Trump Executive Order Aims to Shrink Liability Shield for Social Media Giants By Ben Brody, Mario Parker and Eric Newcomer | May 28, 2020 Email This Subscribe to Newsletter Email to a friend Facebook Tweet LinkedIn Print Article Article 62 Comments May 28, 2020 at 10:14 am Rosenblatt says: Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 36 14CENSOR: “an official who examines material…and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.” Twitter did not CENSOR President Trump as they left the tweets up in their entirety. No part of his tweet was suppressed or removed. He needs to get some thicker skin. May 28, 2020 at 10:50 am Jon says: Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 30 16It’s like these republicans think that if they yell loud enough they can make something true. We all know what the definition of Censor is, and twitter did not censor. We all know Trump has lied over 18,000 times in office. It’s about time they put a warning on his dangerous, false tweets. May 28, 2020 at 3:23 pm Bill says: Like or Dislike: 5 5I’m not defending Trump, but the claim that he has lied over 18,000 times IS a lie, or a misrepresentation if you will. Every time Trump said his phone call to the Ukraine was “perfect,” the Washington Post counted that as a lie. Trump’s assertion is an opinion, not a misstatement of fact. Disagreement with an opinion does not make it a lie. Likewise, claiming that mail-in voting would result in “rampant fraud” is an opinion, perhaps a hyperbolic one, but an opinion nonetheless. May 28, 2020 at 3:41 pm Jon says: Like or Dislike: 4 5This is a non-argument. You know you’re justifying Trump’s lies by defending him, and that you’re splitting hairs. He is a dishonest man who lied on twitter and threw a tantrum because twitter decided to call him out for it, and you know that. You’re being one of those people who after cops murder someone say “hey, not ALL cops are bad”. The system is bad and cops enforce the system. Donald Trump is a liar and you are defending a liar. May 28, 2020 at 1:30 pm Captain Planet says: Hot debate. What do you think? 14 11Tramp is such a freaking snowflake! He needs to take his lack of balls and go home, not sit there and attempt to censor social media. Can this guy just go away already? Tell him he’s the greatest almost full term president ever and it’s time for him to hit the links now. Then, maybe we can make some actual progress on the virus and getting this country back on track. May 28, 2020 at 12:18 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Hot debate. What do you think? 19 24Hilarious Lack of Self Awareness! Again! Millions of conservatives HAVE been censored by Twitter while wildly untrue statements by AOC, Biden, and Bernie are left to stand. Example: AOC stated that the entire federal health bill could be paid for by weeding out fraud in military procurements! Hilarious on the face, but “true” according to Twitter. Bernie’s famously vague and untrue statements about how to pay for all of his proposed Give Aways are legendary – and NEVER challenged by Twitter. Biden issues a lie a day and Twitter does . . . nothing. Your naive (corrupt?) belief that a left-wing Silicon Valley can play fair umpire is hilarious. Conservatives really want one thing: if social media platforms are going to play publisher by deciding what is and is not “true”, then eliminate the exemption they have from liability for defamation. Newspapers don’t have that protection, so why Twitter? Zuckerberg is way too smart to get in this trap. He knows where it leads. But the other Silicon Valley billionaires trapped in their own cult? Not so smart at all. The Fairness Advocate for Twitter called the Trump Administration “nazis”. Sounds like a careful, fair judge. May 28, 2020 at 12:35 pm Jon says: Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 24 14“Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or “inconvenient.” What twitter did, was add a note saying “Hey, some of these statements are false” which they were. Your issue is that you’re not allowed to lie and get away with it. We all know that’s your issue. You right-wing nutjobs are literally the only people who are trying to pretend it’s anything else. You can deflect all you want, again, we all have eyes, troll. May 28, 2020 at 12:36 pm Jon says: Hot debate. What do you think? 17 17“Millions of conservatives HAVE been censored by Twitter ” LIE Prove it. You’re lying. “Biden issues a lie a day and Twitter does . . . nothing.” Prove it. Prove to me that he’s issued a lie every day. You’re lying. Social media platforms aren’t deciding what is and isn’t true. Evidence and fact decide those things. I see why you’d like to try and stop that. May 28, 2020 at 1:54 pm Interested says: Like or Dislike: 6 3There should be no censorship – because we just can’t trust any media. News should come from many sources. Let people decide for themselves and let’s stop telling them what to read, read from, etc. Censorship is for those who are afraid of the truth. May 28, 2020 at 2:30 pm Rosenblatt says: Like or Dislike: 3 2“News should come from many sources.” 