Bottom line, Trump was communicating with the citizenry and screwing up their narrative. Zuckerberg allowed it because of the tremendous following Trump has.
When Zuckerberg was told to take Trump off, he did it. He isn't in charge.
"84. Federal actors are also sharing the fruits of Facebook censorship of Plaintiff and Members of the Class. These benefits include (without limitation):
ο· The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the White House have used Defendants to inexpensively and effectively promote their directives, messages, and policies concerning COVID-19; and suppress contradictory medical views and content.
ο· suppression of information suggesting or showing flaws in CDC and/or other federal governmental policy
ο· increasing the number of visitors to the CDCβs website;
ο· boosting the CDCβs highly questionable reputation as reliable and authoritative in
its factual and policy determinations;
ο· creating a false impression of unequivocal support in the scientific community for the CDC and other governmental directives;
ο· and suppression of opinions and information that might lead people to take actions contrary to the governmentβs preferences.
"60. Below are just some examples of Democrat legislators threatening new regulations, antitrust breakup, and removal of Section 230 immunity for Defendants and other social media platforms if Facebook did not censor views and content with which these Members of Congress disagreed, including the views and content of Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:
ο· βBut I do think that for the privilege of 230, there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it. And it is not out of the question that that could be removed.β (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, April 12, 2019);
ο· βThe idea that itβs a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms.β (Joe Biden/Interview in December of 2019 and published January 2020);
"65. The message conveyed by Democrat legislators to Defendants was clear: use the authority of Section 230 to ban Plaintiff and those Putative Class Members who posted content and views contrary to these legislators preferred points of view or lose the competitive protections of Section 230 and tens of billions of dollars of market share altogether.
excellent - even the oversight board said the trump deplatforming was bogus!
"44. Facebookβs own Oversight Board concluded that the January 21 indefinite deplatforming of President Trump lacked any basis in its existing, consistently applied community standards. See Facebook Oversight Board, Case decision 2021-001-FB-FBR."
"It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored. In applying this penalty, Facebook did not follow a clear, published procedure. βIndefiniteβ suspensions are not described in the companyβs content policies. Facebookβs normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account. It is Facebookβs role to create necessary and proportionate penalties that respond to severe violations of its content policies. The Boardβs role is to ensure that Facebookβs rules and processes are consistent with its content policies, its values and its human rights commitments."
"47. Defendant Zuckerberg was personally involved in, and personally responsible for the decision to deplatform President Trump. On the morning of January 7, 2021, Zuckerberg informed high-ranking Facebook officers of his decision that Plaintiffβs Facebook account should be suspended indefinitely.
Watching an aged, experienced, wise Patriot legally rip a new butthole in an arrogant, snotty silicon valley communist would cause me to mark a family holiday for years to come.
There is enough fine print on these social media services to choke a horse. Thier lawyers are constantly changing the terms of service to protect themselves from lawsuits. This should be interesting.
Look, Zuck is cancer fine, and he needs to be investigated for Anti-monopoly practices and a host of other things.
But in this specific case, Trump is in the wrong. You cannot force a private business to serve you if they do not want to, and the president of suing a private business for not serving you is awful. Do you really want the government or the courts forcing private business to serve people they choose not to?
You are wrong here. Facebook and Twitter et al are publicly traded companies and they were set up as PLATFORMS, to be the modern "public square". This is why they have protections under 230 so they cannot be liable for what people say providing it is legal.
They HAVE to allow all voices to be heard if it's legal, and yet there are clearly illegal tweets on there which they don't remove while silencing the voices of of perfectly legal speech. Not just politics of course, they censored Doctors talking about Ivermectin or vaccine damage.
While publishers can of course decide what they allow to be published they haven't yet been designated so, and are still under 'platform' 230 protection. So they can be sued under that designation.
There is also the fact that they conspired with other to silence people and that I think would come under racketeering/RICO.
Phone companies cannot just cut off your service if they don't like your conversations or who you call even though they too are private companies.
Anyone who has stock in Facebook and Twitter should also sue for damaging their stock values imo.
Again, being it is irrelevant to their status as a private company. Would you except that argument if the left government tried to tell oil companies who they could and could not sell to, because they are publicly traded companies?
