trump threatens to shut down twitter because they created a fact check button on his tweets

[koriwhat]

Another quip from the one nobody asked. There's a reason no one asks you.

[clambake]

Another quip from the one nobody asked. There's a reason no one asks you.

And there’s a reason you are a cheap fat . Self-inflicted.

[TSA]

[lefty]

What are his burner accounts?

Duranald Trump

[Spurminator]

Oh man, that's hilarious, the inclusion of Nebraska definitely renders the entire exercise obsolete. I can see why you're so giddy about this stunning revelation. You must be a hit at parties.

[TSA]

On the same day Twitter fact checked

West Virginia mail carrier charged with attempted absentee ballot application fraud

https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Pe...570777221.html

[TSA]

The executive order takes great pains to avoid some obvious cons utional concerns around the White House's ability to dictate how private companies should deal with speech espoused by their users, but it could still run into a range of legal challenges. The White House broadly argues that the top social media platforms should be treated as "public squares" within which speech is protected by the First Amendment, while the tech industry has argued that the law enables private companies to make choices about how they treat content on their platforms.

As written, one section of the order would require the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a small agency within the Department of Commerce, to file a pe ion asking the FCC to review Section 230, tech's prized liability shield. The section heavily implies that online platforms could be considered publishers of content under certain cir stances — and therefore could be held directly responsible for the content they host, a nightmare for any social media platform fearing a slew of lawsuits over every moderation decision.

Another section would forward complaints of anti-conservative bias filed with the White House over to the FTC, where they could be reviewed as examples of "unfair or deceptive business practices" — technically one of the FTC's central mandates.

The draft order would also ask the U.S. attorney general to establish a working group "regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices." It would invite the country's state attorneys general — nearly all of whom are already involved in an rust lawsuits against Facebook, Google or both — to participate in the consultation.

In one section aimed directly at the companies' bottom lines, the draft order would encourage federal agencies to pull back their ad spending from platforms like Facebook and Twitter if it's found the platforms have imposed "viewpoint-based speech restrictions." Federal agencies spent about $1.5 billion on advertising and PR over the last 10 years, according to a recent government report. A significant amount of that money goes toward public service advertisements — for instance, this year, the U.S. Census announced a $500 million public education and outreach campaign featuring more than 1,000 advertisements.

https://www.protocol.com/amp/donald-...mpression=true

[ElNono]

Appeals court ruling suggests little legal traction for Trump's anti-Twitter campaign

A ruling that emerged from a powerful federal appeals court in Washington on Wednesday morning is strong evidence that the courts are unlikely to be receptive to President Donald Trump’s claims that he and his political supporters are being silenced by social media platforms like Twitter.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit resoundingly rejected a lawsuit the conservative legal organization Freedom Watch and right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer filed in 2018 against four major technology companies: Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple.

Facebook, Twitter and other platforms have banned Loomer, citing anti-Muslim statements.

The unanimous court decision from a three-judge panel runs to only four pages, but is dismissive of a wide range of legal claims some conservatives and liberals have leveled at social media firms in recent months.

The appeals court judges said that, despite the companies’ power, they cannot violate the First Amendment because it regulates only governments, not the private sector.

“Freedom Watch’s First Amendment claim fails because it does not adequately allege that the Platforms can violate the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,'” the court said.

“Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But … ‘a private en y who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.’ ... Freedom Watch fails to point to additional facts indicating that these Platforms are engaged in state action and thus fails to state a viable First Amendment claim,” the judges added.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-ruling-284632

[benefactor]

Yeah...this isn't going anywhere.

[DMC]

And there’s a reason you are a cheap fat . Self-inflicted.

That bet really ed you up

[ChumpDumper]

On the same day Twitter fact checked

West Virginia mail carrier charged with attempted absentee ballot application fraud

https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Pe...570777221.html

Your argument against mail in balloting is that someone was caught trying to change party affiliation on ballot requests from Democrat to Republican during a routine verification?

[tholdren]

Appeals court ruling suggests little legal traction for Trump's anti-Twitter campaign

A ruling that emerged from a powerful federal appeals court in Washington on Wednesday morning is strong evidence that the courts are unlikely to be receptive to President Donald Trump’s claims that he and his political supporters are being silenced by social media platforms like Twitter.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit resoundingly rejected a lawsuit the conservative legal organization Freedom Watch and right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer filed in 2018 against four major technology companies: Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple.