1,000,000% agreed. I really like Newsvoice – it takes the stories of the day and compiles all the different articles from various sources (liberal, centrist, conservative, Europe, etc) so you can read what each side is saying about the same topic. Full disclosure: I do not work for that company, I don’t know anyone who does, I hold no stock in them, etc. Just passing along a suggestion…. May 28, 2020 at 2:17 pm curious says: Like or Dislike: 6 1Craig says, “Newspapers don’t have that protection, so why Twitter?” Seriously? Newspapers are in the business of providing factual information about and of interest to their audience. They also have editorial pages, which are intended to provide a “fence” between opinion and fact (as it is known at the time). Regular newspaper readers can rely on receiving factual information. If a newspaper knowingly makes a factual error, the correct it in a subsequent edition. Meanwhile, Twitter is a place for cat memes, wisecracking, and general expression of the human condition. It was never intended to exist as a source of truth or factual information. Its popularity with the masses has led to legitimate news sources to share their stories on its platform, alongside businesses and individuals spouting tabloid sensationalism and false opinions. The result is a free-for-all forum where users evaluate for themselves what to believe. If they choose to believe false content, that doesn’t all of a sudden make it true. In our current unbelievable turn of events, the Leader of the Free World opts to use this platform instead of press releases or interviews with trained journalists working for legitimate newspapers and other media. It has been documented that he is therein sharing and promoting false and derogatory information. I think Twitter is doing its users a service in attempting the occasional signpost for the masses to point out the lies. A newspaper shouldn’t need the same protection as a platform designed for laypeople. May 28, 2020 at 4:19 pm cicero says: Like or Dislike: 1 1people blocking conservatives and no one wanting to associate with them if they are assholes is not “censorship”, Boomer Craig May 28, 2020 at 12:24 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Hot debate. What do you think? 16 11One other point: what Trump said about California was not true. What he said about the possibility for abuse of mail in voting is ABSOLUTELY true. People have been prosecuted for it. (Side Note: watch the drama unfold and you will see real motivations for vote-by-mail. A simple solution would be for Democrats to agree to make it a felony to pay someone to vote, with mandatory 5 year sentences. And then agree to similiarly prosecute ballot harvesting. Thirdly, allow a bipartisan committee to compare names on mailing lists with names of actual living people in every jurisdiction. For example, there are 12% more registered voters in Los Angeles Country than there are people. ) If Dems. agree to these common sense protections, their motives are pure. May 28, 2020 at 12:51 pm Rosenblatt says: Like or Dislike: 3 5112% registered voters ONLY happens if you include INACTIVE voters too. May 28, 2020 at 1:03 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Like or Dislike: 8 6CORRECT, Sherlock! And since L.A. County is run by Democrats, how should we make sure those extra ballots don’t get mailed out “accidentally”? May 28, 2020 at 1:46 pm Caldude says: Like or Dislike: 4 5Crazy Corny and his QAnon rants…you crack me up. How bout we round up all the Reptilians and see what they think? May 28, 2020 at 12:25 pm Vox says: Hot debate. What do you think? 16 10As much as I detest social media, I detest President Trump all the more. I am rooting for social media because this is the camel’s nose under the tent for free speech and freedom of expression. Like so much of the President’s bluster, it’s probably mean and meaningless too. You see, he has the right of free speech, and when speech is free, some folks will say anything at all. That’s the price of freedom, being bombarded by nonsense. May 28, 2020 at 12:38 pm Jon says: Hot debate. What do you think? 17 8Free speech protects you from government censure, it doesn’t stop anyone from saying “Hey, that guy’s lying!” which is what happened here. May 28, 2020 at 12:47 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Like or Dislike: 11 7Can you even hear yourself? Free Speech in the First Amendment was intended to protect the little guy, not the powerful. Go read “the Smallest MInority”, a chilling book by a Trump hater. He catalogs the massive suppression of free speech in this country aimed at the small and voiceless. I thought I knew what was going on with college campus suppression and getting kicked off social media sites, including Insurance Journal, with shout downs on TV for people who don’t say what you want, and for exclusion from social groups. (The smallest minority is One person). I