Trump Takes Another L
- Thread starter BSC911
- Start date
I’m always amazed at how personal some people take it when their cult leader is criticized.
I’m sure there were many. Just not on this Board. I expect CFB fans to be thicker skinned.
You may want to research why they did it. It had more to do with the delay than anything. I guess you want to keep our troops overseas in endless wars too. Trump wanted more opportunities to bring home more troops and surprise, surprise, they don’t want that. Stop being ignorant and reading a headline, and rushing in here like a little kid to post things you don’t even read, just to gloat. Trump was never going to get what he asked for in the Bill.
Last edited:
it is you that needs to wake up. Everyone knows that the ONLY reason that Trump vetoed the bill was because he was butt hurt it didn’t punish the social media companies that have been mean to him. It had nothing to do with national defense.
Its unbelievable the lengths you go to make excuses for this clown. Alas, people are finally waking up to the fact that his sole interest is furthering his personal agenda, the military be damned.
Hiden has called for repealing 230 as well. It's unbelievable how the sheep just repeat what they hear and never do their own research.
Well I think you should be worried about censorship too. Once again your hatred for Trump makes you blind to big picture. You don’t get it, and I’m not here to explain the obvious to you. Again, they didn’t override it because they had a personal vendetta against Trump.
What does that have to do with the NDAA? If they want to pass an anti censorship bill, have at it. But last I checked, Trump is still tweeting. And the proposed bill doesn’t even address censorship. You are really struggling with this one.
I’m not going to sit here an argue with you. He didn’t like the fact it was going to strip the confederate names of certain bases, it was going to regulate troop withdrawal, and lastly, he didn’t like the censorship aspect, which not only pertains to him, but has a vast set of potential consequences for the future. You are the one struggling because you are to hate filled to see future repercussions. I have a nephew in Afghanistan that I would like to see come home, so yes it’s personal when Congress wants to keep us in endless wars overseas.
Every dem here favored troops coming home...till Trump started bringing them home.
I never complained about Trump bringing troops home. That’s a rare area where we largely agreed.
That’s what your nephew signed up for. And he can bring troops home even with this bill.
But again, the Section 280 social media protections have nothing to do with censorship. That’s merely retribution for them not allowing him to spread lies on Twitter.
That’s untrue about Afghanistan.
Rebecca Grant: Congressional override of Trump’s defense bill veto was inevitable. So why did he veto?
The 81-to-13 Senate vote Friday to override President Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) wasn’t surprising. What was surprising was Trump’s veto Dec. 23, coming from a president who has prided himself on increasing defense spending and supporting our troops.
It seems you’re right. This goes against historical precedent and seems to be overstepping congressional authority.That’s untrue about Afghanistan.
Rebecca Grant: Congressional override of Trump’s defense bill veto was inevitable. So why did he veto?
The 81-to-13 Senate vote Friday to override President Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) wasn’t surprising. What was surprising was Trump’s veto Dec. 23, coming from a president who has prided himself on increasing defense spending and supporting our troops.www.google.com
One point for NCGatot
Not sure about 230 unless there is a strategy that ultimately forces these companies to allow all legal speech . It will take some sort of law to force it because company A isnt going to do it while B continues to censor. All the woke adverts will go to the censored site.
If all things are equal, then the woke sites will have to shut up, advert wherever they get best bang for the buck and get out of the virtue signaling business.
Then twitter cant censor Trump when he is exposing the TRUTH about the evil dems to America.
If all things are equal, then the woke sites will have to shut up, advert wherever they get best bang for the buck and get out of the virtue signaling business.
Then twitter cant censor Trump when he is exposing the TRUTH about the evil dems to America.
230 protections basically say that social media sites are platforms, not publishers. Why this is important is that it more or less says the social media sites aren't responsible for the content we post on the sites.
But by censoring content, the social media sites are acting like publishers, in that they are editorializing or changing content. 230 was set up to give them protections as platforms, but the sites are twisting the law and acting like publishers.
That's why politicians on both sides are pushing to strip their protections. With the obvious reasoning being, if they are acting like publishers, then they should lose the protections of being classified as a platform. Which makes total sense.