The fact that these companies are too big is indeed a problem and should be addressed under anti-trust and antimonopoly rules but it is irrelevant to their authority and rights as a private company.
Has a private company in America they have rules which they are public about and open with and if you break them they are removed.
The government should not be dictating to private companies who they can and cannot serve. you donβt get to only have conservative values when it is convenient and affects the left.
You are completely missing the point. They are designated as PLATFORMS, the 'Public Square' that is why they have protections under Section 230 so unlike publishers they are not liable for what anyone says on their platform. But that means they must allow all voices to be heard if it is legal speech.
If they want to be a publisher then and only then could they silence who they want. and be legally liable for whatever is published. Until that day comes they are a platform and must allow all voices to be heard. You don't get to pick and choose who speaks in the public town square. Everybody has a voice, it's up to people whether they want to listen to it.
When you are conspiring against the President of The United States to stop him conversing with the citizens then that is a HUGE problem. (If it turns out Zuckerberg and Dorsey et al take their orders from China to silence the President then you have a whole other can of worms and an Act of War.)
Until they get re-designated as a Publisher and lose their protection under section 230, then they can be sued for violating their original and existing Platform designation.
βMerely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints. Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor."
That's a bit disingenuous, because of course they are not being transformed into "state entities" by being held to Section 230. The point, which you keep ducking, is that they got Section 230 protection from any liability ONLY because they give a voice to EVERYONE as a modern day public square. If it is legal, they can speak it.
If they are allowing everyone to speak they cannot be held liable for what people are saying, that is down to the individual who says something which may be libelous etc. If however they start to edit content and only publish what they see fit, they no longer have the protections under Section 230 because they are no longer a PLATFORM allowing everyone to speak without favor. They have become a PUBLISHER and are liable for everything they allow to be published.
As they are still have protection under Section 230 they have violated that.
Kavanaugh clearly doesn't know what he is talking about here if he is trying to conflate a platform, with all it's protections, now acting like a publisher which doesn't have protections, and pretending that would make them "state entities".
Do you work for Facebook or Twitter as you seem awfully concerned about letting them have their cake while eating it.
They are either a PUBLISHER or a PLATFORM. They cannot get the protection under one banner while simultaneously acting like the other.
To further add, they used to say "build your own platform if you don't like it".
Andrew Torba did and they did everything to collude and conspire to make sure he couldn't succeed. Banning the app from the app stores, cancelling his PayPal and even his personal credit cards, de-listing the site in Google - even text messages with Gab in the url often get removed on send.
Not to mention all the defamation that it is an "alt right" platform so if you dare leave Twitter and go there instead you are obviously a Nazi and will be treated as such.
It's fucking disgusting. This is racketeering never mind violating Section 230.
If you can actually prove they are operating as an agent of the government, then you might have a weak argument. But you canβt base a lawsuit on an undemonstrated conspiracy theory.
The second they start curating content and not just being a platform they lose all of their 230 protections. We could have had the same argument about the railroads but we busted those trusts and we are going to bust these ones too.
If Trumpβs team can prove US government and big tech colluding with each other, then companies like Facebook arenβt private anymore. For example, it was said in the press conference they have proof of Facebook exchanging their own trade secrets with the government, such as the redacted portions of Fauci emails.
There is cake shop in Portland that says different. Remember they got sued several times for not baking cakes for gay weddings. I think they are a private business.
Yes, and everyone on the right and every honest conservative was out raged by the left trying to force a private industry Who they could and could not serve.
And so they should have been.
But now suddenly some people here are in favor of the government imposing itβs political will on private industry because itβs no longer about gays but affects Trump?
Free speech is in the US Constitution. I'm still looking for the part that mentions penis cakes. I get it, we don't want the government telling every private business what they can and can not do. However, the FB platform is really quite public. If Trump violated their so called standards, they have a serious amount of explaining to do as to why they allow so many terrorists groups to still post. This was a political move, not a private business decision over made up rules violations. They colluded with the Democrat Party to remove the voice of a competitor. Remember, there is also a Zuckerberg connection to the election itself.
Yes, free-speech is in the constitution. why donβt you go and read exactly what the constitution has to say about free speech. then please comment here, and be specific, on exactly where it says you can dictate the actions of a private entity, or compel a private entity to give specific individuals a voice.