had no idea. The reason we have super broad Free Speech laws is to protect people like Black Lives Matter and Log Cabin Republicans and people who disagree with authorities over lock downs. There is NO way to police free speech without suppression because none of us are angels and can be trusted to be “fair”. Another brilliant insight of the founding fathers. May 28, 2020 at 12:53 pm Rosenblatt says: Like or Dislike: 11 7Once again, Craig leaves out an important distinction. “Free Speech in the First Amendment was intended to protect the little guy, not the powerful.” but failed to add it’s protecting people FROM THE GOVERNMENT CENSORING THEIR SPEECH. Twitter, Facebook and even IJ are not bound by the 1st Amendment since they’re not governmental entities. What Jon said was right. May 28, 2020 at 1:05 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Like or Dislike: 7 8Oh, clueless one. We live in a New Age, you may have noticed say 10 years ago, when much of our communication is over the internet. Let me explain it this way: if AT&T long ago decided to only allow phone calls to continue if people “spoke the truth” . . . would that have suppressed free speech? Get it? P.S. Your siding with people in Silicon Valley who are in favor of censorship reveals . . . you ain’t liberal. May 28, 2020 at 1:08 pm Jon says: Hot debate. What do you think? 12 8LOL You literally had no problem with AT&T doing that exact thing over the internet though, remember when your side decided to get rid of Net Neutrality? LOL you get to decide when it’s okay to censor and when it’s not is the problem. You get to decide when it’s okay to lie and when it’s not. You get to decide everything, the problem is, you’re a dishonest internet troll. We know you lie, over and over again, purely to try and win arguments. We know you’re willing to lie about the definition of a word to win an argument. The problem is, we’re not stupid, Craig. You’re going to continue to fail in your attempt to spread misinformation for that simple fact. Keep trying though LOL it’s fun to poke holes in your rhetoric, I just wish you were better at it, it’s too easy at this point. May 28, 2020 at 1:14 pm Cameron says: Like or Dislike: 1 1Oh you know a strong argument is about to follow when the post starts “Oh, clueless one.” Ha! Thanks for the laugh. May 28, 2020 at 1:15 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Like or Dislike: 5 7God, you do make me laugh. Net Neutrality!!!! Not only does that have exactly NOTHING to do with this topic, but all the hand-wringing from the Left about abuse of the poor by big bad internet companies if we didn’t have a Net Neutrality law has proven to be laughably nonsense after all. Access is broader and cheaper than ever before and no one is suffering “slow” wait times. Truly, Jon, do you have look in the mirror? May 28, 2020 at 1:23 pm Rosenblatt says: Like or Dislike: 10 3“if AT&T long ago decided to only allow phone calls to continue if people “spoke the truth” . . . would that have suppressed free speech?” NO. Why? Because the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. 1A protects the people from THE GOVERNMENT’S restriction of speech, not AT&T or Twitter or IJ. Did you file a lawsuit reporting IJ’s removal of your posts claiming your 1A rights were violated? Of course you didn’t, because it was not THE GOVERNMENT who did it, so your 1st amendment rights weren’t infringed. May 28, 2020 at 2:00 pm Jon says: Like or Dislike: 4 2Net neutrality: the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. We’re literally arguing about whether a social media platform should be allowed to control or comment on media posted on their site. Sorry you’re too stupid to see how the two are related LOL You’re lying again though, your claim that your ridiculous claims “have been proven to be laughably nonsense after all” are false. You have no evidence to back that up, take your lies elsewhere. Access is not broader, nor cheaper, and the internet services have been proven to throttle internet. publicknowledge.org/blog/two-years-later-broadband-providers-are-still-taking-advantage-of-an-internet-without-net-neutrality-protections/ How do you look in the mirror with how dishonest you are? May 28, 2020 at 1:23 pm Dave says: Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 20 2I read the posts here and have to laugh. Most of you miss the point here and what the article is all about. Bottom line Congress has carved out an exception to the libel laws laws for these Social Media companies. They reasoned that if they do not regulate what appears on their platform, they can’t be responsible for what appears on their platform. A rationale that I think most would agree with. But once the companies start regulating and modifying stuff that appears on their platforms, all bets are off, including this protection. It’s less about “free speech” and more about protection or lack thereof from libel laws. These Social media companies seem to want it both ways. Their being able to regulate