If 230 is repealed, the short answer will be that all sites that allow user generated content (like this one), could be on the hook for what we say. Which means most sites will simply stop letting us create content on their sites.
Agree. Are you a content provider or not?
It's tantamount to paper companies trying to censor some speech and then doing so in a clearly partisan manner.
Yes I know all of this. The law is not working as intended. Regardless of repeal or not, something must be done to FORCE them to act as platforms and allow ALL legal speech. If repealed they BETTER have a law already written to accomplish this or it would be better to leave in place and try to enforce its intent.
I get tired of pols dancing around this. They have these hearings and never get to the point.
Here is what I want to see from the pub Senators.
Senator: Section 230 is there to protect you as a platform. When you censor legal speech you are acting as a publisher. When are you going to dismantle the censorship and quit with the fact checking?
If you do not then we will need to look at new laws to force you to act as a platform or seek anti-trust legislation to break you apart.
I hope you see how serious we take this.
It is not you job to comment on the content or to censor it. It is your job to provide access and that is it. You are the phone company providing a platform for people to engage in conversations. Hearing adjourned and we will see you in a month to update us on your compliance with 230.
230 is 25 years old, I believe. It was written before we had social media, so it should be updated. And hopefully with clarifications between social media sites and the individual content creator ie blogger. The problem is, both sides want to repeal it. I suspect end result will be the little guys will suffer a lot more than the Twitters and Facebooks.
What’s ironic is that if 230 passes (no way), there will be even more censorship. The content providers will have to screen even more content lest they get blamed for inaccurate content by one of their subscribers. Like the $500M lawsuit the guy just filed because someone posted that he hacked Hunters computer.
Be careful what you ask for, Trumpers. What Trump wants will exacerbate the problem.
@BSC911, 230 is a section of the Communications and Decency Act. It's been law on the books for over 2 two decades.
Good grief.
Good grief. @BSC911 the lawsuit was against Twitter because Twitter justified pulling the NY Post story because they said they had a policy against posting hacked materials. The laptop wasn't hacked.
I get that you want to say something stupid to try to get a Trump supporter riled up but you really need to have at least some idea what the blue hell you are talking about.
Ironically, removing these protections will likely kill off small forums (maybe including this one) while reinforcing the advantages of the tech giants. Small players can’t afford the liability.
And congress wants it both ways. They demand that Facebook “clean up” it’s content while demanding that they stop censoring it. Unless you have deep pockets and good lobbyists, you can’t run a business in the middle of that crossfire.
It’s literally crazy what Trump is asking for. I just think the cultists don’t understand it. Not surprising though.
Because Trump is framing it as “stickin’ it to elitist Big Tech,” even though it won’t be Big Tech that gets hurt the most.
Hunter Biden Laptop Lawsuit Gives Twitter Unpleasant Legal Choices
The lawsuit alleges Twitter defamed the computer owner to justify its censorship of The New York Post’s story on Hunter Biden selling access to his father.thefederalist.com
This raises an interesting legal question.
If someone gives you a laptop to repair, and never comes back to retrieve it, do you have the right to examine their personal content beyond what is necessary to fix the issue and post it to the internet without their permission?
I guess that’s technically not “hacking,” but it seems like an invasion of privacy and probably copyright infringement. Copyright automatically applies to any original content you create and record, regardless of whether you register it.
I think he will have trouble demonstrating that it was Twitter’s use of the word “hacked” that caused him to go out of business. That likely would have happened regardless of what term they used.
Bingo. And if that happens, I truly worry about people like @BSC911. Without this board he would likely have no interaction with anyone for days or weeks at a time. That's unhealthy.
I believe the shop had a policy that if items weren't picked up within a certain amount of time, the shop gets to keep it. I actually think that's pretty standard.
And I'm pretty sure the shop owner didn't post anything to the internet. Then again I have no idea what your shit sources are telling you what happened SMDH
At some point, if the device is "abandoned" I'm betting it becomes the property of the repair shop. The time frame surely varies from state to state.