I would appreciate it if you would cite the specific clause from the constitution, since you referenced it.
I know exactly what the lawsuit is about having read it, and it has no basis whatsoever in reality. By the way, please tell me how old my account is and be specific.
yeah well zuckerberg didn't get where he got by eating pizza rolls and jerking off into table napkins all through college. he also had some huge govt' $$$ backing his weasel ass.
Almost...they are all owned by the same people who "bought" Israel and allowed their fellow Jooos to be slaughtered...probably to give history something to talk about besides the 66MILLION Christians that died not too long before..at the behest of the same people. China is just a puppet/player on the board game we've been part of for centuries.
China is a convenient base of operations for the Illuminati Clowns and Butt Boys. N. Korea was - perhaps still is - a convenient Boogey Man operation run by China's Puppet masters.
There was a string of posts on 8chan about her being linked to Chinese intelligence, and organ harvesting. This was early in Trumps first term, I would love to see them again.
Bottom line, Trump was communicating with the citizenry and screwing up their narrative. Zuckerberg allowed it because of the tremendous following Trump has.
When Zuckerberg was told to take Trump off, he did it. He isn't in charge.
Yup. Clown Asset for the cabal.
Correct. And all roads lead to CIA being comped to the CCP. I think GHWB signed them over largely if not completely.
Remember - CCP = New World Order Home Base.
Fakebook DOB 04FEB2004 = LifeLog "RIP" 04FEB2004
Exactamundo!
As many nooyorkas.
Patriots are in charge. Always have been.
We are watching a movie
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.595800/gov.uscourts.flsd.595800.1.0_3.pdf
"84. Federal actors are also sharing the fruits of Facebook censorship of Plaintiff and Members of the Class. These benefits include (without limitation): ο· The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the White House have used Defendants to inexpensively and effectively promote their directives, messages, and policies concerning COVID-19; and suppress contradictory medical views and content. ο· suppression of information suggesting or showing flaws in CDC and/or other federal governmental policy ο· increasing the number of visitors to the CDCβs website; ο· boosting the CDCβs highly questionable reputation as reliable and authoritative in its factual and policy determinations; ο· creating a false impression of unequivocal support in the scientific community for the CDC and other governmental directives; ο· and suppression of opinions and information that might lead people to take actions contrary to the governmentβs preferences.
"60. Below are just some examples of Democrat legislators threatening new regulations, antitrust breakup, and removal of Section 230 immunity for Defendants and other social media platforms if Facebook did not censor views and content with which these Members of Congress disagreed, including the views and content of Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members: ο· βBut I do think that for the privilege of 230, there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it. And it is not out of the question that that could be removed.β (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, April 12, 2019); ο· βThe idea that itβs a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms.β (Joe Biden/Interview in December of 2019 and published January 2020);
"65. The message conveyed by Democrat legislators to Defendants was clear: use the authority of Section 230 to ban Plaintiff and those Putative Class Members who posted content and views contrary to these legislators preferred points of view or lose the competitive protections of Section 230 and tens of billions of dollars of market share altogether.
excellent - even the oversight board said the trump deplatforming was bogus! "44. Facebookβs own Oversight Board concluded that the January 21 indefinite deplatforming of President Trump lacked any basis in its existing, consistently applied community standards. See Facebook Oversight Board, Case decision 2021-001-FB-FBR."
oversight board statement
"It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored. In applying this penalty, Facebook did not follow a clear, published procedure. βIndefiniteβ suspensions are not described in the companyβs content policies. Facebookβs normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account. It is Facebookβs role to create necessary and proportionate penalties that respond to severe violations of its content policies. The Boardβs role is to ensure that Facebookβs rules and processes are consistent with its content policies, its values and its human rights commitments."
"47. Defendant Zuckerberg was personally involved in, and personally responsible for the decision to deplatform President Trump. On the morning of January 7, 2021, Zuckerberg informed high-ranking Facebook officers of his decision that Plaintiffβs Facebook account should be suspended indefinitely.
No you're not an expert. That's just part of some boilerplate legal phrasing. Pretty common in legalese.
Zuck the Cuck canβt stump the Trump
Facebook controls virtual reality, very dangerous. Facebook must be scattered to the winds, they must not survive.
Watching an aged, experienced, wise Patriot legally rip a new butthole in an arrogant, snotty silicon valley communist would cause me to mark a family holiday for years to come.
So not Google and YouTube?
yes they are all separate.......
Theyre all most likely gonna be seperate cases.
Now do MSM and all late night βtalking headsβ
Is the suit against Dorsey separate?
There is enough fine print on these social media services to choke a horse. Thier lawyers are constantly changing the terms of service to protect themselves from lawsuits. This should be interesting.
Sucker shall move to China with his CCP wife/handler.
Hmm jury requested...now that can either go really good, or really bad. But I understand the want, esp if itβs held in Florida.
Look, Zuck is cancer fine, and he needs to be investigated for Anti-monopoly practices and a host of other things.
But in this specific case, Trump is in the wrong. You cannot force a private business to serve you if they do not want to, and the president of suing a private business for not serving you is awful. Do you really want the government or the courts forcing private business to serve people they choose not to?
You are wrong here. Facebook and Twitter et al are publicly traded companies and they were set up as PLATFORMS, to be the modern "public square". This is why they have protections under 230 so they cannot be liable for what people say providing it is legal.
They HAVE to allow all voices to be heard if it's legal, and yet there are clearly illegal tweets on there which they don't remove while silencing the voices of of perfectly legal speech. Not just politics of course, they censored Doctors talking about Ivermectin or vaccine damage.
While publishers can of course decide what they allow to be published they haven't yet been designated so, and are still under 'platform' 230 protection. So they can be sued under that designation.
There is also the fact that they conspired with other to silence people and that I think would come under racketeering/RICO.
Phone companies cannot just cut off your service if they don't like your conversations or who you call even though they too are private companies.
Anyone who has stock in Facebook and Twitter should also sue for damaging their stock values imo.
Again, being it is irrelevant to their status as a private company. Would you except that argument if the left government tried to tell oil companies who they could and could not sell to, because they are publicly traded companies?
The fact that these companies are too big is indeed a problem and should be addressed under anti-trust and antimonopoly rules but it is irrelevant to their authority and rights as a private company.
Has a private company in America they have rules which they are public about and open with and if you break them they are removed.
The government should not be dictating to private companies who they can and cannot serve. you donβt get to only have conservative values when it is convenient and affects the left.
You are completely missing the point. They are designated as PLATFORMS, the 'Public Square' that is why they have protections under Section 230 so unlike publishers they are not liable for what anyone says on their platform. But that means they must allow all voices to be heard if it is legal speech.
If they want to be a publisher then and only then could they silence who they want. and be legally liable for whatever is published. Until that day comes they are a platform and must allow all voices to be heard. You don't get to pick and choose who speaks in the public town square. Everybody has a voice, it's up to people whether they want to listen to it.
When you are conspiring against the President of The United States to stop him conversing with the citizens then that is a HUGE problem. (If it turns out Zuckerberg and Dorsey et al take their orders from China to silence the President then you have a whole other can of worms and an Act of War.)
Until they get re-designated as a Publisher and lose their protection under section 230, then they can be sued for violating their original and existing Platform designation.
This is correct.
Section 230 Protects Platform not publishers.
When Trump wins this case, Section 230 is over.
βMerely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints. Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor."
SCOTUS Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Trump appointee.
That's a bit disingenuous, because of course they are not being transformed into "state entities" by being held to Section 230. The point, which you keep ducking, is that they got Section 230 protection from any liability ONLY because they give a voice to EVERYONE as a modern day public square. If it is legal, they can speak it.
If they are allowing everyone to speak they cannot be held liable for what people are saying, that is down to the individual who says something which may be libelous etc. If however they start to edit content and only publish what they see fit, they no longer have the protections under Section 230 because they are no longer a PLATFORM allowing everyone to speak without favor. They have become a PUBLISHER and are liable for everything they allow to be published.
As they are still have protection under Section 230 they have violated that.
Kavanaugh clearly doesn't know what he is talking about here if he is trying to conflate a platform, with all it's protections, now acting like a publisher which doesn't have protections, and pretending that would make them "state entities".
Do you work for Facebook or Twitter as you seem awfully concerned about letting them have their cake while eating it.
They are either a PUBLISHER or a PLATFORM. They cannot get the protection under one banner while simultaneously acting like the other.
To further add, they used to say "build your own platform if you don't like it".
Andrew Torba did and they did everything to collude and conspire to make sure he couldn't succeed. Banning the app from the app stores, cancelling his PayPal and even his personal credit cards, de-listing the site in Google - even text messages with Gab in the url often get removed on send.
Not to mention all the defamation that it is an "alt right" platform so if you dare leave Twitter and go there instead you are obviously a Nazi and will be treated as such.
It's fucking disgusting. This is racketeering never mind violating Section 230.
Can governments dictate to private companies who they can and cannot censor?
The point is that facebook is operating as an agent for the government. Your private company argument is not relevant.
If you can actually prove they are operating as an agent of the government, then you might have a weak argument. But you canβt base a lawsuit on an undemonstrated conspiracy theory.
The second they start curating content and not just being a platform they lose all of their 230 protections. We could have had the same argument about the railroads but we busted those trusts and we are going to bust these ones too.
If Trumpβs team can prove US government and big tech colluding with each other, then companies like Facebook arenβt private anymore. For example, it was said in the press conference they have proof of Facebook exchanging their own trade secrets with the government, such as the redacted portions of Fauci emails.
There is cake shop in Portland that says different. Remember they got sued several times for not baking cakes for gay weddings. I think they are a private business.
The Cake Shop is a private business who make their own decisions.
Face Book is a private business colluding with government to spread propaganda.
Not the same.
Yes, and everyone on the right and every honest conservative was out raged by the left trying to force a private industry Who they could and could not serve.
And so they should have been. But now suddenly some people here are in favor of the government imposing itβs political will on private industry because itβs no longer about gays but affects Trump?
Free speech is in the US Constitution. I'm still looking for the part that mentions penis cakes. I get it, we don't want the government telling every private business what they can and can not do. However, the FB platform is really quite public. If Trump violated their so called standards, they have a serious amount of explaining to do as to why they allow so many terrorists groups to still post. This was a political move, not a private business decision over made up rules violations. They colluded with the Democrat Party to remove the voice of a competitor. Remember, there is also a Zuckerberg connection to the election itself.
Yes, free-speech is in the constitution. why donβt you go and read exactly what the constitution has to say about free speech. then please comment here, and be specific, on exactly where it says you can dictate the actions of a private entity, or compel a private entity to give specific individuals a voice.
I would appreciate it if you would cite the specific clause from the constitution, since you referenced it.
No disagreement there, but then go after them for anti-trust and antimonopoly violations.
That is irrelevant to their rights as a private industry in the United States.
If they were launched with government/military funding and take orders from people inside the government, were they ever really private?
Can you prove any of that in court? Can Trump?
I believe they would not be making the accusation if they could not prove it.
Really? Seriously?
Because Trump and his people have made an awful lot of accusations, many of them in court, and rarely if ever can prove any of them.
Here we go with the new account shills from the Never-Trump GOP and their βmuh itβs a private businessβ argument π€£
You have zero clue what this lawsuit is about! Your responses in multiple threads proves it.
I know exactly what the lawsuit is about having read it, and it has no basis whatsoever in reality. By the way, please tell me how old my account is and be specific.
yeah well zuckerberg didn't get where he got by eating pizza rolls and jerking off into table napkins all through college. he also had some huge govt' $$$ backing his weasel ass.
So is our government, apparently.
Almost...they are all owned by the same people who "bought" Israel and allowed their fellow Jooos to be slaughtered...probably to give history something to talk about besides the 66MILLION Christians that died not too long before..at the behest of the same people. China is just a puppet/player on the board game we've been part of for centuries.
And China's leadership is owned by the DS/cabal ever since Kissinger "opened" China up in the 1970's.
Rockefellers were deeply involved with China.
Yup. They sure were.
China is a convenient base of operations for the Illuminati Clowns and Butt Boys. N. Korea was - perhaps still is - a convenient Boogey Man operation run by China's Puppet masters.
There was a string of posts on 8chan about her being linked to Chinese intelligence, and organ harvesting. This was early in Trumps first term, I would love to see them again.
DARPA announced that their Lifelog project was ending. That very same day, FB was created.
So it's pretty obvious that the federal government created FB, or at least took in FB to replace the Lifelog project to get the same results.
Why is Pavel Durov of telegram there?