and still maintaining that protection. Not gonna happen. They have to give up one. It’s up to them. May 28, 2020 at 1:25 pm B says: Like or Dislike: 1 0Nailed it May 28, 2020 at 1:54 pm Agency says: Like or Dislike: 3 1Dave, very well stated and spot on. May 28, 2020 at 2:08 pm John says: Like or Dislike: 2 1This is a common misunderstanding. The carve-out (Section 230 of the CDA) does not require a hands-off / neutral approach, but rather allows platforms room for content moderation (“Good Samaritan” protections) without becoming a publisher subject to libel suits. It allows Insurance Journal, for example, to take down this comment (or any other) *in good faith* without becoming the publisher of other third-party comments. Which seems like a good thing. May 28, 2020 at 2:20 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Like or Dislike: 2 2The fact you aren’t getting attacked by the Censorship left on this thread is revealing as to how lacking in thought they are. You just said exactly what I said several posts up! Either hands off or be open to lawsuits. May 28, 2020 at 2:24 pm John says: Like or Dislike: 1 1What Dave said. Not what the haters are saying. May 28, 2020 at 3:01 pm Jon says: Like or Dislike: 4 5Dave, your post is solid, but what it’s missing is that these laws were carved out over a decade ago. Understanding and use of the internet has changed incredibly in that time. While it should be noted that yes, Trump seized the opportunity of the internet in a fashion unlike any other president, there was no way of knowing ten years ago that the leader of the country could use a social media platform to literally spread lies about his position to millions of followers. These laws were carved out to protect platforms from idiots posting horrible things. No one expected the president to be one of those idiots. Again, your side is literally coming up with defenses to allow the president to lie and not get called out for it. May 28, 2020 at 4:52 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Like or Dislike: 0 0HA HA HA HA! Obama lied on the internet all day long. Google posted his lies. Facebook posted his lies. Nobody said a damn word. Nobody deleted any of it. Suddenly, you lefties just got out of church and are stunned . . . STUNNED! . . . to learn that politicians lie. Might want to pick up a copy of Machiavelli’s writings and get up to speed. May 28, 2020 at 3:14 pm Jon says: Like or Dislike: 4 2Dave, since you actually seem intelligent and not incendiary/dishonest like the other republican nutjobs around here, let’s actually discuss this change! He wants to clarify section 230 of the Communicatrions Decency act, to remove liability protection for digital communication services if they restrict content in any way that is “Deceptive, pretextual, inconsistent with the platform’s terms of service, or if it has been done without adequate notice or explanation without a meaningful opportunity to be heard. This bedrock piece of internet legislation allows service providers to engage in “good samaritan” blocking and screening of content that it deems to be lewd, harassing or just distasteful in some way, even if it’s constitutionally protected free speech. As far as legislation goes, the first subsection of 230 is concise and powerful: “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.” In the order, Trump also makes the argument that social media companies’ actions should not “infringe on protected speech,” which would be a massive change from Section 230 as it’s currently worded, which makes an explicit carve-out for restricting protected speech. This will, unequivocally, change the internet as a whole and make it worse. Straight-up neo-Nazi propaganda might be constitutionally protected speech, for example, but social media companies currently regularly remove such content. Right now, those people simply congregate on the platforms that do choose to leave such content up, and they do exist. If all protected speech was allowed on all platforms, it would get very ugly very quickly. Trump is throwing a hissy fit because he doesn’t want people to point out that he’s lying (Shock that Craig and Polar and Agent all seem to do the same thing on these boards, huh?) which would potentially destroy the internet. These forums, for example. Want to imagine what these boards might be like if the mods can’t remove posts because it could potentially count as “protected speech”? There are massive problems with this order, not least that the president is using the power of his office and the laws of the land to settle a clearly personal beef. The underlying research cited by the order is also a highly informal, unscientific, and politically targeted poll that the White House ran in May 2019. Cries of social media “censorship” targeting conservatives have been a popular talking point of Trump, prominent lawmakers like Ted Cruz, and right-wing media outlets for several years now, but there’s very little evidence to suggest that social media companies are