Jump to content

AOC: Twitter Targeting ‘Neo-Nazis,’ ‘Violent Insurrectionists’


Recommended Posts

AOC: Twitter Targeting ‘Neo-Nazis,’ ‘Violent Insurrectionists’

mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgallery.mailchimp.com%2Fcaa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d%2Fimages%2F19ad8fb1-47f8-462c-bec4-733b52d0d67a.jpg&t=1610558971&ymreqid=f19d0044-0ff3-64e3-1c42-a2000b015a00&sig=2RBs6hRhpMtgL0kur2U1Ow--~D
Sunday on Twitter, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) responded to a complaint from former White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, who noted she had lost tens of thousands of Twitter followers as the social media platform began silencing conservative voices, arguing that Twitter is simply targeting “neo-Nazis and violent insurrectionists.”

 

Sanders was responding to a January 9 tweet from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who posted a screenshot showing prominent members of the GOP suddenly losing thousands of followers.

 

“Free advice – if you are losing tens of thousands of followers the moment Twitter starts taking down Neo-Nazis and violent insurrectionists, maybe don’t advertise that!” Ocasio-Cortez taunted. “Also maybe people are unfollowing you out disgust for your support of a coupist bc they care about our country.”

 

Here’s some free advice, AOC: if you are proud of your side’s totalitarian assault on free speech and its demonization of conservatives as violent white supremacists, maybe don’t publicly pat yourself on the back for that.

 

XavierOnassis 12-8-2008 9:25am
Ocasio Cortez She is energetic, clever, charismatic. and seems to scare the crap out of our resident fascist trolls. 

 

 

LMFAO

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pastafarian said:

Twitter is a publisher and publishers never give the last word to authors. 

So, then section 230 does not apply? Therefore they are liable for what is posted? Is that your position? I do not think that Twitter considers itself a "publisher" or do they? Perhaps you could show?

 

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

 

"

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

 
 
 

 47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act

Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230.

This comes somewhat as a surprise, since the original purpose of the legislation was to restrict free speech on the Internet. The Internet community as a whole objected strongly to the Communications Decency Act, and with EFF's help, the anti-free speech provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court. But thankfully, CDA 230 remains and in the years since has far outshone the rest of the law.

Section 230 says that "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" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

This legal and policy framework has allowed for YouTube and Vimeo users to upload their own videos, Amazon and Yelp to offer countless user reviews, craigslist to host classified ads, and Facebook and Twitter to offer social networking to hundreds of millions of Internet users. Given the sheer size of user-generated websites (for example, Facebook alone has more than 1 billion users, and YouTube users upload 100 hours of video every minute), it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site. Rather than face potential liability for their users' actions, most would likely not host any user content at all or would need to protect themselves by being actively engaged in censoring what we say, what we see, and what we do online. In short, CDA 230 is perhaps the most influential law to protect the kind of innovation that has allowed the Internet to thrive since 1996."

 

 

  • Thumb up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, superds77 said:

So, then section 230 does not apply? Therefore they are liable for what is posted? Is that your position? I do not think that Twitter considers itself a "publisher" or do they? Perhaps you could show?

 

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

 

"

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

 
 
 

 47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act

Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230.

This comes somewhat as a surprise, since the original purpose of the legislation was to restrict free speech on the Internet. The Internet community as a whole objected strongly to the Communications Decency Act, and with EFF's help, the anti-free speech provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court. But thankfully, CDA 230 remains and in the years since has far outshone the rest of the law.

Section 230 says that "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" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

This legal and policy framework has allowed for YouTube and Vimeo users to upload their own videos, Amazon and Yelp to offer countless user reviews, craigslist to host classified ads, and Facebook and Twitter to offer social networking to hundreds of millions of Internet users. Given the sheer size of user-generated websites (for example, Facebook alone has more than 1 billion users, and YouTube users upload 100 hours of video every minute), it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site. Rather than face potential liability for their users' actions, most would likely not host any user content at all or would need to protect themselves by being actively engaged in censoring what we say, what we see, and what we do online. In short, CDA 230 is perhaps the most influential law to protect the kind of innovation that has allowed the Internet to thrive since 1996."

 

 

They probably should be held liable. 

  • Thumb up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pastafarian said:

They probably should be held liable. 

If so, they would have a great deal more than President Trump to account for...

 

Let's be real. Twitter and Facebook claim to be PLATFORMS, therefore protected by section 230, yet very much ACT like PUBLISHERS. Trying to have it both ways.

 

Can we agree on that?

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whiteboy said:

 

@XavierOnassis just likes her because she looks like a man ... and he likes men.

I am entirely heterosexual,  and  I  admire AOC  for her gumption  and  her determination.  I have  no  sexual  interest in AOC  or any public figure.

She does  NOT  look like a man. AOC  was a bartender,so what. She is therefor NOT an elitist. Brian Cranston, who  played  Walter White  so admirably in Breaking  

Bad,  used  to unload  grocery trucks.

I do not  understand why nutjob  rightwingers always accuse those they  disagree with of   being  gay.That  is juvenile and stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

I am entirely heterosexual,  and  I  admire AOC  for her gumption  and  her determination.  I have  no  sexual  interest in AOC  or any public figure.

She does  NOT  look like a man. AOC  was a bartender,so what. She is therefor NOT an elitist. Brian Cranston, who  played  Walter White  so admirably in Breaking  

Bad,  used  to unload  grocery trucks.

I do not  understand why nutjob  rightwingers always accuse those they  disagree with of   being  gay.That  is juvenile and stupid.

 

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

 

I know you haven't read Shakespeare, so I will interpret.

 

If you have to tell us you aren't gay ... you are gay.

  • Haha 2
  • Fuck you! 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TBHWT said:

AOC: Twitter Targeting ‘Neo-Nazis,’ ‘Violent Insurrectionists’

mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgallery.mailchimp.com%2Fcaa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d%2Fimages%2F19ad8fb1-47f8-462c-bec4-733b52d0d67a.jpg&t=1610558971&ymreqid=f19d0044-0ff3-64e3-1c42-a2000b015a00&sig=2RBs6hRhpMtgL0kur2U1Ow--~D
Sunday on Twitter, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) responded to a complaint from former White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, who noted she had lost tens of thousands of Twitter followers as the social media platform began silencing conservative voices, arguing that Twitter is simply targeting “neo-Nazis and violent insurrectionists.”

 

Sanders was responding to a January 9 tweet from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who posted a screenshot showing prominent members of the GOP suddenly losing thousands of followers.

 

“Free advice – if you are losing tens of thousands of followers the moment Twitter starts taking down Neo-Nazis and violent insurrectionists, maybe don’t advertise that!” Ocasio-Cortez taunted. “Also maybe people are unfollowing you out disgust for your support of a coupist bc they care about our country.”

 

Here’s some free advice, AOC: if you are proud of your side’s totalitarian assault on free speech and its demonization of conservatives as violent white supremacists, maybe don’t publicly pat yourself on the back for that.

 

XavierOnassis 12-8-2008 9:25am
Ocasio Cortez She is energetic, clever, charismatic. and seems to scare the crap out of our resident fascist trolls. 

 

 

LMFAO

Look at that nose wonder if she’s ever performed the angry dragon 🐉 move

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...