Facebook, Twitter and other platforms have banned Loomer, citing anti-Muslim statements.

The unanimous court decision from a three-judge panel runs to only four pages, but is dismissive of a wide range of legal claims some conservatives and liberals have leveled at social media firms in recent months.

The appeals court judges said that, despite the companies’ power, they cannot violate the First Amendment because it regulates only governments, not the private sector.

“Freedom Watch’s First Amendment claim fails because it does not adequately allege that the Platforms can violate the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,'” the court said.

“Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But … ‘a private en y who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.’ ... Freedom Watch fails to point to additional facts indicating that these Platforms are engaged in state action and thus fails to state a viable First Amendment claim,” the judges added.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-ruling-284632

You will hit 130k !!!!

[DMC]

Appeals court ruling suggests little legal traction for Trump's anti-Twitter campaign

A ruling that emerged from a powerful federal appeals court in Washington on Wednesday morning is strong evidence that the courts are unlikely to be receptive to President Donald Trump’s claims that he and his political supporters are being silenced by social media platforms like Twitter.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit resoundingly rejected a lawsuit the conservative legal organization Freedom Watch and right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer filed in 2018 against four major technology companies: Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple.

Facebook, Twitter and other platforms have banned Loomer, citing anti-Muslim statements.

The unanimous court decision from a three-judge panel runs to only four pages, but is dismissive of a wide range of legal claims some conservatives and liberals have leveled at social media firms in recent months.

The appeals court judges said that, despite the companies’ power, they cannot violate the First Amendment because it regulates only governments, not the private sector.

“Freedom Watch’s First Amendment claim fails because it does not adequately allege that the Platforms can violate the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,'” the court said.

“Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But … ‘a private en y who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.’ ... Freedom Watch fails to point to additional facts indicating that these Platforms are engaged in state action and thus fails to state a viable First Amendment claim,” the judges added.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-ruling-284632

Probably accomplished his goal which was to get people involved in the stock worried.

[clambake]

That bet really ed you up

It wasn’t a bet. You wanted to post pictures of men you’ll never be, lol

In exchange for $500. Pretty fat and creepy, gravy boat

[boutons_deux]

Yeah...this isn't going anywhere.

Trash is apparently going to say "censor" which is automatically a LIE, to trigger his imbecilic cult mob, who won't, maybe can't, understand the legalities.

[spurraider21]

On the same day Twitter fact checked

West Virginia mail carrier charged with attempted absentee ballot application fraud

https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Pe...570777221.html

what does that have to do with their fact check? did they say election fraud never happens?

[Blake]

Another quip from the one nobody asked. There's a reason no one asks you.

Not my fault you don't understand how a message board works

[Spurtacular]

[ElNono]

beggars can't be choosers, tbh... if Zuckerberger promises not to fact check, you gotta take the offer, IMO... election is coming up

[Reck]

Oh man, that's hilarious, the inclusion of Nebraska definitely renders the entire exercise obsolete. I can see why you're so giddy about this stunning revelation. You must be a hit at parties.

Don’t be fooled. Posting laughing emoticons when the situation doesn’t call for it it’s TSA’s way to cope wiry his failures.

[Blake]

On the same day Twitter fact checked

West Virginia mail carrier charged with attempted absentee ballot application fraud

https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Pe...570777221.html

Remember when you posted links about the possibility of injecting disinfectants?

[RandomGuy]

Yeah...this isn't going anywhere.

Except on Fox "news" to be hashed and rehashed and repeated endlessly as breathless proof of victimhood.

"why can't we lie without consequence"?

[RandomGuy]

On the same day Twitter fact checked

West Virginia mail carrier charged with attempted absentee ballot application fraud

https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Pe...570777221.html

As the task force investigated, they confirmed that five ballot requests that had been altered from "Democrat" to Republican."
On three other requests, the party was not changed, but the request for an absentee ballot had been altered.

Eight. :rofl

How the Case for Voter Fraud Was Tested — and Utterly Failed
https://www.propublica.org/article/k...d-kansas-trial

[dbestpro]

Trump's executive order basically means if you censor a post then that is editing and you are liable for all posts. That affects Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, FoxNews, any news source that allows for comments and even this forum if it is monitized in any way.

[boutons_deux]

Pootin and his cyberarmy are hoisting the vodka.

There's no stopping them now.