Audioburst Search

Trump takes on twitter, social media with executive order


President signed an executive order stripping big tech of its immunity I'm gonna explain this to you as best that I can and I can explain it I just want to do this is to singly as possible basically boils down to this big media companies like Facebook Twitter I would soon you too Google some of these they have immunity from the lawsuit and you say well how can this be an embarrassing we have it is me well the reason is is because they're supposed be acting as a platform but if you act as a publisher like a newspaper or a radio station near talk show or television whatever if you do Vance then you're not immune from lawsuits because what you're doing now is actively participating the content and you're responsible for the content when you do that so if your platform and you say okay we have a platform and anybody can go in post whatever they want to we can't possibly police all of this stuff well that's what Congress said years ago we're going to carve out an exemption for you because you can't possibly police all the stuff we want a free flow of ideas and we're not gonna have a free flow of ideas if a platform turns into a publisher in other words of a platform is an editor of content there we're not gonna have a free flow of ideas so it was initially intended to protect you and have your freedom of speech protected but what it's turned into is been a shield for these big companies like Twitter and Facebook to be able to do exactly what they want supposed to do which is edit your content and get away with it so the president just stripped him of that today and it's sort of complicated because it sort of goes to the FCC but it's got the justice department element in there too and this is about civil lawsuits so let's just say I put up something about Johnny beat today and I say the Johnny B. as a whatever I mean I mean the same thing goes into the van Gogh listed was that you're trying to be was I did that one time a boy just coming in reverberated around of people came back you said so I said I that was used as examples of Joe so I'm I'm whatever I say about Johnny bean ends up not being true now if I put that on Twitter leading sue not only me being sued Twitter for allowing it up there because they have crossed the line from being a platform to being an editor slash publisher that was their own choice to make and what cross the line for trump is when they started doing to him another man during the rest of us were and that's why I said you know this guy gets hacked off now with that being the him we should have done this a long time ago but he's done it and I'm sure it's going to be challenged in the courts but I don't see how Facebook or Twitter or E. or you to renew the I don't I don't see how they win I also believe it goes this record another win on you know they get the ninth circuit court of appeals or some you know some of these folks is that these courts are packed with liberals who knows what they'll get from them but if you if you talk about common sense is pretty straight forward the law says that if your platform that you have immunity from from lawsuits but if you're not a platform if you become a publisher or an editor and I think by anybody's definition when you flag something and say this isn't true as they did with trump on Twitter you're becoming an editor I mean that's the clearest definition of it you're in a court of law and say well what do you think this is and they'll go well I. D. we just it was a flag no it's in you made an edit on this platform when you delete somebody and say you can't you can't tweet that that said that it when you when you go on Facebook and you say and I try to put a move which have not us we posted that the video from epic times about the Wuhan lab you know this is early on in this thing and they said you before you click on the thing this is been proven to be not true of course now it's proven to be true but at the time they were telling us it wasn't true and you sure you want to watch this video is the way it was set up and then you go to click it well that's editing that's editing when they inject themselves into the process if they put themselves in between the poster and the user then they are an editor that's a textbook definition they are becoming an editor and so they go to any court and I even the liberal courts are going to say you of course you're an editor and if you're an editor you no longer immune that's what the statute says that's what the law says if you become an editor or publisher you're not immune from lawsuits so you can be now wide open being sued which is going to happen people have been trying to sue Facebook and Twitter for years over content and they've been protected within no longer protected and it's of their own design and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks I'm just telling you so what happens from here that I don't know I don't know what what is going to happen from here but it could very well be that Twitter and Facebook shape up and they say okay all right let's say all right if we if we if we don't do this anymore where you give us back our immunity and I'm sure trump will say yes I would that's all he wants is you to stop **** with people stop injecting your political a bias by the way let me play because I play this early but this I mean knowing what you know right knowing what Facebook does knowing that they have I mean they have a long history of doing this this is what Zuckerberg I'm here again just the case of the epoch times video that I put up there and that other people but of the year and then they they graded out and said are you sure you want to watch is because and you need to click here because this is not true of course it ends up not being true but they were telling us it wasn't true that's them editorializing right that being arbiters of truth here's what mark Zuckerberg said on CNBC I don't think that Facebook or or internet platforms in general should be arbiters of truth I think that's a kind of a dangerous line to get down to in terms of deciding what is what what is true and what isn't well you've already done it you are the arbiters of truth just because we don't want to be determining what is true and false it doesn't mean that that politicians or anyone else can just say whatever they want I want to listen to that one again that means listen to what he says just because we don't want to be determining what is true and false it doesn't mean that that politicians or anyone else can just say whatever they want just because we're going to be arbiters of this doesn't mean the politics you can say whatever they want of course they can say whatever they want it's called free speech what are you talking about of course they see they don't the they've got some gray area and the gray area is not on social media the gray area in their head is on constitution what is allowed and what is not they think that they don't understand the freedom of speech so when they say the arbiters of truth it's their truth so they're saying what are the arbiters of truth I mean this is a known true like global warming for one thing of course we got to get rid of these deniers because that's a lie and we can't allow lies on our platform that's where they this this is how they justified in their mind they think okay well we can't we can't allow false information I mean you're not so you're certainly not saying that we can all fall out false information and so we got to get rid of wrinkles while false information to them as anything they disagree with that's what they've got in their heads they don't understand that I have a right to my opinion about global warming and they can say well this is untrue or whatever but I can say it's true all day long we can argue about it but they think that if they think I'm wrong that that I'm wrong and therefore they have a right not to let me be heard they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment they don't understand what it means at all it doesn't mean that it doesn't mean you get this you get to shout me down or quiet me if what you hear me saying you don't think is true it doesn't matter what you think I have the right to be heard now that's on a platform I have a right to be heard if you have a news thing or you have an editorial policy whatever then you're an editorial of the entity you're no longer platform but if your platform then everybody should be able to voice their own opinion and you should not have anything to say about it all you're doing is allowing them eight platform I mean that's what that means our platform is a place where people can go and voice their opinions and so if your platform use leave all that alone that's what it was intended to be and as we said over the last few years what the social media folks have turned into its arbiters of truth exactly what Zuckerberg said that they want but that's exactly what they are but the truth is in their own hands and so they can see that's the thing and I will tell you this about anything I don't have any problem with somebody going on Twitter in saying the earth is flat I think it's a line and I can probably demonstrated but what's the harm of having somebody go on and say the earth is flat and have people debate them about it well there's no harm whatsoever but you put something up about this plan that make thing out there and say that something quite right in that the the other thing may have come from a lab in Wuhan and blah blah blah and they go out of their way they got to shut it down it makes you wonder what

Coming up next