targeting conservatives any more than they’re targeting anyone else, and there are many examples of platforms deleting content about, for example, police brutality. Most of this was stolen from a vice article, because ALL OF THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. It’s just idiots like Craig that keep their eyes shut and fingers in their ears. We know your side is dishonest, we know you’re lying, don’t pretend we’re stupid on top of that. May 28, 2020 at 4:42 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Like or Dislike: 0 2Except that people have been PROSECUTED for mail ballot fraud, idiot. I said that already, which proves what Trump said is true, idiot. Only an idiot would have to read something twice to get it, idiot. May 28, 2020 at 4:54 pm Jon says: Like or Dislike: 1 0What Trump Said: There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Facts First: While rare instances of voter fraud from mail-in ballots do occur, it is nowhere near a widespread problem in the US election system. Justin Levitt, a professor at the Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, reviewed US elections from 2000 to 2014 and found 31 incidents of voter fraud from that time, during which more than a billion votes were cast. Between 2000 and 2014, a professor from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles noted only 31 incidents of voter fraud. This has been reported in numerous outlets, so despite calling me an idiot, maybe you’re the one who can’t read, idiot? LOL die mad boomer, he lied, got caught, and you’re a liar trying to defend a liar. May 28, 2020 at 1:24 pm B says: Like or Dislike: 2 0Social Media has become a cesspool of lies and hate from all sides. There is not one positive aspect to it anymore and Twitter is absolute gutter trash. The problem with it is that we are addicted and use it to get breaking news and other current event news. Social Media as a whole needs a compete reboot because all it does now is fuel dissension and is going to be the end of our civilized nation/world. May 28, 2020 at 1:53 pm Agency says: Like or Dislike: 5 2If social media wants to shield themselves from user liability, they can’t be picking and choosing which content is allowed or the ones they want to feed in great numbers. In this case, they are becoming the editors and they should be liable. Nextdoor used to do this big time, they backed down as they were losing users and as they realized, this could come back to haunt them. May 28, 2020 at 2:15 pm Captain Planet says: Like or Dislike: 4 3Agency, All Twitter wants to do is present facts in face of the lies Tramp spills on a daily basis. They aren’t deleting his content, they are merely presenting indisputable evidence to the contrary of what this sociopath is barfing up on THEIR site. May 28, 2020 at 2:22 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Like or Dislike: 4 4Except it isn’t “indisputable”. In fact, it is demonstrably TRUE what Trump said. Just because some Leftist clown expresses an opinion doesn’t make it true, or what Trump said false. Mail in voting CAN and has led to abuse. No disputing that truthfully. May 28, 2020 at 2:54 pm Rosenblatt says: Like or Dislike: 4 2Craig: “it is demonstrably TRUE what Trump said…” Trump: “NO WAY … that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent.” DISAGREE. Substantially means ‘to a great or significant extent’ or ‘for the most part; essentially’. Craig: “Mail in voting CAN and has led to abuse” AGREE. There is POTENTIAL fraud with mail-in ballots, and yes – it happens as there is with any other type of voter fraud – but fraud is not ‘for the most part’ happening. It’s very rare. In trying to defend Trump, you had to shift the goalposts once again. May 28, 2020 at 4:39 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Like or Dislike: 0 3Clown Argument Number 738 from Rosenblatt. People have been PROSECUTED for mail ballot fraud. That makes Trump statement TRUE. Get it yet, Mr. Anti-free speech? May 28, 2020 at 4:55 pm Jon says: Like or Dislike: 1 031 people have been PROSECUTED between 2001 and 2014. Does that sound SUBSTANTIAL to you? Out of billions of votes cast? Idiot. May 28, 2020 at 2:43 pm Agency says: Like or Dislike: 3 2In this case, Twitter is making a judgement was is true or not, they are editing content. I think what the President is saying is, if they want to do this, then are going to be liable for the content on their website, not the users. So it’s fine, they do this, but the content because their liability instead of the users. As another reply pointing out, they can’t have it both ways. If you want the user liable, get out of the business of judging user content. May 28, 2020 at 2:52 pm Captain Planet says: Like or Dislike: 2 4No, what Tramp is saying is, “Waaaa, waaaa, waaaa, change my pants!” May 28, 2020 at 2:59 pm Jon says: Like or Dislike: 3 2What he’s saying is actually false though, that’s the problem. You’re defending his right to spout lies. You can argue the libel or the law, but in reality you cannot change the fact that defending Trump in this situation is literally defending his ability to lie and get away with it. May 28, 2020 at 2:24 pm curious says: Like or Dislike: 2 1Agency’s opinion seems to be that only numbers and profit matter, and that truth and morality can take a back seat. Not everybody agrees. May 28, 2020 at 2:48 pm John says: Like or Dislike: 1 1Agency is correct. May 28, 2020 at 2:12 pm Captain Planet says: Like or Dislike: 2 4By Tramp taking this approach, I am reminded of that scene from The Dark Knight when Joker asks the room full of mafia, “I mean, what happened, did your balls drop off, hmm?” May 28, 2020 at 2:17 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Like or Dislike: 3 3Um, what, huh? Do you have a point? May 28, 2020 at 2:16 pm Reserved says: Like or Dislike: 3 2Glad to see the president is keeping his eye on the ball during a devastating pandemic that has claimed 100k lives and counting by enacting an executive order regarding (check notes) …his twitter account so he can continue to (checks notes) …lie about voter fraud… May 28, 2020 at 3:20 pm Don says: Like or Dislike: 3 6President Trump uses Twitter because he has no other means of getting his message to the public. The main stream media-including Joe Scarborough-lie about President Trump everyday without repercussion.! They have called Trump everything but a human-it is time they got a taste of their own dishonest and knowingly false lies that they spout every day on TV. By all accounts the media is left wing biased and have no responsibility. When we start fact checking the main stream media maybe we can have a sense of fair play! May 28, 2020 at 3:34 pm Captain Planet says: Like or Dislike: 3 1No other means of getting his message to the public? He is on Fox and Furries constantly. NBC, CBS, and ABC air his press briefings literally EVERY TIME. He is on Sean Insannity often. He calls into El Rushbo. His Morbidly Obesity is everywhere, you can’t miss him. May 28, 2020 at 4:47 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Like or Dislike: 0 1Damn, Planet. Are you getting even dumber? NBC? CBS? ABC? HA HA HA HA HA. Even liberal sources judge the main stream media as intensely unfair to Trump in their coverage. The 1960s are calling, and they want their media talking points back. May 28, 2020 at 3:42 pm Jon says: Like or Dislike: 2 1LOL I think presidents somehow found a way prior to 2016 bro. Your man is just lying and mad he got called out for it. You’re still defending a liar. May 28, 2020 at 4:16 pm Bill says: Like or Dislike: 2 1Hey Don, it is more likely that you are just so brainwashed that you can’t even understand what is true and what is a lie. May 28, 2020 at 3:37 pm Lisa M says: Like or Dislike: 2 2Both Twitter and Facebook are censoring all political posts. Those mostly of conservatives. If you look at the sources that ‘fact-checked’ Trumps tweet, far left CCN was used. I posted a cartoon of Obama and Biden, which was taken down immediately. How do you fact check a cartoon? It is a matter of opinion – not facts. Both social media outlets have gone too far. May 28, 2020 at 4:05 pm Jon says: Like or Dislike: 2 2Lisa, where’s your evidence that Twitter and FAcebook are censoring political posts, mostly of conservatives? So, your argument is that they used a far left news source and that’s bad, with no comment at all on him lying? So it’s okay if he lies, is what you’re saying? Can you please clarify? Was it an offensive cartoon of Obama and Biden? Can you elaborate on what exactly was said in this “censored” cartoon? You’re discussing two different issues. Trump actually lied, but you’re trying to treat it as opinion. May 28, 2020 at 3:59 pm TX Agent says: Like or Dislike: 2 0Wonder if Tweeter’s GL, Professional Liability, excess towers are reviewing their policies as they now are insuring a publisher and not a platform? They didn’t condinplate this in their terms and rates. They depended on the Section (sorry forgot the number) that gave them impunity. Game has changed! May 28, 2020 at 4:45 pm Craig Winston Cornell says: Like or Dislike: 0 1Jack Dorsey is a fool. He picked the Mail Ballot issue to go after Trump, revealing his intense political bias, since he could have found other Trump tweets that were clearly and unequivocally false. Instead, he opened the door for Trump by picking this tweet, which is defensible simply from the fact that people have been prosecuted for mail ballot fraud in the past. Zuckerberg would like to shoot Dorsey about now. Zuckerberg knew not to incure the wrath of half the electorate for nothing other than brownie points with liberal buddies. May 28, 2020 at 4:58 pm Jon says: Like or Dislike: 1 0You keep using that word. cnn.com/2020/05/27/app-politics-section/donald-trump-mail-in-voter-fraud-fact-check/index.html How is 31 incidents in 14 years “substantial”? You’re again, not apparently familiar with the English language, stupid. You’re SO bad at this LOL Comment have been closed for this article.