Is the 6th floor museum losing its touch?

[Andrew Mason]

That's the single greatest whopper in the history of the forum!  So the NY Times releasing Trump's alleged tax information on the day before the first debate was not designed to influence the election?  HA HA HA.  Unreal.  Hunter is under an actual federal investigation.  And you think this story should have been covered up because it could have influenced the election by, for example, demonstrating that the Biden family was corrupt and on the payroll of several foreign governments.

The difference is that the public has a right to know about a candidate for president's tax returns and the fact that he paid no taxes. Besides, if the information was incorrect Trump could have produced his tax returns.

The public does not have a right to know if a candidate's adult son is being investigated.  They only have a right to know if and when charges are laid. This is well established DOJ policy.  This is particularly sensitive when the allegations being investigated originated from a political adversary.

I guess the American public can't be trusted to make such decisions for themselves.  Big Brother needs to decide for them what they need to know.

Social media is no more "big brother" in the U.S. than any responsible news publisher such as the NYTimes, Washington Post, NBC, or CBS. [the non-inclusion of Fox News is intentional].

[Richard Smith]

The difference is that the public has a right to know about a candidate for president's tax returns and the fact that he paid no taxes. Besides, if the information was incorrect Trump could have produced his tax returns.

The public does not have a right to know if a candidate's adult son is being investigated.  They only have a right to know if and when charges are laid. This is well established DOJ policy.  This is particularly sensitive when the allegations being investigated originated from a political adversary.
Social media is no more "big brother" in the U.S. than any responsible news publisher such as the NYTimes, Washington Post, NBC, or CBS. [the non-inclusion of Fox News is intentional].

Wow.  The public doesn't have the right to know certain information?  Wow.  That is right out of the Stalinist playbook.  You and social media should determine what information the public should or shouldn't be allowed to know?  Very scary.  That exemplifies the biased, elitist culture.  There is a clear bias in the media against Trump.  There are any number of examples.  We were told his Supreme Court nominees were going to overturn Obama Care.  False.  That they were going to side with him to overturn the election results.  False.  That the post office was not going to deliver mail in ballots.  False.  That there would be widespread violence if Trump lost the election.  False.  That Trump colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election.  False.  That the Hunter Biden story was the product of "Russian disinformation."  False. 

[Richard Smith]

Ending a four year long drama of lies by Trump about his tax returns by saying that he only paid $750 in taxes per year is the same as accusing, without a shred of evidence, an entire family of being corrupt and on the payroll of foreign governments ?

Hunter is under an actual federal investigation. 

So what? That doesn't make him guilty. People are being investigated all the time and not all of them are charged with a crime. In Hunter's case it seems the investigation has been going on for 2 years and has only recently shifted to his taxes after they couldn't find anything else on him. The mere fact that he hasn't been arrested or charged (like for instance Steve Bannon was) should tell you something.

I guess the American public can't be trusted to make such decisions for themselves.

You guessed correctly. The American public are not prosecutors and are in no position to make any kind of determination based only on media reports. Perhaps the best indicator on just how bad some Americans are in making decisions is the fact that 74 million people voted for Trump. If any of those people had even a little bit common sense there would be a lot less Trump followers. Point in case; you are part of the American public and I would be scared to death if you were trusted to make any kind of decision.

Look at what happened to Smartmatic and Dominion. Now that they have threatend with massive law suits Fox News and Newsmax instantly admitted that there was no evidence whatsoever for the allegations against the two companies they have been airing for months. Yet, despite that there are still millions of idiots who continue to believe the bogus stories.

So many words.  Do you have any sort of life?  You seem to be on here day and night.  A media covered up FBI report today indicated that Iranian trolls were responsible for death threats against elections officials in Georgia that were falsely attributed to Trump supporters.  Here we are told by Martin/Roger that Americans can't be trusted to come to conclusions.  We are simply too dumb and need a class of nut jobs to lead us.  Wow.  That is outright 1984 nonsense.  The least intelligent and craziest shall lead us.

[Bill Chapman]

So many words.  Do you have any sort of life?  You seem to be on here day and night.

Weidmann spends far too much time with his best friends Tom, Jack and Jim. Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink.

[Andrew Mason]

Wow.  The public doesn't have the right to know certain information?  Wow.  That is right out of the Stalinist playbook.  You and social media should determine what information the public should or shouldn't be allowed to know?  Very scary.

So if your next-door neighbour who has a grudge against you reports to the police that you are running a pedophile ring in your basement and he saw you drinking the blood of babies, you would be ok with Twitter letting him broadcast that you are being investigated by police for that?

That exemplifies the biased, elitist culture.  There is a clear bias in the media against Trump.  There are any number of examples.  We were told his Supreme Court nominees were going to overturn Obama Care.  False.

First of all, they just expressed concern that SCOTUS would overturn the ACA based on their past record and the replacement of Justice Ginsberg with Justice Coney-Barrett.  Second, it is not yet decided so we don't know the result.

That they were going to side with him to overturn the election results.  False.

Again, concerns were expressed. Nothing wrong with that.

That the post office was not going to deliver mail in ballots.  False.

So you know as a fact that all mail-in ballots were delivered on time?  They were not. And in Georgia and Arizona late ballots are not counted.

That there would be widespread violence if Trump lost the election.  False. 

Trump won the election in a landslide, according to Trump.  So the violence that may occur will be after the inauguration of Biden.

That Trump colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election.  False.

So Trump predicting the release of information from the Russian hacked DNC server was blind luck? The only reason we do not know more about Trump's connections to the Russians is because Trump and his cronies, such as Paul Manafort, obstructed Mueller's investigation. 

That the Hunter Biden story was the product of "Russian disinformation."  False.

Oh, they let you analyse the laptop that Rudy Giuliani got from the Russians that supposedly contain the smoking gun emails?

[John Iacoletti]

Wow.  The public doesn't have the right to know certain information?

Rudy’s fabricated tabloid gossip isn’t “information” any more than “Richard Smith’s” fabricated name is.

[Richard Smith]

So if your next-door neighbour who has a grudge against you reports to the police that you are running a pedophile ring in your basement and he saw you drinking the blood of babies, you would be ok with Twitter letting him broadcast that you are being investigated by police for that?

First of all, they just expressed concern that SCOTUS would overturn the ACA based on their past record and the replacement of Justice Ginsberg with Justice Coney-Barrett.  Second, it is not yet decided so we don't know the result.Again, concerns were expressed. Nothing wrong with that.So you know as a fact that all mail-in ballots were delivered on time?  They were not. And in Georgia and Arizona late ballots are not counted.Trump won the election in a landslide, according to Trump.  So the violence that may occur will be after the inauguration of Biden.So Trump predicting the release of information from the Russian hacked DNC server was blind luck? The only reason we do not know more about Trump's connections to the Russians is because Trump and his cronies, such as Paul Manafort, obstructed Mueller's investigation.  Oh, they let you analyse the laptop that Rudy Giuliani got from the Russians that supposedly contain the smoking gun emails?

Again, no one wants anything negative reported about them on social media or any other source.  Particularly if it is false.
That is not the issue.  Here is the actual point.  If a newspaper, TV station, or book publisher makes a false report about someone, that person has recourse to a lawsuit against them for libel or defamation.  But social media platforms are protected under federal law from such suits because they are not supposed to operate as publishers but as platform providers for others to provide content.  Like your telephone company. Can you understand the difference?  A newspaper or TV station decides what story they wish to run.  As a result, they are responsible for the content.  A social media platform or telephone service does not supply the content.  Customers or users do so.

A social media platform is protected because they are not supposed to be involved in content.  And to facilitate the use of these platforms, they are not held legally responsible for what others say on those platforms. The user can be sued because they are the "publisher" or content provider of the story - not the social media provider.  So here is the point.  If social media providers decide not to act just as platform providers but as arbiters of content, then they become more like content providers.  In which case, they should become subject to liability for defamatory conduct.  They want to have it both ways, however.  They want to be free from liability but also to decide what content is worthy for inclusion and what is not.  They have every right to make those rules for their users.  But if they decide to become involved in content (e.g. deciding which stories are permissible and which are not to be discussed), they should forfeit the protections of federal law from lawsuits.

[Andrew Mason]

Again, no one wants anything negative reported about them on social media or any other source.  Particularly if it is false.
That is not the issue.  Here is the actual point.  If a newspaper, TV station, or book publisher makes a false report about someone, that person has recourse to a lawsuit against them for libel or defamation.  But social media platforms are protected under federal law from such suits because they are not supposed to operate as publishers but as platform providers for others to provide content.  Like your telephone company. Can you understand the difference?  A newspaper or TV station decides what story they wish to run.  As a result, they are responsible for the content.  A social media platform or telephone service does not supply the content.  Customers or users do so.

A social media platform is protected because they are not supposed to be involved in content.  And to facilitate the use of these platforms, they are not held legally responsible for what others say on those platforms. The user can be sued because they are the "publisher" or content provider of the story - not the social media provider.  So here is the point.  If social media providers decide not to act just as platform providers but as arbiters of content, then they become more like content providers.  In which case, they should become subject to liability for defamatory conduct.  They want to have it both ways, however.  They want to be free from liability but also to decide what content is worthy for inclusion and what is not.  They have every right to make those rules for their users.  But if they decide to become involved in content (e.g. deciding which stories are permissible and which are not to be discussed), they should forfeit the protections of federal law from lawsuits.

That is one perspective - one shared by Trump. But it is not what was intended by Congress.  Congress specifically allowed exercise of good-faith control over content. The trade off for free flow of ideas by anonymous posts is the right of hosts to exercise control of content that they consider objectionable/harmful.