd be hurting it very badly if we didn't use it anymore," Trump said from the White House. "We have other sites we can use, I guess, or we'd have to develop other sites."

    Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said Wednesday that the platform will continue to warn users about factual distortions on it.

    Twitter Places Fact-Checking Warning On Trump Tweet For 1st Time
    TECHNOLOGY
    Twitter Places Fact-Checking Warning On Trump Tweet For 1st Time
    "This does not make us an 'arbiter of truth,' " Dorsey wrote on Twitter. "Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves. More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions."

    Dorsey's comment was an apparent response to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who told Fox News earlier Wednesday that social media companies should stay out of the business of weighing in on what is true or not.

    "Private companies probably shouldn't be, especially these platform companies, shouldn't be in the position of doing that," Zuckerberg said.

    A Facebook spokesperson added that ending the liability shield for social media companies would make sites responsible for what billions of users around the world say.

    "This would penalize companies that choose to allow controversial speech and encourage platforms to censor anything that may offend anyone," spokesperson Andy Stone said Thursday.

    Regulator: Turning the FCC into "the President's speech police is not the answer"

    The White House order takes aim at a 1996 law passed by Congress that has often been at the center of political fights over regulating speech on social media platforms: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

    The law protects Internet companies from being sued over content that appears on their platforms and allows for content moderation. The removal of a post is left up to the internal rules of companies such as Twitter and Facebook, provided those decisions are made "in good faith."

    Courts have repeatedly upheld the law in favor of technology companies, even when the statute was used to defend websites advertising children who were forced into sex trafficking. (In 2018, Congress amended Section 230 to hold websites legally responsible for promoting prostitution or victims of sex trafficking.)

    Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change
    ALL TECH CONSIDERED
    Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change
    Trump's order seeks to chip away at the vast legal protection Silicon Valley has long fought to preserve by offering a new interpretation of the law. The order argues, in essence, that if the social media companies restrict certain voices on their platforms, the companies should be stripped of their legal immunity, opening the doors to a wave of lawsuits over content seen as defamatory.

    Legal experts greeted the order with heavy skepticism, saying, absent a new law passed by Congress, it would not be legally binding.

    "It flies in the face of 25 years of judicial precedent, that has been federal precedent in almost every circuit court," said Kate Klonick, a professor at St. John's University School of Law in New York. "It's not the role of the president to interpret federal law."

    The order was "a very, very clear piece of political theater," Klonick told NPR, adding that the action is "unlikely to have any kind of weight or authority."

    The order directs the Federal Communications Commission to start a rule-making process to clarify when social media companies should keep protections under the law.

    Height Capital Markets analysts Chase White and Clayton Allen described the executive order as "mostly noise without any teeth."

    Social Media Usage Is At An All-Time High. That Could Mean A Nightmare For Democracy
    THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS
    Social Media Usage Is At An All-Time High. That Could Mean A Nightmare For Democracy
    In a note to investors, they wrote that the FCC only exerts limited control over social media companies, which are not regulated like traditional broadcasters. And historically, the FCC has been opposed to social media regulation, White and Allen pointed out.

    Already, some of the five members of FCC are expressing concern about the White House's action.

    "There's this huge thicket of First Amendment issues that it drags the agency into," Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel told NPR. "Chief among them is the government regulating speech, dictating what can and can't be said online." She warned the order sought to turn the agency into "the president's speech police."

    Attorney General William Barr said the White House plans to push legislation to Congress that would seek to reinterpret Section 230 to counteract the sweeping protections granted to large technology companies.

    "It's been stretched," said Barr, standing next to Trump in the Oval Office. "And I don't know of anyone on Capitol Hill who doesn't agree that it has been stretched beyond its original intention."

    Proponents of Section 230 say both social media platforms and sites like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive would not be able to exist in the same way without the law. If the sites were responsible for everything users posted, the cost of defending against a deluge of lawsuits could prove crippling, advocates of the law argue.

    Kate Ruane, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the order an attempt to punish social media companies for posts that displease the president.

    "Ironically, Donald Trump is a big beneficiary of Section 230," Ruane said. "If platforms were not immune under the law, then they would not risk the legal liability that could come with hosting Donald Trump's lies, defamation and threats."

    GOP's Hawley: Companies that act like publishers should be treated as ones

    Backers of Trump's order, such as Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said adding warning labels to the president's tweets is an editorial decision that shows the social media platform is acting more like a publisher and that the company should lose its special protection.

    "It makes little sense to treat companies that publish their editorial comments about others' content as if they are mere distributors. Companies that act like publishers should be treated like publishers," Hawley wrote in a letter to Twitter's Dorsey.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., supports Twitter's initiative to flag tweets that contain falsehoods. She said Trump's order directs the federal government to "dismantle efforts to help users distinguish fact from fiction."

    She said the order does not address the proliferation of disinformation on social media, an issue central in the 2016 presidential election and one that's expected to be influential in November.

    "Again and again, social media platforms have sold out the public interest to pad their corporate profits. Their business model is to make money at the expense of the truth," Pelosi said.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Greenville
    Posts
    4,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ecu1984 View Post
    I voted for him and plan to vote for him again,
    doesn't change the fact that he acts like a Yankee douche and hurls insults like a 12 year old fat ass school yard bully every time someone says
    something about him that he doesn't like. Hmmm, sounds familiar huh?
    We may not agree in the sports forum, but we are jiving here.
    Carolina Counsel

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •