Is the 6th floor museum losing its touch?

[Richard Smith]

The point is that the story was suppressed by the social media outlets due to political bias.

No it wasn't. The unproven allegations were made public, without a shred of evidence, for political reasons and to influence the election. If Guiliani had made the evidence available it might be another story, but he never did and still hasn't done so to date.

Do you want information controlled by some social media weirdoes who get to decide what is permissible for the public to consider?

What if I publish on social media, without a shred of evidence of course, the allegation that Richard Smith is a child molester and serial rapist. Would you defend my "right" to make such a story public?

How about let the public decide what has merit instead of some biased kooks who work for these companies?

What, you advocate mob justice and extrajudicial trial by public vote?

I wouldn't want any of the many fake, negative stories relating to Trump suppressed.

But what about fake stories about yourself?

You didn't have these same concerns when there were reports from the NY Times about Trump's taxes.  They never made the tax returns available to anyone for inspection of their accuracy.  If they were obtained, then it was done illegally because Trump never authorized disclosure as required by federal law.  But that story was widely reported and social media had no apparent issue with anyone reporting it there despite the lack of any verification.  They certainly did not suspend the NY Times' account as a result like they did with the NY Post.  That is clear censorship based upon political bias.

And you are wildly confused about the issue under discussion.  Of course no one wants false information reported about them on social media.  That is why individuals have recourse to libel actions.  Individuals can be sued for writing false information.  Social media platforms, however, are protected by federal law from such lawsuits because they are supposed to be platforms for the exchange of information (like a telephone company) and not publishers.  Imagine if your telephone carrier broke into your conversation to tell you that you couldn't discuss certain topics because they didn't like your opinion or that your telephone access would be suspended if you discussed the Hunter Biden story.  Social media platforms are acting like arbiters of the truth instead of platform providers.  If they decide to do so, then they should be subject to suit like anyone else.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

You didn't have these same concerns when there were reports from the NY Times about Trump's taxes.  They never made the tax returns available to anyone for inspection of their accuracy.  If they were obtained, then it was done illegally because Trump never authorized disclosure as required by federal law.  But that story was widely reported and social media had no apparent issue with anyone reporting it there despite the lack of any verification.  They certainly did not suspend the NY Times' account as a result like they did with the NY Post.  That is clear censorship based upon political bias.

And you are wildly confused about the issue under discussion.  Of course no one wants false information reported about them on social media.  That is why individuals have recourse to libel actions.  Individuals can be sued for writing false information.  Social media platforms, however, are protected by federal law from such lawsuits because they are supposed to be platforms for the exchange of information (like a telephone company) and not publishers.  Imagine if your telephone carrier broke into your conversation to tell you that you couldn't discuss certain topics because they didn't like your opinion or that your telephone access would be suspended if you discussed the Hunter Biden story.  Social media platforms are acting like arbiters of the truth instead of platform providers.  If they decide to do so, then they should be subject to suit like anyone else.

Every week, if not every day, at this site (and other JFK assassination forums/sites) conspiracy believers make allegations against all sorts of people and claim they either murdered JFK or were involved in the conspiracy to do so. And not just historic and dead people like an LBJ or an Hoover but ordinary people, some still alive, like Ruth Paine and Johnny Brewer.

The same people who say that social media was right to suppress unproven allegations against Biden (but no one else?) seem to be quite silent about allegations being posted here. If you're against disseminating unproven allegations then this site and every other assassination-related site would have to essentially shut down.

Shorter me: somebody is full of baloney.

[Richard Smith]

Every week, if not every day, at this site (and other JFK assassination forums/sites) conspiracy believers make allegations against all sorts of people and claim they either murdered JFK or were involved in the conspiracy to do so. And not just historic and dead people like an LBJ or an Hoover but ordinary people, some still alive, like Ruth Paine and Johnny Brewer.

The same people who say that social media was right to suppress unproven allegations against Biden (but no one else?) seem to be quite silent about allegations being posted here. If you're against disseminating unproven allegations then this site and every other assassination-related site would have to essentially shut down.

Shorter me: somebody is full of baloney.

That is an excellent point.  I wish I had made it!

[John Iacoletti]

Did social media allow stories to run about Trump's taxes that were illegally obtained and never provided for inspection?

Wrong again, “Richard”. The NY Times was given copies of the actual returns.

[John Iacoletti]

Individuals can be sued for writing false information.

Who would they sue? Somebody pretending to be named “Richard Smith”?

Twitter is not a public forum. You have to abide by their terms of service. Just like Duncan can kick your ass off here if you break his rules.

[Richard Smith]

There is no confirmation that the NY Times was ever given Trump's actual tax returns.  That is another falsehood.  They claimed to have "data" from the tax returns but have never confirmed the source of such data.  Nor did they make the "data" available to anyone else for confirmation.  The story was reported by every liberal media outlet without any independent verification of the accuracy of its content because they had no access to the underlying source material or even know the source. They just reported the information as fact without verification.   In direct contrast to how they handled the Hunter Biden story which we now know is the source of a federal investigation.

[Richard Smith]

The ignorance of the contrarians is astounding.  We are told that Twitter is a "not a public forum" and therefore can do as they please.  Of course that has nothing to do with the issue.  Social media platforms are protected by federal law (section 230) from being legally responsible for what others say because they are intended to operate as platform providers for users.  Like your telephone service. They are given this protection to promote free speech because they are not supposed to act as publishers that control the content.  They can certainly decide to do so but then they should surrender the protections of the federal law that have been afforded to them.  But they want to have it both ways.  Determining content like a publisher and being free from any legal liability for the content.   If Twitter or Facebook want to be arbiters of content instead of platform providers, then they can do that.  But then they should forfeit the protections of the law.

[Andrew Mason]

The ignorance of the contrarians is astounding.  We are told that Twitter is a "not a public forum" and therefore can do as they please.  Of course that has nothing to do with the issue.  Social media platforms are protected by federal law (section 230) from being legally responsible for what others say because they are intended to operate as platform providers for users.  Like your telephone service. They are given this protection to promote free speech because they are not supposed to act as publishers that control the content.  They can certainly decide to do so but then they should surrender the protections of the federal law that have been afforded to them.  But they want to have it both ways.  Determining content like a publisher and being free from any legal liability for the content.   If Twitter or Facebook want to be arbiters of content instead of platform providers, then they can do that.  But then they should forfeit the protections of the law.

Why can't they have it both ways?  In fact Chapter 47 US Code, the Communications Decency Act, s. 230(c) does just that. It says:

230(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
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.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

One could argue that the "safe harbour" privilege was granted (in subsection 230(c)(1)) on the understanding that providers will (under (2)) control harmful content by placing good-faith restrictions on content.   A political bias is not a "good faith" reason for restricting content.  But preventing users from spreading allegations created by Russian trolls (in order to get a political result and undermine U.S. democracy) is.